HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.517 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Plaintiffs filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the order in I.A. No.44 of 2010 in O.S. No.1 of 2010 dated 03-06-2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, whereby the leaned Additional District Judge refused to grant them interim injunction against the respondents - defendants pending the suit for specific performance. 2. Appellants are plaintiffs and respondents are defendants. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. 3. Plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 03-06-2009, whereunder they alleged to have purchased Acs.5-20 guntas of land in Survey No.493/2pai and 493/4pai of Adloor Village, Kamareddy Mandal from defendant Nos.1 and 2 for a total sale consideration of Rs.66,00,000/- (Rupees sixty lakhs only). It is stated that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.66,00,000/-, only Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to defendant Nos.1 and 2 towards advance sale consideration agreeing to pay 1/4th of the total consideration after deducting the advance amount by 18-06-2009 and the remaining balance sale consideration on or before 18-02-2010. Thereafter, plaintiffs were ready and willing to get the agreement of sale registered by paying the balance sale consideration and shown their readiness and willingness to pay the balance amount, but the defendants failed to perform their part of agreement and on the other hand, they sold a portion of the property i.e., Schedule – B property to defendant No.3 through under a registered sale deed dated 29-06- 2009. Hence, plaintiffs got issued a legal notice on 18-06-2009 and filed the suit along with the impugned application under Order – XXXIX Rules – 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim injunction against the defendants restraining them from alienating the suit property. 4. Defendant No.2 filed his counter and the same was adopted by his mother, defendant No.1. They denied the case of the plaintiffs stating that at no point of time they offered to sell the suit property to them and that they sold Ac.1-20 guntas of land to one Mohd. Shafiuddin in 2001 itself and the remaining property to defendant No.3. However, they submitted that that they borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiffs to meet their expenses and at that time they signed on a blank stamp paper and misusing the same, plaintiffs fabricated the alleged agreement of sale. 5. Defendant No.3 filed his counter stating that he purchased Acs.3-29 guntas of land in Survey Nos.493/2 and 493/4 under a registered sale deed dated 29-06-2009 from the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs also sold away Ac.1-20 guntas of land to one Shafiuddin under a registered sale deed bearing No.434/1 on 18-10-2001 itself and that they are in possession of their respective lands and that the plaintiffs fabricated the alleged agreement of sale. 6. Based on the material on record, the impugned application was dismissed by the trial Court holding that even before the agreement of sale dated 03-06-2009, defendant Nos.1 and 2 sold Ac.1-20 guntas of land out of the suit property to one Shafiuddin in 2001 itself under a registered sale deed bearing document No.434/1 dated 18-10-2001, and the remaining land to defendant No.3, and therefore, the question of defendant Nos.1 and 2 agreeing to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs does not arise and that the plaintiffs have not made that Shafiuddin as a party to the suit, which shows their mala fides. It is further observed that, according to the plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1 and 2 agreed to sell the entire suit property of Acs.5-20 guntas at Rs.12,00,000/- per acre, totalling to Rs.66,00,000/- and out of which they (defendant Nos.1 and 2) received only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration, which is very meager and appears to be false. Thus, holding that since the suit property is sold to defendant No.3 and also one Shafiuddin under different registered sale deeds even before the alleged agreement of sale, granting interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs without going into the merits of the case would cause irreparable loss to the purchasers of the property including defendant No.3, trial Court dismissed the impugned application. 7. Absolutely, there are no illegalities or infirmities in the order passed by the trial Court. Further, as the relief of specific performance is an equitable relief and apart from that as we are not going into the merits of the case and considering only prima facie case and balance of convenience with regard to grant of interim injunction, we see no merit in this appeal and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J September 28, 2010. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J PV