IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIVE DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CMA NO.771 OF 2010 Between: M/s.Ramky Estates and Farms Pvt. Ltd., ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Smt. Bandari Andalu, W/o.Sathaiah & others .....RESPONDENTS CMA NO.818 OF 2010 Between: M/s.Ramky Estates and Farms Pvt. Ltd., ..... APPELLANT AND 2 Smt. Bandari Andalu, W/o.Sathaiah & others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CMA Nos.771 & 818 OF 2010 Common Judgment: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) These two appeals arise out of the common order dated 26-2-2010 passed in two interlocutory applications IA Nos.2380 & 2381 of 2009 in OS No.628 of 2009, respectively. Since the subject matter and the parties are same, the appeals are heard together and being disposed of by common judgment. 2. IA Nos.2380 & 2381 of 2009 were filed by the plaintiff-1st respondent herein under Order 39, Rule 2 and 3 CPC, r/w. Section 151 CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents therein from executing and admitting any registered transaction creating rights in favour of 3rd parties with respect to the schedule property admeasuring Ac.5-16 guntas in Sy.No.221 of Srinagar Village, Tukkuguda Grampanchayat, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District and also not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. By the impugned order, the Court below allowed the IAs and granted temporary injunction against the 1st defendant-appellant herein and rejected the relief as against the official-defendants. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant in the suit filed these appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the plaintiff-1st respondent herein. Perused the impugned order passed by the Court below. 4. The controversy rests on a narrow compass. A memorandum of understanding was executed between Government of Andhra Pradesh, HUDA and M/s.Ramky Estates and Farms Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad-the appellant herein and as a consequence of the understanding, a development agreement was also stated to have been executed among them in order to develop townships along the outer ring road under a joint venture. A total extent of 550 acres of private land was sought to be acquired around Srinagar Village of Maheshwaram mandal. A paper publication was also made seeking to acquire the land in that area in which the name of the plaintiff-1st respondent herein was also shown as owner of the land in Sy.No.221 of Srinagar Village. An irrevocable registered general power of attorney was executed in favour of the appellant herein by the plaintiff-1st respondent herein on 5-5-2007 authorizing the GPA ie the appellant herein to deal with Ac.5-16 guntas in Sy.No.221 of Srinagar Village and received two cheques for Rs.1,08,00,000/- and Rs.2,70,00,000/-. When the cheques were presented by the plaintiff-1st respondent herein, they were returned with an endorsement ‘payment stopped by the drawer’. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that no land admeasuring Ac.5-16 guntas, which the plaintiff-1st respondent herein claims to be owner was physically available in Sy.No.221 Srinagar Village and inasmuch as she did not have any rights in and over the physically available property admeasuring Ac.3-02 guntas in Sy.No.221, 22 and 223 of Srinagar Village, the cheques could not be honoured. 5. It is the admitted case of the parties that in respect of land admeasuring Ac.3-02 guntas in Sy.No.221, 222, and 223 of Srinagar Village, one K.Padmanabhan claimed to be the owner and filed suit against the plaintiff-1st respondent herein in suit OS No.2023 of 2008 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for perpetual injunction. It is stated that suit OS No.2023 of 2008 was settled at the instance of appellant herein and as part of the understanding, the appellant agreed to purchase the land admeasuring Ac.3-02 guntas from K.Padmananbham for Rs.1,05,00,000/- and also agreed to pay Rs.1,05,00,000/- to the plaintiff-1st respondent herein and paid Rs.90,00,000/- to her. Even as per the understanding, the plaintiff is yet to receive an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, but learned counsel for the appellant stated that the plaintiff is refusing to sign the photo form No.32-A etc. 6. The land in extent of Ac.3-02 guntas is part of Ac.5-16 guntas in Sy.Nos.222, 223 and 230 situated at Srinagar Village and the plaintiff-1st respondent herein admittedly received an amount of Rs.90,00,000/- by way of an understanding from the appellant herein and permitted the appellant herein to act and exercise all powers under the GPA dated 5-5-2007, in lieu of the consideration amount of Rs.1,05,00,000/-, out of which Rs.90,00,000/- is received by her. This aspect of the matter missed the attention of the Court below while dealing with the interlocutory applications. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside and the matter is remanded to the file of the Court below for consideration afresh and pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity to both the parties, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till appropriate orders are passed by the Court below, there shall be interim injunction with regard to alienation of the suit property against the appellant herein, the injunction with regard to possession of the plaintiff-1st respondent herein is hereby vacated. 8. In the result, the appeals are allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. ____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J __________________ P. Swaroop Reddy, J Dated: 25-10-2010 Nrg. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CMA Nos.771 & 818 OF 2010 25-10-2010