THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.947 OF 2010 AND 948 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, under Order XLIII Rule (1) (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, "C.P.C."), are directed against the common order, dated 31.08.2010, in I.A.Nos.1087 of 2010 and 1088 of 2010 in O.S.No.1062 of 2010 respectively, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, whereunder and whereby, the petitions, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents and their men etc., or anybody claiming under them from ever proceeding with the construction activity in the petition schedule property and from alienating any part of the petition schedule property in favour of intending purchasers respectively, were allowed. 2. For better appreciation of facts, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeals may be stated as follows: The landed property in Survey Nos.5, 6, 7, 10/1, 11/1, 12/42, 13 and 14, total to an extent of Ac.42.16 guntas of Ammuguda Village belonged to K. Anjaiah and his family consisting of his wife Akkama and sons and daughters, namely, Shankaraiah, Balraj, Narayana, Anasuya and Susheela. Son of Anjaiah by name Shankaraiah, born blind, alone has executed registered sale deed in favour of one B.S.Shetty on 22.05.1964, and other family members of Anjaiah, after coming to know the same, have filed a suit in O.S.No.28 of 1982 on the file of District Munsif, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, for declaration of title of the petitioners therein as owners of the properties and to direct the respondents therein to hand over the vacant possession to the petitioners therein and also to declare the sale deed dated 22.05.1964 as null and void. Originally, the suit was filed against B.S.Shetty and after his death, his legal representatives were impleaded and the said suit was decreed ex parte and the family members of Anjaiah has laid E.P.No.12 of 1986 for delivery of the property and the said property was delivered on 31.08.1986. Thereafter, an appeal was filed to set aside the ex parte decree, which was decreed on 27.06.1996 and declared the petitioners therein as owners of the property. It was not executed by the petitioners therein inasmuch as they have got possession of the suit property by way of panchanama dated 31.08.1986. During pendency of the above suit, the family members of Anjaiah have agreed to sell the property in favour of the petitioner by way of agreements of sale, dated 20.10.1984 and 16.04.1989. Further, the petitioners in O.S.No.28 of 1982 and the family members of K. Anjaiah executed a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) on 01.06.1989, thereby giving the right of alienation to the petitioner in respect of A and B schedule properties situated at Ammuguda Village. Thus, the petitioner as G.P.A. holder was entitled to sell the properties and was in possession of the property since the date of handing over the possession by way of panchanama dated 31.08.1996. The GPA holder has agreed to sell B schedule property i.e., Ac.11-03 guntas in Survey Nos.5,6,7,10/1,11/1,12/1,12/42 in favour of one J.Narahari, who filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale in his favour, vide O.S.No.156 of 2000 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against the petitioner and other family members of K. Anjaiah, wherein family members of K. Anjaiah took a plea that the GPA given to the petitioner was cancelled by way of cancellation deed and as one of the principals K. Shankaraiah died, the GPA is null and void and the petitioner cannot execute agreement of sale in favour of Narahari. The I Additional District Judge decreed the suit in favour of Narahari stating that the GPA is valid. It was challenged by the family members of Anjaiah in A.S.No.532 of 2005 on the file of this Court and this Court, confirmed the lower Court order. During pendency of the Appeal Suit, the subsequent purchasers of plots from B.S.Shetty were impleaded as respondent Nos.3 to 56 and they were directed to hand over possession of the suit property to the petitioner. Plot No.81 from survey Nos.13 and 14 of Ammuguda Village was sold to one Nirmala through registered sale deed by N. Srisailam representing B.S.Shetty as his power of attorney and she is liable to give back the possession to the petitioner in view of the decree in O.S.No.28 of 1982. Thereafter, the said Nirmala seems to have executed a registered sale deed in favour of Sumati Ramachandran dated 20.03.1992, when O.S.No.28 of 1982 is pending and as such, the said sale deed dated 20.03.1992 is also to be declared as null and void. The said Sumati Ramachandran has executed a sale deed in favour of K. Indira on 10.06.1996, who in turn executed sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 on 08.06.1997 and the same was also declared null and void as the original vendors of respondent No.1 do not get any title to the property to sell the same. Further, respondent No.1 executed a registered agreement - cum - GPA, dated 21.05.2009, in favour of respondent No.2 for development and respondent No.2 started making construction of multi storied complex by obtaining permission on 01.04.2009. In view of the above stated facts, the petitioner in the trial Court is the rightful owner having right, title, interest and possession and the respondents are trying to alienate the same. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 4. Adverting to the above petition, respondent No.2 filed counter denying all the material allegations of the petition and inter alia submitted that respondent No.1 has purchased the petition schedule property form Smt. Kolamala Indira through registered sale deed in the year 1997, who purchased the same from Smt. Sumathi Ramachandran through registered sale deed in 1996 from Ramachandran, who purchased the property under a registered sale deed in 1992. The vendor of the said sale deed Smt. Nirmala R. Shah had purchased the property through registered sale deed in the year 1981 and as such they have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the same for more than 40 years with the knowledge of one and all including the alleged General Power of Attorney viz., K. Amarender Reddy. Based on respondent No.1’s title and possession, she had executed a development agreement - cum - GPA by involving respondent No.2 and herself through registered document dated 21.05.2009. Earlier respondent No.1 took permission from the then Commissioner, Kapra Municipality, for construction of compound wall and a room through proceedings No.BA/168/2000-01, dated 09.06.2000 and constructed a room and she has been paying electricity consumption charges and the Municipal tax as rightful owner and possessor. She also compromised the matter along with other members of Hastinapuri Co-operative Housing Society by virtue of compromise decree in A.S.No.49 of 1996 and obtained necessary declarations from the decree holders and other legal heirs of Shankaraiah. She has also obtained plan for construction of stilt and four upper floors apartments over the suit schedule property from GHMC vide file No.G/BA/205/K/E2/2008-09, dated 01.04.2009, by paying betterment charges. Originally the total lands admeasuring Ac.31-00 in Survey Nos.13 and 14 of Ammuguda Village was purchased by one B.S.Shetty in the year 1964 through registered sale deed and converted the same into residential plots by obtaining lay out and sold to various individuals and they formed into Hastinapuri Co-operative House Building Society. In the year 1982, the successors of pattedars, who had sold the property in favour of B.S.Shetty had filed a suit in O.S.No.28 of 1982 on the file of District Munsif, Medchal, seeking to cancel the said sale deed against B.S.Shetty and on his expiry, his legal representatives were brought on record as defendants and Hastinapuri Co-operative House Building Society also got itself impleaded as D11 in the said suit. In 1996 the said suit was decreed in favour of legal heirs of pattadars i.e, Balraj and others against the family members of B.S.Shetty and the society. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the society alone had preferred appeal in A.S.No.49 of 1996 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and during pendency of such appeal, the matter was compromised and the legal heirs of Balraj and others agreed to give up their claim in respect of Ac.20-00 of land equivalent to the plotted area by the members of the society and agreed to take the balance land of Ac.11-00 and title of members of society was confirmed. In terms of the compromise, the appeal filed by the association was closed. One Shashidharan Raju claiming to be the agreement holder from the legal heirs of Sankaraiah (balraj and others) challenged the compromise decree passed in A.S.No.49 of 1996 by filing a suit in O.S.No.16 of 1998 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District against Balraj, Narayan and society and the same was dismissed on contest. Hence, the title and possession of the society was confirmed. During pendency of O.S.No.28 of 1982, one Amarender Reddy claimed to have got a registered GPA from Balraj and Narayan in respect of the property and he kept quite throughout the pendency of suit and A.S.No.49 of 1996. In spite of having knowledge about the said compromise, he had never challenged the said compromise nor he can challenge the same now, as the same is time barred and as such the said compromise is binding on the vendor of the petitioner and also on the petitioner. Basing on the alleged GPA, the said Amarender Reddy claims to have entered into an agreement of sale with one Krishna Reddy in respect of lands in Survey Nos.13 and 14 of Ammuguda Village. Claiming his rights, the said Krishna Reddy had filed a suit in O.S.No.137 of 2004 for specific performance against Balraj, Narayan and the said Amarender Reddy, seeking enforcement of agreement of sale and the same is pending before Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Later the society has also got itself impleaded and Amarender Reddy admitted his execution of agreement of sale with Krishna Reddy. The plaintiff in O.S.No.137 of 2004 had resorted to the execution of sale deed in favour of K.H. Sukanya in respect of plots, which are part and parcel of the said Ac.31-00, which is the subject matter in O.S.No.137 of 2004 claiming that he is the power of attorney holder of K. Balraj and others. Under the guise of the said sale deed, the said Amarender Reddy and K.H.Sukanya are trying to interfere with the construction activity undertaken by the respondents in their property without any right. One of the principals of said power of attorney i.e., K. Balraj had expired and on the death of the said Balraj, the said Amarender Reddy ought not to have exercised his power, as his power of attorney was also dead by virtue of death of one of the principal Balraj. Hence, the action of Amarender Reddy in executing the document in favour of K.H.Sukanya with his ill motives is only to grab their property. K. Amarender Reddy as a plaintiff in O.S.No.137 of 2004 filed a petition to bring the legal heirs of the said Balraj on record as defendants and the same was allowed. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition by vacating the ex parte injunction orders. 5. The learned judge after coming to the conclusion that the petitioner made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience in his favour, and if the respondents are not restrained from alienating the flats, the very purpose of filing the suit will be defeated, and accordingly, allowed the Interlocutary Applications. Challenging the same, the respondents filed the present appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants herein contended that the respondent herein has no title over the petition schedule property; that the suit was filed in his individual capacity; that the suit is not filed representing the GPA in pursuance of the GPA agreement; that therefore, the suit cannot be maintained in his own capacity in view of the fact that he is not having any title to the property; that the property has not been conveyed to the respondent herein through registered sale deed; that the agreement of sale does not confer any title over the property to the respondent herein; that the appellants are the purchasers of the property under the registered sale deed from the original owners; that with a development agreement, flats have been constructed; that the appellants herein ought to have given an undertaking that they would not claim any equities, if ultimately the respondent herein succeeds in the suit; that the damage, if any, sustained by the respondent herein can be compensated in terms of money and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned common order. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent herein contended that the appellants herein have no prima facie title at this stage, because the predecessors-in-title of the appellants herein claimed title by virtue of sale deed dated 22.05.1964, which was executed by one of the original pattadar i.e., Shakaraiah in favour of B.S. Shetty; that when Anjaiah and his other family members filed a suit to cancel the sale deed, on contest, the sale deed was cancelled; that when B.S. Shetty has no title over the property and the sale deed executed in his favour was set aside by the competent court, the successors-in-interest would not derive any better title, in view of the fact that the predecessors of appellants herein are claiming title through B.S. Shetty; that if the property is alienated and third party interests are created, then there would be multiplicity of proceedings; that by virtue of registered GPA, respondent herein can maintain the suit and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 8. A temporary injunction is explained in Sub-section (1) of Section 37 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, which reads that “Temporary injunctions are such as to continue until a specified time, or till the further order of the Court, and they may be granted at any stage of a suit, and are regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)”. The grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is covered by three principles viz., (i) if the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case (ii) if the balance of convenience is in his favour i.e., it would be greater inconvenience to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the defendant or person claiming through him would be put to if the temporary injunction is granted and (iii) if the plaintiff suffers irreparable injury. With regard to the prima facie case, the petitioner in trial Court no doubt contended that basing on two agreement of sales and also irrevocable registered GPA dated 01.06.1989, executed by the pattadars, which is marked as Ex.14, he got a right to file the suit to safeguard the interest in view of the registered GPA. Certainly the petitioner in the trial Court cannot seek the relief of declaration of title, because the remedy, if any, available to him is to enforce the agreement of sale by filing a suit for specific performance. In view of the fact that the petitioner has a registered irrevocable GPA, which clearly goes to show that prima facie at this stage the petitioner therein is fully empowered to negotiate to sell or to receive sale consideration, to execute registered sale deeds and to depose before the competent Court in respect of the suit schedule property, whatever he does, the same can be ratified. Therefore, by virtue of this GPA the petitioner has purchased plot No.81 in Survey Nos.13 and 14 admeasuring 400 square yards in Ammuguda Village under the Original of Ex.P18. The question whether the vendor of petitioner can sell the property to petitioner in pursuance of Ex.A14 has to be decided during the trial only. At this stage, Ex.P18 prima facie shows the tile to petitioner. The trial Court rightly observed that the petitioner has got prima facie title to the property in question. 9. Coming to the prima facie title of respondent No.1 in the trial Court, she purchased the suit schedule site from Smt. Kolamata Indira under Ex.R2. Smt. Kolamata Indira claimed to have purchased the site under Ex.R3 from Smt. Sumati Ramachandran. One Ramachandaran purchased the site under Ex.R4 from Smt. Nirmala R. Shah. Nirmala R. Shah purchased the site from N. Srisailam under Ex.R5. Respondent No.1 executed Ex.R1 – development agreement – cum – GPA in favour of respondent No.2 in the trial Court. Respondent No.1 obtained plan for construction of stilt and four upper floors over the suit schedule property from Municipal Corporation. According to the respondents in the trial Court, the entire extent of land in Survey Nos.13 and 14 of Ammuguda was purchased by B.S. Shetty in the year 1964. He converted the same into residential plots and sold to various individuals in the year 1982. The successors of original pattedars filed O.S.No.28 of 1982 against B.S. Shetty on the file of District Munsif, Medchal, seeking to cancel the sale deed executed in favour of B.S. Shetty. The suit was decreed in favour of legal heirs of K. Anjaiah and against the family members of B.S. Shetty. Hastinapur Co-operative House Building Society (herein after referred to as, “the Society”) alone filed appeal in A.S.No.49 of 1996 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. A compromise was effected, whereby the legal heirs of Balraj, one of the sons of K. Anjaiah, and others agreed to give up this in respect of Ac.20-00 and agreed to take balance of land of Ac.11-00. One Shashidharan Raju claims to be the agreement holder from legal heirs of K. Sankariah (another son of K. Anjaiah) challenged the compromise decree in A.S.No.49 of 1996 by filing a suit viz., O.S.No.16 of 1998 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, which was dismissed. In pursuance of E.P.No.12 of 1986 under panchanama, dated 31.08.1986, land was redelivered to original pattedars. Respondent No.1 and her predecessors claimed right in the petition schedule property through B.S.Shetty. When the sale deed executed in favour of B.S.Shetty by some of the original heirs of original pattedar was declared as null and void, prima facie B.S Shetty has no title to the property. Hence, at this stage, the right, title and interest of respondent No.1 in respect of petition schedule property is under cloud. Whether the property in question is the subject of compromise in A.S.No.49 of 1996 (filed against the decree in O.S.No.28 of 1982) has to be decided after letting in evidence by both parties. 10. Coming to balance of convenience, the respondents in the trial Court after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authorities are making construction of flats. If the flats are sold to the third parties, certainly it would cause hardship to the petitioner in the trial Court, because he has to file the suits against purchasers. Even though the creation of third party interest in the properties may amount to lis pendes under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the doctrine of lis pendens is intended to prevent one party to a suit from making an assignment inconsistent with the rights which may be established in the suit and which might require a further party to be impleaded in order to make effectual the Courts decree. When third party interests are created, necessarily the petitioner has to go for litigation in evicting them by filing suit for recovery and possession. The balance of convenience involves a comparison of the conveniences of the parties. If the respondents are allowed to sell the plots, they would get undue monetary advantage. The third party innocent purchasers rights would be effected seriously, which can be avoided. No doubt respondent No.2 invested huge amount for construction of plots, but at the same time, it must have thoroughly verified the title of respondent No.1 before entering into development agreement. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. 11. Coming to the irreparable injury, it is necessary to see whether interference is necessary to protect the party applying for it from the particular kind of injury which is said to be irreparable. It is caused by wrongful action or damage. Petitioner is entitled for the protection, as otherwise irreparable injury would result. From the material on record, it is clear that the injury that may be suffered would be more than the injury that may be suffered by the respondents. Therefore, Courts interference is absolutely necessary to protect the petitioner from that injury which is imminent and irreparable. Even the respondents had not given unconditional undertaking that in the event of petitioner succeeding the suit, they would not claim equities over the suit property. If the injunction restraining the respondents from making further constructions and not to alienate the flats to third parties, it would not cause any loss or damage to respondents. To protect the property as it is, the trial Court rightly granted injunction. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants herein placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Konkana Ravinder Gound and others v. Bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building Society and others[1], wherein it is held thus: “Even a contract of sale in view of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act does not by itself create any interest in or charge on the property. It is only on registration of such completed contract under the provisions of the Registration Act that title passes in the property. In Narandas Karsondas v. S.M. Kamtam, MANU/SC/0363/1976 : [1977] 2 SCR 341, Supreme Court following the ratio in Rambaran Prosad v. Ram Mohit Hazra, MANU/SC/0212/1966: [1967] 1 SCR 293, held that the word “conveys’ in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act is used in the wider sense of conveying ownership and that agreement of sale or contract of sale in view of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act does not by itself create any interest in or charge on the property. It was further held that in India there is no distinction between legal and equitable property in the sense in which it was understood when equity was administered by the Court of Chancery in England and under the Indian law, there can be but one owner that is, the legal owner.” There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down by this Court, where the agreement of sale does not confer any title to the property, but in this case the respondent herein is having an irrevocable registered GPA inter alia to protect the property. Therefore, that impugned common order needs no interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. Any observation made in this order, shall not be construed as a finding or observation of this Court. Any observation is only for the purpose of disposal of this petition. Uninfluenced by the same, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 26, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.947 OF 2010 AND 948 OF 2010 C.M.A.No.947 of 2010: Between: Jasti Sri Devi and another .....APPELLANTS AND Mr. K. Amarender Reddy ....RESPONDENT C.M.A.No.948 of 2010: Between: Jasti Sri Devi and another .....APPELLANTS AND Mr. K. Amarender Reddy ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.947 OF 2010 AND 948 OF 2010 November 26, 2010 [1] 2003 (5) ALD 654