THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1239 OF 2009 DATED:19-04- 2010. Between B.Swaroopa Rani … Appellant-D2 And 1.Smt.Hemalatha and another …Respondents-Plaintiff and D1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1239 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order, dated 18-08-2009, in I.A.No.943 of 2009 in O.S.No.554 of 2009, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC to grant ad-interim injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e., apartment bearing Flat No.504 in fifth floor of Devi Nilayam situated at Kothapeta, was allowed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the agreement of sale does not confer any title to the property, that Ex.A2 cannot be looked into for the reason that it is not properly stamped and penalty has been paid as required under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and therefore, she prays to set aside the same. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent herein contended that in pursuance of Ex.A2, possession was delivered and therefore, the 1st respondent was in settled possession of the property, that she cannot be evicted forcibly except in accordance with law, that whether Ex.A2 can be relied upon or not can be decided after the evidence is let in and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 4. Grant or refusal of temporary injunction is guided by three well established principles viz., 1) prima facie title, 2) balance of convenience and 3) irreparable injury would be caused if injunction is not granted. There cannot be any dispute that in this case prima facie case is with reference to the title in respect of the schedule property. Therefore, the 1st respondent herein must show that she has got prima facie title in respect of the schedule property. She has not filed any document to show that she has got right, title and interest in the property except Ex.A2, agreement of sale. There cannot be any dispute that agreement of sale does not confer any title to the property. Prima facie there is no other document filed to show that the plaintiff has got title to the property. The contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein is that in pursuance of Ex.A2, she was put in possession of the property. At the stage of interlocutory application, prima facie the documents are admissible or not has to be tested and weighed. In view of the fact that it was mentioned in Ex.A2 that possession was delivered to the 1st respondent, it requires stamp duty and penalty as required under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and also as held by this Court in a decision reported in JANNUCHANDER BABU V MANCHIKATLA SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS [1], wherein it was held thus: “Therefore, both the Courts below refusing to receive the receipt containing a recital recording delivery of possession of property agreed to be sold on the ground that it is not stamped as a sale deed as contemplated by Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of Stamp Act, cannot be said to be erroneous. In all cases where a document contains a recital recording delivery of possession of property in pursuance of an agreement of sale, whether by way of an endorsement on the reverse of the agreement, or under a separate receipt, it has to be stamped as a sale deed as contemplated by Article 47-A of Schedule 1 -A of Stamp Act. “ If Ex.A2 is excluded from consideration for want of stamp duty and penalty, there is no other document to show that the 1st respondent herein is in possession of the property. When the title and possession has not been established, question of granting injunction does not arise. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order, dated 18-08-2009, in I.A.No.943 of 2009 in O.S.No.554 of 2009, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. It is made clear that no finding is given with regard to Ex.A2. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible subject to part heard and other old cases. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:19-04- 2010 Hsd [1] 2003 (2) ALD 640