HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.M.A. Nos:647 of 2009 & 591 OF 2010 Dated: 31.8.2010 CMA No:647 of 2009 Between: Burma Syamala ..Appellant And 1. Mallavalli Chalapathi Rao and others .. Respondents. CMA No:591 of 2010 Between: Mallavalli Chalapathi Rao ..Appellant And 1. Burma Syamala and others .. Respondents. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.M.A. Nos:647 of 2009 & 591 OF 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present CMAs are filed against the order dated 6.2.2009 passed in I.A.No.563 of 2008 in O.S.No.167 of 2008 by the learned VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada. Originally, the above suit has been filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 22.11.1997 executed by the 1st defendant and the oral agreement of sale by the 2nd defendant and for a direction to the 1st defendant to execute proper sale deed of items 1 and 2 of plaint schedule property and for a direction to the 1st defendant as GPA holder of the 2nd defendant or 2nd defendant to execute proper sale deed in portions or a whole of items 3 and 4 of the plaint schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff is as follows: The 1st defendant-M. Chalapathi Rao is the absolute owner of items 1 and 2 and his wife 2nd defendant is the owner of the land covered under items 3 and 4 of the plaint schedule properties and all the items are contiguous. There is one more item of the land admeasuring Ac.4.00, which is continuous to the plaint schedule property and which belongs to the daughter of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant offered to sell the plaint schedule property as well as the land belonging to his daughter and accordingly, on 22.11.2007, an agreement of sale was executed by the 1st defendant as GPA holder of his daughter and wife (2nd defendant). In terms of the agreement of sale, the plaintiff paid Rs.25,00,000/- to the 1st defendant towards part payment of sale consideration of the entire property and in token of receipt of that amount, a receipt was also issued to the plaintiff. In terms of the agreement of sale, the 1stg defendant executed a registered sale deed as GPAholder of his daughter in respect of her item in favour of the nominee of the plaintiff and delivered vacant possession of the land after payment of sale consideration. In respect of the items of plaint schedule properties are concerned, though the plaintiff is ready to pay balance sale consideration and to perform her part of the contract, the defendants declared that they are not inclined to complete the sale transaction. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. Along with the above suit, the plaintiff also filed the above I.A.No.563 of 2008 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the defendants either jointly or severally from alienating, encumbering or entering into agreement of sale in respect of the plaint schedule properties or any portion thereof in favour of third parties, pending disposal of the suit. The Court below having observed that no document is filed to show that the 1st defendant is the power of attorney holder of the 2nd defendant and the mere fact that the 2nd defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant is not sufficient to hold that the 1st defendant is the power of attorney holder of the 2nd defendant and that the 1st defendant is the owner of items 1 and 2 only and therefore, the relief of interim injunction can be granted in respect of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties only, allowed the petition partly granting temporary injunction against the 1st defendant only in respect of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property restraining him from alienating, encumbering or entering into agreement or agreement of sale of items 1 and 2 only or any portion thereof to any other person. The Court below dismissed the petition in so far as defendants 2 and 3 is concerned. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application in respect of items 3 and 4, the plaintiff filed CMA No.563 of 2008 and aggrieved by the granting of injunction in respect of items 1 and 2, the 1st defendant filed C.M.A.No.591 of 2010. Since the issue in both the appeals and the parties are one and the same, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff contended that the order of the Court below is very vague in respect of items 3 and 4 are concerned and that the defendants 1 and 2 are trying to alienate the schedule properties in favour of the 3rd defendant and that the facts and circumstances of the case warrants interim injunction in respect of items 3 and 4 of the plaint schedule properties. The learned Counsel for the appellant-1st defendant submitted that the 1st defendant disputed the very genuineness of Ex.A1 agreement of sale, dated 22.11.2007 and the receipt Ex.A2, dated 28.11.2007 and that there is no prima facie in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, the Court below ought not to have granted injunction even in respect of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property. The question as to genuineness of the documents in question is a matter to be adjudicated after a full fledged trial, but not at this stage of the proceedings. However, in view of the rival contentions raised by both the counsel and in view of the disputed questions of fact and law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we feel that it is a fit case wherein the parties can be directed to maintain statusquo. Accordingly, the parties on record are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the plaint schedule properties and not to create any third party rights thereon, pending disposal of the suit. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the CMAs are disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ______________________________ Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada Date: 31st August, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.M.A. Nos:647 of 2009 & 591 OF 2010 (Common Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 31.08.2010