THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.927 of 2009 JUDGMENT: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order and decree dated 30.03.2009 in I.A.No.4815 of 2008 in O.S.No.690 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code to restrain respondents 1 to 6 from alienating or transferring or changing the nature of the petition schedule property, was allowed. 2. The appellant is respondent No.1, respondent No.1 is the petitioner and the other respondents are respondents 2 to 6 in the I.A. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as ‘appellant’ and ‘respondents’ as arrayed in this CMA. 4. The brief averments of the affidavit accompanying the application filed by respondent No.1 before the court below are as follows: Appellant and respondents 2 to 4 are absolute owners and possessors of the petition schedule property. The fifth respondent is their father and natural guardian. The fifth respondent agreed to sell the petition schedule property to respondent No.1 and executed an agreement of sale on 6.9.2001 for Rs.45,00,595/-. Respondent No.1 paid Rs.13 lakhs as earnest money to the firth respondent. The sixth respondent was General Power of Attorney holder of the appellant and respondents 2 to 5. As per the agreement, the appellant and respondents 2 to 5 had to clear all dues and also should evict the tenants. While matters stood thus, the appellant and respondents 2 to 6 are trying to alienate the petition schedule property. 5. The counter affidavit filed by the appellant inter alia states that he was major by the date of agreement of sale and he was not a signatory to it and as such, it is not binding on him. 6. Respondents 2 to 5 filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that though the agreement of sale was entered into with respondent No.1 by their father who received Rs.13 lakhs as advance, respondent No.1 did not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration thereafter, consequently, the agreement of sale was cancelled as per the terms of the agreement of sale. It is further stated that respondent No. 1 refused to receive the advance amount, except Rs.1 lakh which was paid by way of cheque. Therefore, respondents 2 to 5 cannot be restrained from alienating the petition schedule property. 7. The learned Additional Chief Judge after taking into consideration the documentary evidence brought on record by both sides and the factual and legal aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 established prima facie case and granted interim injunction restraining appellant and respondents 2 to 6 from alienating, transferring, changing the nature of the petition schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, this C.M.A. has been preferred by the appellant, who is first respondent in the I.A. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the first respondent has not made out prima facie case and balance of convenience warranting grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the appellant and other defendants from alienating the petition schedule property; that the time is the essence of the contract; that the appellant has not signed the suit agreement Ex.P.1; that as per Clause 6, the agreement of sale stood cancelled on account of default on the part of the Vendee in paying the balance sale consideration on or before 5.8.2002; that though Ex.P.1 is dated 6.9.2001, notice demanding performance of Ex.P.1 was issued on 11.11.2008 i.e. 6 years after last date for payment of sale consideration; that Clause 8 of the agreement of sale, according to which the vendors have to get the tenants vacated, does not in any manner take away the effect of Clause 6; that the agreement produced before the court below was not correct agreement and the signature of the appellant was interpolated. He relied on the decisions reported in Ch.V.Raghavacharyulu and others v. Jeenu Viswanaddham [1], Sri Pottem Subbarayudu and another v. Kothapalli Gangulu Naidu and others [2], Nallam Seeta Mahalakshmi and others v. Talari Vijayalakshmi [3], Thota Rambabu @ Ramu v. Cherukuri Venkaeswara Rao @ Pedababu and others [4], Dr.D.Ramamurthy v. Lakkaraju Lalithamma and others [5]. 9. Per contra, the leaned counsel for the first respondent submitted that respondent No.1 complied with the conditionalities for grant of injunction and that it is the Vendors who did not comply with the terms of the contract. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference from this court. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material. 11. The appellant and respondents 2 to 4 are brothers and they are owners of the petition schedule property. The fifth respondent is their father, who entered into agreement of sale on behalf of his sons with respondent No.1 and received advance sale consideration of Rs.13 lakhs. But, it is seen that in the agreement of sale, the age of the appellant was mentioned as 18 years and as such it could be presumed that he was major as on the date of agreement of sale. It is the contention of the appellant that he is not a signatory to the agreement of sale and his signature was interpolated. Further, as per Clause No.6 of the agreement of sale, the first respondent ought to have paid the balance sale consideration on or before 5.8.2002. It is seen that though the agreement of sale was executed on 6.9.2001, the first respondent issued notice on 11.11.2008 calling upon the appellant and other defendants to execute a registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration i.e. after lapse of six years. The contention of the appellant is that Clause No.8 does not take away the effect of Clause 6. We have gone through the agreement of sale and the clauses stipulated therein. It is seen that the Clause Nos. 6 and 8 are different and distinct, and they cannot be read in one context. Further, we have gone through the decisions (supra) relied on by the appellant. The proposition of law laid down in those decisions is governing the field and as such, it cannot be said that the first respondent has prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour to grant ad-interim injunction. In the above circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the first respondent failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour. Therefore, we are inclined to set-aside the impugned order passed by the court below. 12. Hence, the C.M.A. is allowed, and the impugned order is set- aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _​_____________ (V.V.S. RAO,J) _______________ (B.N. RAO NALLA, J) .02.2010 Stp [1] 1998 (2) ALT 700 [2] 2000 (5) ALT 759 [3] 2005(4) ALD 130, [4] 2005 (4) ALD 450 (DB) [5] 2007 (1) ALD 238,