THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA C.M.A.Nos. 1154 and 1157 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla) Aggrieved by the common order dated 4.11.2009 in I.A.Nos.2193 and 2194 of 2009 in O.S.No.386 of 2009, the appellant filed these C.M.As. 2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved and the parties are common, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as ‘appellant’ and ‘respondents’ as arrayed in the CMAs. 4. The plea of the appellant is that he is absolute owner and possessor of Portion No.11 of property bearing Municipal No. 14-2-161 admeasuring 206.67 square yards or 172.77 square metres situated at Chaknewade, Goshamahal, Hyderabad, which is the suit schedule property herein. The suit property was purchased from M/s.Bharat Metal Box Company Ltd., under a registered sale deed dated 6.2.2007 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The lay out of the suit property was not an authorised lay out and he approached the competent authorities for regularisation of the suit property. While the appellant was in the process of getting the suit property regularised, he met respondent No.2, and he expressed assistance for regularisation of the suit property provided the appellant executes a power of attorney in his favour authorising him to represent the appellant before the competent authorities. The appellant believed respondent No.2 and handed over the original sale deed to him on 6.2.2008. Subsequently respondent No.2 on 10.12.2008 requested the appellant to come to the registration office at Doodhbowli for execution of GPA in his favour for ventilating his grievance before the appropriate authorities and he believed and went to the said registration office on the same day. The respondents with an intention to knock away the suit property, had prepared agreement of sale-cum-GPA in favour of respondent No.2 and presented the same before the Sub-Registrar even before appellant’s arrival, and misrepresented to him that only GPA is being registered empowering respondent No.2 to appear before the concerned authorities for regularisation of the suit property. The appellant signed the document in good faith without going through its contents and as such, the respondents played fraud on him and caused the execution of agreement of sale- cum -GPA dated 10.12.2008 in favour of respondent No.2 alleging that the respondents have paid an amount of Rs.31,25,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.31,31,000/-, but, in fact the appellant has not received even single pie from the respondents or any other persons on their behalf. Therefore, the same is not binding on him and no consideration is paid by the respondents to him and possession is not delivered to them and physical possession is with him as on today. As such, the agreement of sale-cum- GPA is liable to be cancelled on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation and non-payment of consideration. As the respondents are trying to alienate the suit schedule property and interfering with peaceful possession of appellant, the appellant filed the suit O.S.No.386 of 2009 for declaration of agreement of sale-cum-GPA as illegal, and for permanent injunction. He also filed the present I.A.Nos.2193 and 2194 of 2003 under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC (i) to grant ad-interim injunction restraining respondents from alienating the suit schedule property to third parties pending disposal of the suit, and (ii) to grant ad-interim injunction restraining respondents from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of appellant over the suit schedule property, respectively, on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 5. On the other hand, the first respondent filed a counter, which was adopted by the second respondent, inter alia stating that the allegations made by the appellant are misconceived, untenable and false. The very suit itself is not maintainable. None of the elements of fraud exists in the instant case. The appellant is a literate person. It is true that the appellant was owner of suit schedule property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The appellant initially offered to sell both the portions i.e. portion No.11 and portion No.5 of premises bearing No.14-2-161 to respondents, but later the appellant informed the respondents that he would like to alienate portion No.11 only. Thus, portion No.11 i.e. the suit schedule property was sold to respondent No.1 under a registered agreement of sale- cum-GPA, with possession acknowledging receipt of sale consideration of Rs.31.31 lakhs before the Sub-Registrar. As far as portion No.5 is concerned, respondent No.2 is always ready to perform the transaction, but the appellant intended to avoid second transaction. Thus, the appellant resorted to file the suit along with these applications. In fact, the appellant also handed over the original title deed. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any temporary injunction as prayed for. 6. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Additional Chief Judge has framed a point for consideration viz., whether the appellant is entitled for temporary injunction against the respondents from alienating the property, and for temporary injunction as prayed for, and marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 on behalf of the appellant and Ex.R.1 on behalf of the respondents, and came to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled for injunction in both the I.As on the ground that there is no prima facie case in favour of him. Accordingly, both the I.As were dismissed by a common order dated 4.11.2009. 7. Hence, C.M.A.No.1154 of 2009 is filed against I.A.No.2194 of 2009 and C.M.A.No.1157 is filed against I.A.No.2193 of 2009. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the suit itself has been filed by the appellant to declare the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, as null and void, and for permanent injunction, the trial court ought to have granted the interim injunction in both the I.As. The learned counsel further contended that without appreciating the factual and legal aspects, the trial court has dismissed the I.As prejudicing the rights of the appellant. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the trial court after taking into consideration the material placed before it, has passed a reasoned order, which needs no interference from this court. 11. The appellant has executed agreement of sale-cum-GPA in favour of the respondents, but the appellant alleged that the respondents fraudulently obtained the agreement of sale-cum- GPA by misrepresenting him that in order to regularise the suit property in his favour, they required general power of attorney. From perusal of the record, it appears that while executing the document, the appellant is said to have handed over the original title deed to the respondents and possession was also delivered to them. Further, it appears that the appellant is doing business and is worldly wise. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate that there is no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the appellant to grant interim order in I.A.No.2194 of 2009 and as such we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order to the extent of I.A. No.2194 of 2009. 12. So far as I.A.No.2193 of 2009 is concerned, it is the contention of the appellant that the respondents are contemplating to alienate the schedule property during the pendency of the suit and it will cause serious prejudice to him. 13. Be that as it may, unless and until the trial in the suit is completed, to meet the ends of justice, it is appropriate to grant status-quo with regard to title, right, interest and possession. 14. In the result, C.M.A.No.1154 of 2009 arsing out of the order in I.A.No.2194 of 2009 is dismissed. C.M.A.No.1157 of 2009 arising out of order in I.A.No.2193 of 2009 is disposed of directing status-quo with regard to title, right, interest and possession. We also direct the court below to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without seeking further time. No costs. _​_____________ V.V.S. RAO,J _______________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 08-12-2009 Stp