THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A. Nos. 397, 399, 400 and 401 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per NVR,J) These civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of the common orders dated 28.03.2011 passed in I.A. Nos. 2326, 2328, 2330 and 2332 of 2006 in O.S. Nos. 957, 958, 959 and 960 of 2006 respectively, by the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, allowing the petitions filed by the plaintiffs seeking grant of temporary injunction, restraining the appellants herein i.e. defendants 3 and 9 in the suit, and other defendants in the suit, from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property, until the sale deeds are cancelled and the plaintiffs are dispossessed by due process of law, pending disposal of the main suit. The appellants are defendant Nos.3 and 9 in the suits being O.S. Nos. 957, 958, 959 and 960 of 2006 pending on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The respondents- plaintiffs filed the said suits, for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from canceling/nullifying or varying the registered sale deed document Nos. 7248/2006, 7249/2006, 7250/2006 and 7251/2006 dated 24.03.2006, and from mortgaging the suit schedule property or creating any third party rights in respect of them, and also from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Along with the suits, the plaintiffs filed I.A. Nos. 2326, 2328, 2330 and 2332 of 2006 respectively, for temporary injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, pending disposal of the suits. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the bona fide purchasers of the suit schedule properties to an extent of Acs. 48.22 gts. in Sy. Nos. 326, 330 and 329, Acs. 43.28 gts. in Sy. Nos. 327 and 328, Acs. 75.19 gts. in Sy. Nos. 324, 332, 333 and 334, Acs. 49.03 gts. in Sy. Nos. 325, 331 and 335 of Narkhoda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and that they have purchased the said properties in good faith from the defendants for valuable sale consideration of Rs.28,40,175/-, Rs.25,56,450/-, Rs.44,15,288/- and Rs.28,70,890/-, under registered sale deeds bearing document Nos. 7248/2006, 7249/2006, 7250/2006 and 7251/2006, dated 24.03.2006, respectively, and that they were also put in possession of the suit properties. Since the date of purchase, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and that they have also deployed men for construction of compound wall and for fencing the schedule properties. That after purchase of land, they made necessary applications to the revenue authorities for grant of title deeds and pattadar passbooks. While that being so, in view of the hike in the land prices, the defendants started demanding the plaintiffs to pay additional amounts and threatened them that the sale deeds executed by them in favour of the plaintiffs can be cancelled unilaterally, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court. The plaintiffs state that having purchased the suit schedule properties under registered sale deeds, for valuable consideration, they are in possession of the suit schedule properties from the date of purchase and if they are dispossessed from the suit schedule properties, they would be put to irreparable loss and injury. Hence, they sought for grant of interim injunction, pending disposal of the suits. The appellants, who are defendants 3 and 9 in the suit, filed their counter, stating that the plaintiffs are not bona fide purchasers of the suit schedule properties and that they are not in possession of the suit schedule properties and as such the plaintiffs constructing a compound wall around the suit schedule properties does not arise and in fact there are mango and guava trees existing in the suit schedule lands planted by the defendants. It is their specific case that the suit schedule properties are the undivided joint family properties and that they have cancelled the General Power of Attorney executed by them in favour of their elder sister namely Farhat Jahan Begum, who is defendant No.2 in the suits, vide cancellation deed dated 02.02.2006, and issued public notice dated 12.02.2006 in Siyasat daily newspaper, intimating the general public about cancellation of GPA, and they have also got issued legal notice to the 1st plaintiff. That there are no signatures, thumb impressions and photographs of defendants 3 and 9 affixed on the sale deeds. That defendant No. 9 has filed suit in O.S. No. 712 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for partition of the suit schedule properties, and the same is pending. That the plaintiffs have purchased the property, knowing fully well about the cancellation of the GPA executed by them in favour of defendant No.2, and thus the sale deeds executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiffs are not binding on them and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the applications filed by the plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction. Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 filed separate counters, supporting the case of defendant Nos. 3 and 9, contending that the plaintiffs, by misguiding them, created registered sale deeds, without paying them sale consideration and without obtaining the signatures of all the vendors, and as such the said sale deeds are not valid and binding on them. In view of pendency of O.S. No. 2977 of 2006 filed for cancellation of sale deeds and O.S. No. 712 of 2006 filed for partition, the present proceedings are not maintainable and they sought for dismissal of the petitions. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exs. A1 to A7 were marked, and on behalf of the defendants, Exs. B1 to B19 were marked before the trial Court. The trial Court, having considered the stand of the parties and the documentary evidence adduced by them, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs, having purchased the suit schedule properties under registered sale deeds i.e. Exs. A1 to A4 from the defendants, have made out a prima facie case and the suit filed by the defendants against the plaintiffs for cancellation of sale deeds and recovery of possession shows that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property, and as such, the other two ingredients, i.e. balance of convenience and irreparable loss are also made out. Accordingly, the trial Court, by the common order dated 28.03.2011, allowed the petitions and granted temporary injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties, until the sale deeds are cancelled and the plaintiffs are dispossessed under due process of law, pending disposal of the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals are filed by defendant Nos. 3 and 9. The learned counsel for the appellants-defendant Nos. 3 and 9 submitted that all the defendants in the suit executed G.P.A. in favour of defendant No. 2, their elder sister on 24.04.1982. However, the appellants-defendant Nos. 3 and 9, after issuing oral notice to defendant No.2, cancelled the said G.P.A. on 02.02.2006, and thereafter, they issued public notice dated 12.02.2006, and also legal notice, which was served on plaintiff No.1, intimating about the cancellation of the G.P.A., which is in consonance with the provisions of Sections 203, 206 and 208 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and as such, the sale deeds executed by defendant No. 2, in respect of the suit schedule properties, in favour of the plaintiffs on 24.03.2006, are null and void and not binding on them. He further submitted that as per the proviso appended to Section 32-A of the Registration Act, 1908, photographs and thumb impressions of the parties to the sale deeds, are necessary, but none of the four sale deeds, relied upon by the respondents-plaintiffs, in support of their case that they purchased the suit schedule properties and are in possession thereof, do contain the photographs and thumb impressions of the appellants-defendant Nos. 3 and 9. Hence, the Court below committed a grave error in taking into consideration the said documents, as also the plaint in O.S. No. 95 of 2008 filed by defendant No.2, while considering the present applications filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction. He further submitted that the Court below failed to take into consideration the material documents, namely copies of the plaints in the suits filed by the appellants for partition of the suit schedule properties and cancellation of the sale deeds executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs, produced by the appellants-defendant Nos. 3 and 9, which disclose that the respondents-plaintiffs were not delivered physical possession of the suit schedule properties, but without taking into consideration of the same, the Court below committed an error in granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs and against the defendants. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents- plaintiffs submitted that even after execution of the sale deeds, all the defendants, including appellants-defendant Nos. 3 and 9, are living in the same house. The appellants-defendant Nos. 3 and 9 are aware of the execution of the sale deeds, and taking advantage of the soaring land prices, they demanded the respondents-plaintiffs to pay additional money, and when the respondents-plaintiffs refused to pay, they threatened to interfere with their possession and tried to dispossess them, and therefore, the respondents-plaintiffs were compelled to file the present suit for perpetual injunction along with the applications for temporary injunction. He further submitted that defendant No.2 executed sale deeds in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs on the strength of the G.P.A. executed by the other defendants, including defendant Nos. 3 and 9, and as such, there is no need for affixing the photographs and thumb impressions of all the owners. At any rate, since the appellants- defendant Nos. 3 and 9 were in U.S.A., they could not affix their photographs and thumb impressions. He submitted that defendant No.2, having executed the sale deeds, have also put the respondents- plaintiffs in possession of the suit schedule properties, and since the date of purchase, the respondents-plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. He further submitted that the fact that respondents-plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit schedule properties, is evident from the plaint in the suit O.S. No. 95 of 2008, wherein defendant No.2, while seeking the relief of cancellation of sale deeds, sought recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties. He denied the contention of the appellants- defendant Nos. 3 and 9 that they have issued oral notice to defendant No.2 before canceling the G.P.A, and to substantiate the same, he relied on the provisions of Sections 203 and 206 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which require issuance of notice before revocation of G.P.A., and referred to the notice dated 28.11.2006 got issued by appellant Nos. 3 and 9 to the respondents-plaintiffs, wherein they have not mentioned about the oral cancellation of G.P.A. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-defendant Nos. 3 and 9 and the learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs and perused the order under appeals and other material available on record. At the outset, it would be appropriate if a reference is made to the decision in WANDER LIMITED Vs ANTOX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED[1], wherein the apex Court culled out the following principles, basing on its earlier judgments, governing the interference by the appellate Court in the discretion exercised by the court of first instance: “… the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial courts exercise of discretion.” In the light of the above settled principles, this Court being an appellate Court, exercising its appellate jurisdiction over the orders passed by the courts of first instance, has to see whether the learned Judge, in passing the impugned order, granting interim injunction as prayed for, has exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or has ignored the settled principles of law regulating the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction, warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, the only issue that arises for consideration before this Court is “whether the trial Court was justified in granting interim injunction as prayed for by the respondents-plaintiffs”. The plaintiffs, who filed applications seeking grant of interim injunction, have to satisfy the Court with three ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. In the instant case, there is dispute with regard to execution of registered sale deeds in the name of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the defendants that the said sale deeds are executed by their General Power of Attorney Holder and that the GPA executed in her favour was cancelled even by the date of execution of sale deeds and the plaintiffs are also aware of the said cancellation, and as such the plaintiffs are not bona fide purchasers of the suit schedule properties and the sale deeds executed by the GPA are not binding on them. It is also the case of defendant Nos. 6 and 7 that no consideration was passed, under the registered sale deeds. However, the important factor in this case is that O.S. No. 95 of 2008 was filed by defendant No. 2, for cancellation of sale deeds and also for recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties, which prima facie shows that the defendants are not in possession of the property. In view of the fact that there are registered sale deeds executed in favour of the plaintiffs, it can be conveniently said that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction in their favour. Whether the said sale deeds are valid and binding on the defendants can be decided in the main suit, only after a full-fledged trial. Even in the sale deeds also, there is a specific recital that possession of the suit schedule properties was delivered to the plaintiffs. Apart from this, the fact that defendant No.2 filed a suit for cancellation of sale deeds and recovery of possession strengthens the case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit schedule properties. The documents relied on by the defendants i.e. Exs. B1 to B19, are in no way helpful to them to show that they are in possession of the properties. Thus, the plaintiffs could prima facie prove their possession over the suit schedule property and that the balance of convenience also lies in their favour and if injunction is not granted, they would be put to irreparable loss and injury. In the above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Judge has exercised his discretion judicially, taking into consideration the settled legal position and the principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interim injunction, and has rightly granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, pending disposal of the suits, and we see no reason to interfere with the orders under appeal. The civil miscellaneous appeals are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed, but however, without costs. ________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO 10th June, 2011 IBL [1] (1990) SCC (Supp 1) 727