THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3388 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2009 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.1821 of 2008 in O.S.No.1965 of 2008. The petitioners herein filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 22.09.2005 and for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant or alternatively to direct the first defendant to pay the entire sale consideration. They filed the present Interlocutory Application under Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to the second respondent to deposit the rents that are being accrued from the suit schedule property i.e., Rs.3,600/- per month into the Court, pending disposal of the suit. According to the petitioners, they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from the first respondent under notarized agreement of sale dated 12.09.2005 for Rs.1,50,000/-. When they have paid the said amount and requested the first respondent to execute a regular sale deed in their favour, he demanded another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- . Accordingly, they paid the said amount also on 22.09.2005. However, the first respondent instead of executing the sale deed, executed Notarized agreement of sale in their favour including the name of his wife as third vendee and forged her signature with malafide intention and with a view to cheat them. Even after executing the notarized sale deed, the first respondent did not handover the possession of the mulgies to them, and he entered into rental agreement with the occupants posing himself as a owner and receiving monthly rents of Rs.2,400/-. Hence, the petitioners filed a private complaint against the first respondent in C.C.No.450 of 2008 and the same is pending before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal. It is further stated that recently they came to know that the first respondent executed regular sale deed dated 04.06.2007 in favour of the second respondent in respect of the same schedule property. Hence, the petitioners filed the preset Interlocutory Application. Respondents 1 and 2 contested the matter by filing counter- affidavits. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent he stated that he never executed any notarized agreement of sale in favour of the petitioners in respect of the suit schedule property and the same has been created by the petitioners to extract money from him and that there is no necessity for him to sell the said property. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent he stated that the first respondent executed a registered sale deed in her favour in respect of the suit schedule property after receiving the sale consideration; that the petitioners and respondents 1 and 3 have colluded with each other and brought into existence of the alleged agreement of sale dated 22.09.2005 in respect of the suit schedule property with an intention to deprive her right in the suit schedule property; that the first respondent also delivered vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property to her; that since from the date of purchase, she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same, and that her name was also mutated in the concerned records and she is also paying property tax to the concerned municipality. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties and considering the entire material available on record, came to the conclusion that once the suit itself is for specific performance in respect of the suit schedule property, the petitioners are estopped from claiming the rents, and that the petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands and true facts, and therefore, they are not entitled to the relief as claimed, and accordingly, dismissed the application. Hence, this petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and considered the entire material available on record. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the petitioners/plaintiffs did not acquire any valid title in respect of the suit schedule property; that possession of the schedule property was not delivered to the petitioners by the first respondent at the time of execution of the notarized agreement of sale; when the first respondent is disputing the execution of the notarized agreement of sale in favour of the petitioners, the question of depositing the rents that are being accrued from the suit schedule property by the second respondent does not arise; that right from the beginning the second respondent is claiming that she purchased the schedule property under registered sale deed dated 04.06.2007 and the first respondent delivered possession to her and since then she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and that there is no material on record to direct the second respondent to deposit the rent @ Rs.3,600/- per month into the Court pending the suit. Further, it is not the case of the petitioners that the second respondent is enjoying the usufructs in respect of the suit schedule property without having any valid title. Whether the sale deed executed by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent is true and valid should be considered during the course of trial. The Court below, while dismissing the Interlocutory Application, observed as under: “Considering the circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the respective counsel of both parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioners did not approach the Court with clean hands and true facts and they are not entitled the relief as prayed in this petition and the petition filed by the petitioners is deserves to be dismissed.” In the absence of any relevant material produced by the petitioners in support of their claim, the trial Court rightly dismissed the Interlocutory Application. But, however, since the main suit is pending and the question as to whether the sale deed executed by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent is true and valid or not is to be decided in the main suit, the observation made by the trial Court as stated supra, is not warranted and the same is directed to be removed from the impugned order. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. N.V.RAMANA, J Date.20.08.2010 va