HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No.127 of 2011 Date: 27-06-2011 Between: Mopuri Venkatasubba Reddy and others ……… Appellants And Nallamachu Krishna Reddy and others ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No.127 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per KSAR, J) Aggrieved by the order dated 31-01-2011 passed in I.A.No.2980 of 2010 in O.S.No.79 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, kadapa, the present appeal is filed by the respondents. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the lower Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit against the respondents/defendants for specific performance under an agreement of sale, dated 12-04-2008 executed by defendants 5 to 14 in the suit. Thereafter, the defendants 5 to 14, having come to know that the petitioners filed suit for specific performance, executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondents 1 to 4. Therefore, the petitioners filed the said application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. to grant interim injunction against the respondents from changing the physical features of the property or alienating till the disposal of the suit. 3. In order to prove their case, the petitioners got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5, however, none were examined. On behalf of the respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 4. The lower Court, upon hearing the petitioners’ counsel and considering the documents in Exs.A-1 to A-5, allowed the petition through the order, dated 31-01-2011 and restrained the respondents from changing the physical features of the property or alienating. Being aggrieved thereby, the present C.M.A. is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants mainly urged that the respondents herein instituted a suit basing on a document, dated 12-04-2008 which does not contain the ingredients of the contract as contemplated under the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 enabling them to get the same enforced through the Court of law. He further urged that the entire reading of the contents of the document, dated 12- 04-2008, on which basis the suit was filed, clearly establish that it is a receipt for the sum received by the predecessors in the title of the petitioners and also undertaking to execute an agreement of sale on receipt of a further sum of Rs.30,00,000/- on or before 15-05-2008 and hence, the same cannot be treated as an agreement of sale and the suit itself is not maintainable basing on the said receipt for the relief of specific performance. He further urged that the appellants have acquired right and title over the suit schedule property through a valid registered sale deed, dated 12-11-2010 and they have also taken possession of the same on the same day and hence, injunction cannot be granted in favour of the respondents basing on the alleged agreement of sale. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in SPEECH AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED v. NEOS INTERACTIVE LIMITED [1]. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while supporting the order of the trial Court, urged for the dismissal of the appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the impugned order of the trial Court, dated 31-01-2011 is sustainable? 8. The petitioners, in order to prove their case, got marked Ex.A-1, registered copy of the sale deed, dated 12-11-2010 and Ex.A-2, original agreement of sale, dated 12-04-2008. To claim the relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., the plaintiffs should prove their title and prima facie possession in the suit schedule property. The execution of the agreement of sale, dated 12-04-2008 as well as registered sale deed dated 12-11-2000 are admitted. 9. It is the main contention of the appellants that a reading of the contents of Ex.A-2, agreement of sale, dated 12-04-2008 does not contain the ingredients of the contract as contemplated under the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 enabling them to get the same enforced through the Court of law and the same cannot be treated as an agreement of sale, and that the appellants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property pursuant to the registered sale deed, dated 12-11-2010. 10. The apprehension of the petitioners is that if the respondents alienate the property to third parties and if ultimately the petitioners succeed in the suit, they cannot get the property which leads to multiplicity of the litigation. In an application filed for grant of injunction in the suit for specific performance, the person who approached the Court of Law has to establish his prima facie case as well as balance of convenience lay in his favour which would suffer an injury if the temporary injunction is not granted. In the present case on hand, admittedly the respondents 1 to 4 are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property through Ex.A-1, registered sale deed, dated 12-11-2010. It is also an admitted fact that these respondents have paid the entire sale consideration to their vendor and took possession of the property. If any injunction is granted against the bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration basing on the alleged agreement of sale, the bona fide purchasers would suffer irreparable loss. Even as per the alleged agreement of sale, the petitioners paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Whereas the respondents 1 to 4 have paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,07,24,000/- under the registered sale deed, dated 12-11-2010. 11. In the decision reported in NEOS INTERACTIVE LIMITED’s case (1 supra), the Apex Court held that the agreement to enter into an agreement is neither enforceable nor does it confer any right upon the parties. As seen from the pleadings, the petitioners have filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 12-04-2008 said to have been executed by one S. Krishna Murthy and others. A glance of the alleged document clearly shows that it is only a document evidencing payment of some amount as token and it is not an agreement of sale. It is the well settled law that there cannot be any agreement for execution of another agreement. The recitals of the said agreement shows that the alleged executants agreed to execute an agreement of sale on or before 15-05-2008. It is not mentioned in the said document that the persons referred as executants have agreed to sell the property and that they will execute the registered sale deed. Thus the alleged document is not an agreement of sale and under no stretch of imagination, the alleged document can be styled as an agreement of sale. The relief of granting of injunction is an equitable remedy both under the Civil Procedure Code and as well as under the Specific Relief Act. The parties seeking equitable remedy must approach the Court in clean hands. The respondents have purchased the suit schedule property for valid consideration from the lawful owner under the registered sale deed, dated 12-11-2010 and they have been in possession. 12. Therefore, while taking into consideration Ex.A-1, registered sale deed, dated 12-11-2000, the respondents have proved the prima facie title and possession in the suit schedule property. If any injunction is granted against the bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration, they would suffer irreparable loss. Therefore, the trial Court failed to see that in an application filed for grant of injunction in a suit for specific performance, the person who approached the Court has to establish his prima facie case as well as balance of convenience lay in his favour which would suffer irreparable injury if the temporary injunction is not granted, and that the petitioners failed at least to prove the prima facie case of execution of the agreement of sale by the predecessor in title of the petitioners, and passed the impugned order granting injunction against the lawful owners. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order, dated 31-01- 2011 in I.A.No.2980 of 2010 is set aside. 13. However, during the course of arguments, the appellants filed a memo giving an undertaking that they will not claim any equities on any alienations of/or constructions on the suit schedule land and the same shall be subject to the outcome of the suit in O.S.No.79 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa. 14. While recording the memo filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4-appellants that they will not claim any equities on any alienations of/or constructions on the suit schedule land, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J ______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 27-06-2011 YCR [1] (2009) 1 SCC 475