THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 782 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 11.06.2010 passed in I.A. No. 2346 of 2009 in O.S. No. 124 of 2009 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the appellant herein for grant of interim injunction against defendants 1, 4, 5 and 7 restraining them from alienating the plaint schedule property pending disposal of the suit, was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 124 of 2009 before the Court below for cancellation of sale deeds and for permanent injunction. Pending the suit, the appellant filed the present petition for interim injunction. The G.P.A. holder of the appellant filed affidavit in support of the present petition in I.A. No. 2346 of 2009 before the Court below. The main case of the appellant is that she and defendants 1 and 2 purchased the petition schedule property on 17.09.1991 and 23.01.2001 under three different registered sale deeds and subsequently with a view to develop the plaint schedule property, three of them jointly entered into an agreement with the 3rd defendant. As per the agreement, the 3rd defendant constructed apartments and handed over 12 plots to the plaintiff, 1st defendant and 2nd defendant. It is alleged that the 1st defendant with a view of deprive the rights of the appellant herein, executed three sale deeds in favour of defendants 4, 5 and 6 and that as per the agreement dated 01.07.2005, the 1st defendant is not having any right to execute such sale deeds. It is also contended that the 1st defendant violated the terms of the agreement. Further contending that she recently came to know that defendants 4 to 6 along with the 1st defendant are trying to alienate the petition schedule property to others, the appellant filed the suit and sought interim injunction. The 1st respondent filed counter, which has been adopted by respondents 2 to 6. The main contention of the respondents is that the appellant concealed the real facts and that there was no agreement between the parties as alleged by the appellant and that as per the agreement entered into between the parties as in Ex.B1, each party can sell the flats allotted to them independently and that the appellant and respondents 1 to 3 had alienated their respective flats allotted to them. It is also contended that the appellant voluntarily attested the three sale deeds along with the 2nd respondent as a witness and assured the purchasers that the executants have absolute right and interest over the flats mentioned therein. The lower Court, having observed the rival contentions and recitals of Ex.B1, came to the conclusion that the recitals of Ex.B1 clearly show that each of the party could sell the flats that are allotted to them independently and other party, if so willing, could attest the document as witness and that the appellant herself has attested the sale deeds and in view of the same there is no prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the appellant. We have considered the order passed by the lower Court. The reasons assigned by the lower Court are valid and sound and there appears to be nothing to interfere with the same. As held by the lower Court, the appellant has not made out any prima facie case and there is no balance of convenience in her favour. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the appeal. Therefore, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA _______________________ JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR 22nd November, 2010 IBL