Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 688 (AP)

Thumati Venkata Suresh Babu v. Kavuri Madhava Rao

2020-10-21

LALITHA KANNEGANTI

body2020
JUDGMENT Lalitha Kanneganti, J. - Challenging the order dated 16.07.2020 passed in I.A.No.146 of 2020 in O.S.No.31 of 2018 on the file of the Court of X Additional District & Special Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, this appeal has been filed by the appellant / plaintiff. 2. The appellant, who is the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.31 of 2018 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 05.07.2011. 3. The case of the appellant / plaintiff is that late Kavuri Venkateswara Rao for the purpose of family needs offered to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs and the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.12 lakhs as advance on the same day itself and the balance amount has to be paid on or before 05.07.2013. On 03.07.2013 the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.6 lakhs, out of Rs.8 lakhs. Later, the father of defendants died on 17.03.2014. Subsequently, when the defendants are evading to receive the balance of sale consideration, the plaintiff filed the suit. 4. During pendency of the suit, I.A.No.146 of 2020 is filed seeking temporary injunction restraining the 1st respondent from demolishing any part of the plaint schedule building or raising any new construction in the schedule property pending disposal of the suit. The Court below after hearing both parties, dismissed the application on the ground that admittedly as on the date of filing of the petition substantial portion of the construction is completed, without expressing any merits of the rival parties in the suit, considering the conduct of the petitioner in approaching the Court almost five years from the date of endorsement and seven years from the date of agreement of sale, there is no balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. The Court below has also observed that if the 1st respondent continues to make construction, in the event of succeeding in the suit, the petitioner is entitled for a registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property with possession including any constructions which are made pending disposal of the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the respondents are permitted to raise the construction, it would cause irreparable loss to the appellant and there is every possibility of alienating and creating third party interest. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if the respondents are permitted to raise the construction, it would cause irreparable loss to the appellant and there is every possibility of alienating and creating third party interest. Further, it is stated that the Court below has failed to appreciate that there is prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the agreement of sale is of the year 2011 and in fact by the time of filing the application substantial portion of the construction is completed. He submit that it is specifically averred in the counter filed in I.A. before the Court below that the respondents never made any attempt to alienate the plaint schedule property pending disposal of the suit and further they undertook that they will not alienate the schedule property or enter into any agreement with third parties in future till the disposal of the suit. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the construction is made after obtaining necessary permission from the Municipality. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 1st respondent, admittedly by the time the application was filed, substantial portion of the construction was completed. Even assuming that the entire construction is completed, it will not cause any loss or prejudice to the appellant. As rightly observed by the Court below that in the event the appellant succeeds in the suit, the respondents have to execute a sale deed along with the structures. Moreover, when the respondents have given an undertaking in the counter that they are not going to alienate the schedule property to any third parties and they have no intention to alienate the same, the apprehension of the appellant is absolutely baseless. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Court below. 8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.