Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9483 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 21349 of 2019)
Saketa Vaksana LLP & Anr. …Appellants
Versus
Kaukutla Sarala & Ors. …Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9484 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 21357 of 2019)
J U D G M E N T
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The present Civil Appeals have been filed by the Appellants to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEELAM GULATI
Date: 2019.12.17
17:14:28 IST
Reason:
challenge the Interim Orders dated 14.08.2019 passed in I.A.
1
No. 1/2019 and I.A. No. 2/2019 filed in CMA No. 646/2019
by the High Court of Telangana.
2. The factual background is that the Appellant – Developer and
the Respondent – Landowners entered into an Agreement of
Sale dated 17.11.2017, whereby the Respondents agreed to
sell agricultural land comprising of 54 acres 13 guntas
situated in Turkapalli Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal
Malkajgiri District to the Appellant – Developer. The sale
consideration was fixed at Rs. 46,00,000/ per acre.
The land was divided into 5 schedules, and each
schedule of land was to be sold to the Appellant – Developer
upon payment of the proportionate sale consideration.
Clause 7 of the Agreement dated 17.11.2017 stated that
physical possession of the entire land was handed over to the
Appellant – Developer on the day of execution of the
Agreement.
The Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2017 was an
unregistered document executed on a Stamp Paper of Rs.
100. The Stamp Duty on this Agreement was paid by the
Appellant – Developer on 27.08.2018.
2
3. Out of the total extent of land, the Respondents executed four
registered Agreements of Sale cum General Power of Attorney
with respect to 36 acres 21½ guntas of land in favour of the
Appellant – Developer. The first two Agreements of Sale were
executed on 03.01.2018; the third on 24.03.2018; and the
fourth on 31.03.2018.
The Appellant – Developer submitted that it has paid Rs.
17,25,00,000/ for the aforesaid four Agreements of Sale.
The Respondents have seriously disputed this
submission, and stated that an amount of only Rs.
14,25,00,000/ was paid by the Appellant – Developer.
This gave rise to disputes between the parties for
payment of the balance consideration for land admeasuring
17 acres 31½ guntas (“suit property”).
4. The Appellant – Developer filed a Suit for Specific
Performance bearing O.S. No. 213/2018 seeking Specific
Performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2017
before the XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga
Reddy District (“Trial Court”).
The Appellant/Plaintiff prayed that the Respondents be
directed to execute the Sale Deed for the suit property
3
admeasuring 17 acres 31½ guntas; and provide ingress and
egress to the land admeasuring 36 acres 21½ guntas for
which the registered Agreements of Sale cum GPA had been
executed.
5. The Respondents filed the Written Statement cum Counter
Claim seeking payment of Rs. 2,55,72,500/ towards the
balance consideration for the 36 acres 21½ guntas of land
already transferred in favour of the Appellant – Developer.
The Respondents further claimed an amount of Rs.
1,00,00,000/ towards the damage caused by the Appellant –
Developer to the suit property.
The said Suit is pending final determination before the
Trial Court.
6. The Appellant – Developer filed two I.A.s in the Suit praying
for Temporary Injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of
the CPC before the Trial Court.
I.A. No. 766/2018 was filed for a temporary injunction
restraining the Respondents from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Appellant –
4
Developer over the entire land admeasuring 54 acres 13
guntas.
I.A. No. 767/2018 was filed for a temporary injunction
restraining the Respondents from alienating or creating any
thirdparty interest in the suit property admeasuring 17 acres
31½ guntas.
7. In I.A. No. 766/2018, the Respondent/Defendants disputed
the possession of the Appellant – Developer over the suit
property admeasuring 17 acres 31½ guntas. They produced a
Rent Agreement to show that a parcel of land admeasuring
12,000 sq. feet was in the possession of a third party.
However, in the Agreements of Sale executed by the
Respondents in favour of the Appellant – Developer, it was
mentioned that possession of the entire land admeasuring 54
acres 13 guntas was handed over to the Appellant –
Developer at the time of the execution of the Agreement dated
17.11.2017.
The Trial Court passed an Interim Order dated
01.05.2019 in I.A. No. 766/2018 with respect to the prayer
for injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering
with the peaceful possession of the Appellant – Developer over
5
the suit property, and held that the issue with respect to
possession of the suit property admeasuring 17 acres 31½
could only be decided in trial.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the Trial Court held that
the Appellant – Developer made out a prima facie case, and
the balance of convenience was in their favour. The Trial
Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the
Respondents from interfering with the possession of the
Appellant – Developer over the suit property excluding the
extent of 12,000 sq. feet.
8. In I.A. No. 767/2018, the Trial Court vide Interim Order
dated 01.05.2019 granted a Temporary Injunction restraining
the Respondents from alienating or creating third party
interest in the suit property till the disposal of the suit,
subject to the Appellant – Developer depositing the balance
sale consideration @Rs. 46,00,000/ per acre.
9. The Appellant – Developer filed two Miscellaneous Appeals
bearing C.M.A. No. 535/2019 and C.M.A. No. 536/2019
before a Single Judge of the High Court to challenge the
Interim Orders passed by the Trial Court.
6
10. The Respondents filed a cross Miscellaneous Appeal bearing
C.M.A. No. 646/2019 before the division bench of the High
Court praying for setting aside the Temporary Injunction
restraining them from interfering with the peaceful
possession of the Appellant – Developer over the suit
property.
It is relevant to note that the Order dated 01.05.2019
passed by the Trial Court in I.A. No. 767/2018 has not been
challenged by the Respondent – Landowners.
11. A Single Judge of the High Court vide Interim Order dated
22.05.2019 directed that the Temporary Injunction
restraining the Respondents from interfering with the
peaceful possession of the Appellant – Developer would
extend to the entire suit property, including the parcel of
12,000 sq. feet of land.
The Single Judge vide a further Interim Order dated
22.05.2019 directed that the injunction restraining the
Respondents from creating third party rights in the suit
property would operate, without the condition of depositing
the balance sale consideration.
7
12. In C.M.A. No. 646/2019, the division bench of the High Court
vide the impugned Interim Orders dated 14.08.2019 has set
aside the Order of Temporary Injunction dated 01.05.2019
passed by the Trial Court in I.A. No. 766/2018.
The division bench held that there is no documentary
evidence to prima facie show that the Appellant – Developer is
in physical possession of the suit property. Furthermore, the
issue whether the Appellant – Developer has paid part
consideration for the entire suit property was required to be
determined in the trial. The division bench took the view that
the Appellant – Developer had not made out a prima facie
case for grant of Temporary Injunction. The Respondents
being the lawful owners of the suit property, granting such an
injunction would cause irreparable loss and hardship to
them.
Consequently, the Temporary Injunction restraining the
Respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of
the Appellant – Developer in the suit property was vacated.
8
13. The Appellant – Developer has challenged the Interim Orders
dated 14.08.2019 by way of the present Civil Appeals.
We have heard Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. on
behalf of the Appellant – Developer and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr.
Adv. on behalf of the Respondents, and perused the material
on record.
14. The Appellant – Developer submitted that they have
developed and sold plots on the tract of land admeasuring 36
acres 21½ guntas to third parties. It was prayed that unless
an Agreement of Sale with respect to the suit property
admeasuring 17 acres 31½ guntas is registered in their
favour, they cannot provide ingress and egress to the plots
already sold by them. As a consequence, the purchasers of
those plots have been threatening to initiate criminal
proceedings against the Appellant – Developer.
15. The Respondent – Landowners submitted that the Appellant –
Developer has ingress and egress to the land admeasuring 36
acres 21½ guntas, which has already been transferred. The
Respondents had filed a Counter Claim in the Suit before the
Trial Court for payment of the balance sale consideration for
9
36 acres 21½ guntas of land which had already been
transferred to the Appellant – Developer.
It was further submitted that the Appellant – Developer
has not paid any consideration whatsoever with respect to
the suit property admeasuring 17 acres 31½ guntas.
Consequently, the Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2017
stands cancelled qua the suit property.
16. We find that there are seriously disputed questions of fact
involved in this matter. The first issue is whether possession
of the suit property was at all handed over to the Appellant –
Developer or not.
On the one hand, the Appellant – developer relied on
Clause 7 of the Agreement dated 17.10.2017 to show that
possession of the suit property was handed over to them at
the time of execution of the Agreement.
On the other hand, the Respondents submitted that it
was only symbolic possession which was given to the
Appellant – Developer, while physical possession remained
with the Respondent – Landowners. The Respondents averred
that they are growing vegetables, and have a guest house,
servant quarters and a shed on the suit property.
10
17. The second issue is whether part consideration for the suit
property was paid by the Appellant – Developer to the
Respondent – Landowners or not.
The Appellant – Developer submitted that it had paid a
total of Rs. 17,25,00,000/ to the Respondents, and only Rs.
3,72,03,750/ was the balance payable for the suit property.
The Respondents however, submitted that the Appellant
– Developer had paid only Rs. 14,25,00,000/, and was still
liable to pay Rs. 10,73,95,000/ towards the balance sale
consideration for the entire suit property, as well as some
part of the land already transferred in favour of the Appellant
– Developer.
18. During the course of hearing, the Senior Counsel for the
Appellant – Developer made an offer to deposit Rs.
10,00,00,000/ in this Court on a “without prejudice” basis.
The Respondents however, rejected the said offer.
19. Since both the issues raised are seriously disputed which will
be decided during the course of trial, we are of the view that
the Orders dated 14.08.2019 passed by the division bench of
the High Court do not warrant any interference.
11
The High Court has already granted a Temporary
Injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating or
creating third party rights in the suit property till the disposal
of the Suit. The interest of the Appellant – Developer has been
sufficiently protected with respect to ownership of the suit
property.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we affirm the Orders
dated 14.08.2019 passed by the division bench of High Court,
whereby the Temporary Injunction restraining the
Respondents from interfering with the possession of the
Appellant – Developer over the suit property has been
vacated.
21. We have expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter,
since the observations have been made at an interim stage of
the proceedings.
22. We however direct that the hearing of O.S. No. 213/2018
pending before the XVI Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Ranga Reddy District be expedited, and disposed of
preferably within a period of one year from today.
12
The Civil Appeals are therefore, dismissed.
Pending Applications if any, are accordingly disposed of.
Ordered accordingly.
.....................................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
.…...............………………J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
.…...............………………J.
(KRISHNA MURARI)
New Delhi,
December 17, 2019
13