SAKETA VAKSANA LLP & ANR.versusKAUKUTLA SARALA & ORS.

396                       [2019]
               SUPREME COURT     17 S.C.R. 396
                              REPORTS                      [2019] 17 S.C.R.


A                      SAKETA VAKSANA LLP & ANR.
                                         v.
                        KAUKUTLA SARALA & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 9483 of 2019)
B
                              DECEMBER 17, 2019
                [UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA
                     AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
             Interim Order: Agreement of sale between appellant-
C     Developer and respondents- landowners for sale of agricultural
      land comprising of 54 acres 13 guntas – The said agreement was
      unregistered – As per the agreement, the possession of entire land
      was handed over to Developer – Out of total extent of land, four
      registered agreements of sale cum GPA executed with respect to 36
D     acres 21-1/2 guntas of land in favour of Developer – Dispute
      between parties for payment of balance consideration for land
      admeasuring 17 acres 31-1/2 guntas (suit property) – Suit for
      specific performance by Developer – Developer prayed that the
      landowners be directed to execute the Sale Deed for the suit
E     property 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 –
      Developer also filed two interim applications, one seeking
      temporary injunction restraining landowners from interfering with
      peaceful possession over entire land and second seeking temporary
F
      injunction restraining landowners from alienating or creating third
      party interest in the suit property – In the first interim application,
      landowners disputed the possession of Developer over suit
      property and produced rent agreement to show that a parcel of land
      admeasuring 12000 sq. feet was in possession of a third party –
G     Trial court disposed of first interim application granting temporary
      injunction in respect of property excluding the extent of 12000 sq.
      feet – In the second interim application, trial court granted
      temporary injunction restraining landowners from alienating or
      creating third party interest in suit property till the disposal of suit
H
                                        396
       SAKETA VAKSANA LLP v. KAUKUTLA SARALA                               397


subject to deposit of balance sale consideration – Order passed            A
in first interim application challenged before High Court – Division
bench of the High Court by the impugned interim orders set aside
the order of Temporary Injunction passed by the trial court in first
interim application – Division Bench held that there was no
documentary evidence to prima facie case to show that the                  B
Developer was in physical possession of the suit property and
furthermore, the issue whether the Developer has paid part
consideration for the entire suit property was required to be
determined in the trial and therefore, no prima facie case was made
out for grant of Temporary Injunction – Developer challenged the
                                                                           C
impugned interim orders by way of the instant appeals – Held:
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 Developer or not and second is whether
part consideration for the suit property was paid by the Developer
to the landowners or not – Developer submitted that it had paid a          D
total of Rs. 17.25 lacs to the landowners, and only Rs. 3.72 lacs
was the balance payable for the suit property – Landowners
however, submitted that the Developer had paid only Rs. 14.25 lacs
and was still liable to pay Rs. 10.73 lacs towards the balance sale
consideration for the entire suit property, as well as some part of        E
the land already transferred in favour of the Developer – Since
both the issues raised are seriously disputed which will be decided
during the course of trial, the impugned orders passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court did not warrant any interference
– High Court has already granted a Temporary Injunction                    F
restraining the landowners from alienating or creating third party
rights in the suit property till the disposal of the Suit – The interest
of the Developer has been sufficiently protected with respect to
ownership of the suit property – In view of this, order of vacation
of Temporary Injunction by High Court whereby the respondents              G
were restrained from interfering with the possession of the
Developer over the suit property is upheld – Trial court to expedite
the disposal of the suit – Appeals dismissed.
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9483
of 2019                                                                    H
398            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 17 S.C.R.


A          From the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2019 of the High
      Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in I.A. No. 1 of 2019
      in CMA No. 646 of 2019

            With

B           Civil Appeal No. 9484 of 2019.

            Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Aggarwal, Raghavendra
      Mohan, Ms. Garima Bajaj, Ankit Gambhir, Anup Karawadi, Ms. Pratha
      Suri, Bhuwam Jayant, Sanskar Agarwal, Advs. for the Appellants.
C          Ranjit Kr., Sr. Adv., S. Udaya Kr. Sagar, T. Sudhakar Reddy,
      Ms. Akanksha Mehra, Vasudha Singh, G. Shridhar Reddy, Ms. Elizabeth
      Antony, M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co., Advs. for the Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
            INDU MALHOTRA, J.

            Leave granted.

            1. The present Civil Appeals have been filed by the Appellants
      to challenge the Interim Orders dated 14.08.2019 passed in I.A. No.
E
      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
F     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
G
      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 –
H     Developer on the day of execution of the Agreement.
       SAKETA VAKSANA LLP v. KAUKUTLA SARALA                                 399
                 [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

      The Agreement of Sale dated 17.11.2017 was an unregistered             A
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.
       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 –          B
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.
                                                                             C
      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
                                                                             D
(“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”).
                                                                             E
      The Appellant/Plaintiff prayed that the Respondents be directed
to execute the Sale Deed for the suit property 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.
                                                                             F
      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
                                                                             G
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.                                                      H
400            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 17 S.C.R.


A           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 – Developer over the entire land
      admeasuring 54 acres 13 guntas.

            I.A. No. 767/2018 was filed for a temporary injunction restraining
B     the Respondents from alienating or creating any third-party 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
C     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
D     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
E
      Respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the
      Appellant – Developer over 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.

F           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.
G
             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
H     the balance sale consideration @Rs. 46,00,000/- per acre.
       SAKETA VAKSANA LLP v. KAUKUTLA SARALA                                   401
                 [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

      9. The Appellant – Developer filed two Miscellaneous Appeals             A
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.

       10. The Respondents filed a cross Miscellaneous Appeal bearing
C.M.A. No. 646/2019 before the division bench of the High Court                B
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         C
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               D
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
                                                                               E
third party rights in the suit property would operate, without the condition
of depositing the balance sale consideration.

       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             F
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          G
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.                                   H
402            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 17 S.C.R.


A          Consequently, the Temporary Injunction restraining the
      Respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the
      Appellant – Developer in the suit property was vacated.

            13. The Appellant – Developer has challenged the Interim Orders
      dated 14.08.2019 by way of the present Civil Appeals.
B
             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
C
      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
D     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
E
      filed a Counter Claim in the Suit before the Trial Court for payment of
      the balance sale consideration for 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
F     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
G     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
H     Agreement.
       SAKETA VAKSANA LLP v. KAUKUTLA SARALA                                 403
                 [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

      On the other hand, the Respondents submitted that it was only          A
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.
      17. The second issue is whether part consideration for the suit        B
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
                                                                             C
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       D
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.                                                     E
      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.
                                                                             F
       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.
                                                                             G
       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.                                                            H
404              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 17 S.C.R.


A           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
B     Reddy District be expedited, and disposed of preferably within a period
      of one year from today.
             The Civil Appeals are therefore, dismissed.
             Pending Applications if any, are accordingly disposed of.
C            Ordered accordingly.


      Devika Gujral                                           Appeals dismissed.



D




E




F




G




H