Mahesh Kumar Kedia vs. Sri. Tejvangirdhanrajgir And 2 Others

Held

The High Court allowed the appeal in part. Regarding the 'A' schedule property, the Court held that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for a temporary injunction. The reasoning was that the registered agreement of sale (Ex.P6) created a prior right in favor of the appellant. The subsequent alienation of specific portions of the property by respondents 1 and 2 and other shareholders to the third respondent (Ex.P8) could potentially affect the appellant's prior right, as there was a possibility that the land sold to the third respondent might include the land the appellant could receive if his suit were decreed. This potential prejudice to the appellant made the trial court's view that no prima facie case was made out unsustainable. The Court also noted that respondents 1 and 2 had a determined share (23%) following the preliminary decree in O.S. No. 76 of 1970, and under settled law, a coparcener can alienate their determined share. However, the subsequent alienation could still affect the appellant's prior agreement. For the 'B' schedule property, the Court rejected the plea for a temporary injunction, holding that since the appellant pleaded only an oral agreement of sale, he had not made out a prima facie case at this stage. The Court directed the trial court to decide the suit uninfluenced by the observations made in this order and the impugned order.

Facts

The appellant, Mahesh Kumar Kedia, filed a suit for specific performance of two agreements of sale concerning properties 'A' and 'B' in Hyderabad. The first agreement, dated September 28, 2011, was registered and related to 'A' schedule property (600 sq. yds.). The second, an oral agreement dated October 10, 2014, concerned 'B' schedule property (1000 sq. yds.). The appellant claimed to have paid substantial amounts towards consideration for both properties and also financed renovations. He alleged that respondents 1 and 2, co-sharers of the properties, had previously executed a sale deed in favor of respondent 3 for a portion of the land, potentially affecting his prior rights. The appellant sought a temporary injunction against the respondents from alienating the suit schedule properties. The trial court dismissed the application for a temporary injunction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case for granting a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the 'A' schedule property, considering the registered agreement of sale dated September 28, 2011, and the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No. 76 of 1970 which determined the share of respondents 1 and 2. 2. Whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case for granting a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the 'B' schedule property, based on an alleged oral agreement of sale dated October 10, 2014. Petitioner's arguments: The appellant contended that he had a registered agreement of sale for 'A' schedule property and had made significant payments. He argued that the alienation of specific portions of the property by respondents 1 and 2 and other co-sharers, as evidenced by the sale deed in favor of respondent 3 (Ex.P8), could prejudice his prior rights under the agreement of sale (Ex.P6). Regarding 'B' schedule property, he relied on the oral agreement and part payments. He cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi and Rachakonda Venkat Rao v. R. Satya Bai to support his claims regarding the alienation of determined shares and the possibility of multiple preliminary and final decrees. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents regarding their contentions against granting the injunction for either property.