SAKETA VAKSANA LLP & ANR. versus KAUKUTLA SARALA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 17 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 17-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA, KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
396
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
   [2019] 17 S.C.R. 396
396
SAKETA VAKSANA LLP & ANR.
v.
KAUKUTLA SARALA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9483 of 2019)
DECEMBER 17, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, INDU MALHOTRA
AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Interim Order: Agreement of sale between appellant-
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
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
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
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 –
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
397
subject to deposit of balance sale consideration – Order passed
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
SAKETA VAKSANA LLP v. KAUKUTLA SARALA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2019 of the High
Court  for the State of Telangana at Hy

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.