Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Between vs Danial Stanley on 3 February, 2021
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE : PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V SESHA SAI IA No. 1 OF 2020 IN AS NO: 839 OF 2019 Between: Budha Koteswara Rao, S/o. (Late) Surya Rao, aged 58 years, Occ: Advocate/Cultivation, R/o. Door No.43-16-4/1, TSN Colony, Visakhapatnam | ...Petitioner/Appellant (Petitioner in AS 839 OF 2019 on the file of High Court) AND 1. Danial Stanley, S/o. S.A. Areez, R/o. D.No.2-18-34, Near Petrol Bunk, Opp. To S.P. Office Street, Kakinada 533003 2. Smt. Allu Sujatha, W/o. Ananda Rao, aged 45 years, R/o. HIG 9-B, Marripalem, Vuda Layout, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam-530009 3. Vaikuntapu Mohana Murali, S/o. Panchamukhi, aged 50 years, R/o. Veda Samajam Stree, Salur Vizianagaram District 4. Kakkirala Pydithallamma, W/o. Late China Nooka Raju, aged 76 years, Ananda Mohini Apartment, Opp: Dasapalla Hotel, Kummari Veedhi, Visakhapatnam-2 (Respondents 1 and 4 are not necessary parties to this petition) ...Respondents/Respondents (Respondents in-do-) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents 2 and 3 herein from interfering with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaint "C" schedule property in OS.No.362 of 2011 on the file of court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judges, Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of AS No.839 of 2019, on the file of the High Court. SCHEDULE 'C' OF PROPERTY All that the property situated at Paradesipalem Village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in S.No.137/1P to an extent of Ac.0.83 cents dry land and the boundaries are: East : Land of earmarked for Road South : Land of Boddu Sandeep and Chandra Mani West : Govt. Poramboke Land North : Land of Kalidindi Sundara Ramaraju The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of SRI M KESAVA RAO Advocate for the Appellant and of S SUBBA REDDY Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the Court made the following ORDER:
"Appellant seeks an injunction against the respondents 2 and 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 'Cc' schedule properties till disposal of the appeal. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the recitals in Ex.P2-Agreement for Sale would show that possession had been handed over to him upon payment of part consideration. He submits that there is every possibility that the appellant may by dispossessed from the 'C' schedule property in the suit.
In reply, learned counsel for the respondent submits that at the time of admission, this Court had directed that any transactions that take place pursuant to the decree at the instance of the defendants shall be subject to the result of the appeal.
We have considered the materials on record. The prayer for specific performance of agreement of sale had been turned out by the Court below. It may not be out of place to mention that plea of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act had also not further order apart from the interim relief already granted by this Court on 06.02.2020 is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, IA is dismissed". Sdi/- A. Surya Prakas DEPUTY REGIS AR TRUE COPY// For SECTION OFFICER To, The VII Additional District and Sessions Judges, Visakhapatnam One CC to SRI. M KESAVA RAO Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI. S SUBBA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] Two spare copies WON HIGH COURT JBJ AVSSJ DATED:03/02/2021 ORDER IA.NO.1 OF 2020 IN AS.No.839 of 2019 DISMISSED 4 2 FEB 2021