Court highlights failure of Trial Court to record prima facie satisfaction on possession and payment; Defendants' undertaking against alienation recorded
In a significant judgment delivered on 10th October 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices D. Ramesh and Alapati Giridhar) set aside the Trial Court's order granting a temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance involving a property dispute in Prakasam district. The appeals filed by the defendants challenged the injunction restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and from alienating the property. The High Court found the Trial Court's order flawed for failing to record reasons demonstrating prima facie satisfaction on critical factors such as possession, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
The dispute arose from an agreement of sale dated 3rd October 2009, wherein the plaintiff claimed to have paid Rs. 1.50 crores and alleged delivery of possession of 2.19 cents of land. The defendants denied the execution of the agreement, contending it was fabricated and challenged the plaintiff's financial capacity to pay such a huge amount. They also claimed joint possession of the property and alleged that the plaintiff only lent Rs. 3 lakhs in December 2019, supported by bank statements.
The Trial Court had granted two injunctions: one restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession, and the other preventing alienation of the property. However, the High Court observed that the Trial Court's orders were bereft of detailed reasons or analysis of pleadings and evidence, merely reproducing pleadings and using formulaic expressions like "prima facie case" and "balance of convenience." The Court emphasized that such mechanical application is insufficient, particularly when the plaintiff had delayed nearly 12 years before filing the suit without plausible explanation or evidence like bank statements or income tax returns to show the alleged huge payment.
The High Court further noted that the burden to show prima facie possession lies initially with the plaintiff, who failed to produce substantive evidence except for the agreement itself. The defendants had produced a mandal surveyor's certificate stating their possession, which the Trial Court failed to properly consider. Regarding the injunction against alienation, the defendants undertook not to alienate the property without the Trial Court's permission, leading the High Court to dispose of that part of the appeal on this basis.
The Court also underscored important legal principles, including the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which prohibits alienation and dispossession during pendency of a suit. It highlighted penal provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 228, 229, 243), which punish fabrication of false evidence and fraudulent transfers, serving as deterrents against misuse of civil litigation.
Ultimately, the High Court set aside the Trial Court's injunction restraining interference with possession and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within four months, after considering pleadings and evidence afresh. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits and left the parties free to raise all contentions regarding payment, possession, and alleged forgery before the Trial Court.
This judgment reinforces the necessity for courts to meticulously examine the existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury before granting interim reliefs, especially in long-pending disputes involving large sums and possession claims. It also serves as a reminder that unexplained delay and lack of documentary proof can critically impact the grant of injunctions in suits for specific performance.
Bottom Line:
Temporary injunction in suit for specific performance - Trial Court must record reasons showing prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury - Mere reproduction of pleadings and use of expressions "prima facie case", "balance of convenience" and "irreparable loss" is insufficient - Inordinate unexplained delay of 12 years, absence of material showing payment of huge sale consideration and possession justified interference in appeal - Order granting injunction against interference with possession set aside and matter remanded - Injunction against alienation disposed of by recording defendants' undertaking not to alienate property without permission of Court.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 52, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 228, 229, 243
Perivemula Venkateswarlu v. Mediga Anjaiah, (AP)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2996335
