Telangana High Court
M/S Venkata Praneeth Developers Pvt. ... vs Shanmukha Prasad Yelamanchii on 5 January, 2022
Author: P Naveen Rao
Bench: P. Naveen Rao, G.Radha Rani
1
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
C.M.A.Nos. 498, 499, 500 and 502 of 2021
Date :05.01.2022
CMA 498 of 2021
Between:
Patsamatla Ranga Raju
S/o P Bhima Raju Aged about 53 years Occ Business H No 1241
AGR Gardens Survey No 86 87 Hydernagar Kukatpally Hyderabad
Or at 327 Vikrampuri Street No 4 Habsiguda Hyderabad
Petitioner
And
Shanmukha Prasad Yelamanchii and 2 Others
S/o Y Venkata Ramana Aged about 43 years Occ Business R/o
162227/76 Plot no 76 Sardar Patel Nagar Opp to Ratnam Techno
School Kukatpally Hyderabad 500072
Respondents
The Court made the following:
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
C.M.A.Nos. 498, 499, 500 and 502 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P Naveen Rao) Heard Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for appellants in CMA No.498 of 2021 and 502 of 2021; Sri V Ravinder Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Sourabh Agarwal for appellants in CMA Nos. 499 and 500 of 2021 and Sri V.Seetharam Avadhani learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 in all the appeals.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as arrayed in C.M.A. No. 498 of 2021. In C.M.A No. 498 of 2021 the appellant is defendant no.1; respondents 1 and 2 are plaintiffs and respondent no.3 is defendant no.2.
3. To the extent relevant, the facts in issue are as under:
(a) It is the case of respondents 1 and 2 that they have lent .10,00,00,000/- (Rupees ten crores only) in cash to the appellant. As proof of receipt of 10 crores appellant executed promissory note dated 15.12.2017. Vide letter dated 16.12.2017, he has also pledged original pattadar pass books of petition schedule "A and B" properties. Schedule "A" property is land admeasuring Acs.2.12½ guntas forming part of survey no.86/B (admeasuring Ac.0.37 ½ guntas), Sy.No.87/B (admeasuring Ac.1.15 guntas) and Sy.No.87/A (admeasuring Ac.2.12 ½).
Schedule "B" is land admeasuring Ac.0.09 ¼ guntas bearing Sy.No.87/A. All these Survey numbers are in Hydernagar village, Balanagar mandal, Hyderabad.
(b) Alleging that the said amount is not repaid in spite of request made several times, causing loss and hardship, respondents 1 3 and 2 have instituted above suit quantifying the amount by adding interest at Rs.12,70,25,000/- (Rupees twelve crore seventy lakhs and twenty five thousand only), with future interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and costs. Apprehending that appellant is contemplating to alienate the entire suit schedule land and change the physical features of the land, respondents 1 and 2 filed I A No. 672 of 2020 to furnish proper security towards the suit amount and I.A. No. 673 of 2020 for temporary injunction.
4. Having prima facie found merit in the claim of respondents 1 & 2, the trial Court allowed I.A. No. 673 of 2020 and granted temporary injunction restraining appellant his subordinates, agents etc from changing the nature of the land by doing development activities in respect of petition "A and B" schedule properties until the conditions imposed in I.A. No. 672 of 2020 are complied with or until further orders. I.A. No. 672 of 2020 was allowed by specifying the conditions. Appellant was directed to provide third party security for a sum of Rs.13 crores towards suit claimed amount, future interest and costs within a period of three months from the date of order and in the meanwhile attached the petition schedule "A and B" properties. The appellant was also granted liberty to furnish sufficient proof to the satisfaction of the court to show that even part of the petition "A and B" schedule properties are sufficient towards required security and to seek to raise the attachment on the remaining extent of the suit schedule land.
5. These four appeals are preferred against orders of XV Additional District and Sessions Judge cum XV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum II Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy district, Kukatpally (for brevity referred to as the 'Trial Court') in I.A. Nos. 672 of 2020, 673 of 2020 in O S No. 49 of 2020. C.M.A Nos. 498 and 502 of 2021 are filed by appellant and C.M.A Nos. 499 and 500 of 2021 are filed by third respondent.
4
6. While appellant denies allegation of borrowing money from respondents 1 & 2, respondents 1 & 2 assert this claim by relying on promissory note alleged to have been executed by the Appellant on 15.12.2017 and pledging of original pattadar passbooks of suit schedule land on 16.12.2017. These are issues which can be gone into during the course of trial.
7. Suffice to note at this stage that on the one side is the apprehension of respondents 1 and 2 on attempts of appellant to alienate and change physical features of the suit schedule land and on the other side is the interest of appellant and the 3rd respondent to go ahead with the proposed construction of multi-storied residential project in the suit schedule land.
8. During the course of hearing learned Senior Counsel for appellant and 3rd respondent assure the Court that they will reserve 20,000 Square feet of built up area or as suggested by the Court, whose value may be approximately Rs.12 Crores and to that extent enter into a supplemental agreement. Learned counsel for respondents expressed doubts on completion of project as there appears to be litigation pending on suit schedule 'A' properties and that market value of flats is about Rs.4000/- per square feet only in that area and therefore 20,000 square feet will not meet the suit claim. He further submits that appellant has already alienated suit schedule 'B' land.
9. While the course suggested by learned Senior Counsel for appellant and 3rd respondent would safeguard the interest of respondents 1 and 2 at the same time the concerns expressed by learned counsel for respondents also require consideration.
10. Taking due note of respective submissions and to balance rival claims, the following directions are issued in modification of the orders of the trial Court:
5
(i) The appellant and respondent No.3 may take immediate steps to complete all the formalities required for development of the residential complex and respondent No.3 in turn may obtain permissions and commence construction.
(ii) After obtaining permissions for construction of residential complex, the appellant and respondent No.3 shall enter into a supplementary agreement identifying the flats earmarked for the appellant as part of his share.
(iii) The said agreement shall also incorporate specific flats whose total built up area is 30,000 sq. feet to be reserved and not to alienate mortgage or create third party interest till O.S.No.49 of 2000 is disposed of or further orders are passed by the trial Court.
(iv) For any reason, if the appellant and respondent No.3 part ways and development activity is not taken up on the suit schedule "A' land, the appellant shall not alienate the schedule 'A' land without the leave of the trial Court.
11. The C.M.As. are accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.
___________________ P NAVEEN RAO, J _______________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J Date: 05.01.2022 TVK/KH 6 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI C.M.A.Nos. 498, 499, 500 and 502 of 2021 Date :05.01.2022