Bangalore District Court
Sravanthi Bethi vs Srinivas M Alias Venkat Srinivas on 6 February, 2026
1 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
KABC010127902023
IN THE COURT OF LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH.NO.60)
Dated this 6th day of February 2026
OS No.3109/2023
PRESENT :
Sri. SOMASHEKARA.A., B.a.l., LL.M,
XV Additional City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
C/c LIX Additional City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
Plaintiff 1 Smt. Sravanthi Bethi
W/o Prabhakar Gottipamula,
Age about 35 years,
2. Sri. Prabhakar Gottipamula,
S/o Venkatesham,
Age about 40 years,
Both Residing at
C/o Koteshwararao M
#09, Building No. 67,
2nd Floor, 3rd Main Road,
Maruthi Layout, Basapura Village,
(BY Sri.E.V.R. Advocate)
V/s
Judge sign
2 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
Defendant 1 Sri. M Srinivas @ Venkat Srinivas,
S/o Sri. Gare Munivenkatappa
Age about 45 years,
2 Sri. M Venkataswamy,
S/o Sri. Gare Munivenkatappa,
Age about 58 years
3 Smt. Indira,
W/o Sri. M Srinivas @ Venkat Srinivas,
Age about 36 years,
All residing at
No. 41/47-47A, New No. 47/A-41-47,
3rd Main Road, 3rd Cross, NS Palya,
Bannergatta Road,
Bangalore 560 076
4 M/s. NISHITA'S DEVELOPER,
A proprietors concern,
Having its office at No. 698,
2nd Floor, 29th Main,
100 Feet Ring Road,
BTM Layout, 2nd Stage,
Near Punjab National Bank,
Bangalore 560 076
Represented by its Proprietor
Mr. P Raja
S/o Hasaniah
Age about 43 years,
5 Sri. S A Jagannath
S/o Ankappa,
Age about 69 years,
Residing at Flat No. 302,
NISHITA'S MBVS CASTLE,
Judge sign
3 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
No. 41/47-47A, New No. 47/A-41-47,
3rd Main Road, 3rd Cross, NS Palya,
Bannergatta Road,
(By Sri.Y.J.R. Advocate for D2
D1, 3 to 5 placed exparte)
Date of institution of the suit : 22.05.2023
Nature of the suit : Money Suit
Date of commencement of :
recording of the evidence 01.12.2023
Date on which the Judgment :
was pronounced. 06.02.2026
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
02 08 14
(Somashekara A.)
C/c LIX ACC & SJ Bengaluru.
Judgment
The present suit is instituted by the plaintiffs seeking
recovery of a sum of Rs.36,29,000/- together with interest at the
rate of 18% per annum from 14.05.2020 till realization and
alternatively seeking a direction against defendants No.1 to 4 to
Judge sign
4 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
provide a residential flat of similar specification and amenities in
Bengaluru at the same price.
2. The facts of the plaintiff case in nutshell;
According to the plaintiffs, the defendants No.1 to 3 are
landowners of property situated at N.S. Palya, Bannerghatta
Road, Bengaluru. Defendant No.4 is a builder and developer. It is
specifically pleaded that, on 05.07.2013 defendants No.1 to 3
executed Joint Development Agreement and General Power of
Attorney in favour of Defendant No.4. Under the said
arrangement, Defendant No.4 was authorized to construct
apartment building and sell the flats. Thereafter, the defendant
No.4 approached plaintiffs offering Flat No.302 in proposed
apartment "Nishita's MBVS". Agreement of Sale dated 11.01.2014
was executed promising conveyance of flat. The Plaintiffs paid
Rs.7,26,000/- initially by cheques/RTGS. Remaining
Rs.25,54,102/- arranged through Indiabulls housing loan. Total
payment of Rs.36,29,000/-. Despite of payment, sale deed not
executed. Possession not delivered. The the plaintiff alleged that,
due to internal disputes among landowners delayed project and
Judge sign
5 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
subsequently Defendant No.2 executed registered sale deed
dated 14.05.2020 in favour of Defendant No.5. The GPA never
cancelled to their knowledge. They believed builder still had
authority. They were kept in dark. Thus, it is alleged the
defendants promised refund or alternative flat. Later threats were
issued. Hence the present suit.
3. On the other hand, the Defendant No.2 alone contested
the suit. He specifically contended that the Plaintiffs suppressed
material facts, the suit barred by limitation, the alleged GPA
revoked in 2018 through Legal notice and Newspaper publication
and thereafter Registered cancellation deed. It is further
contended that, builder failed to complete construction. Therefore,
the Development agreement was terminated and also the land
owners resumed control and further defendant No.5 purchased
flat legally after its revocation, therefore the Plaintiffs never had
valid contract with landowners. Further he specifically denied
about the receipt of any sale consideration and he also alleged
that the plaintiff colluded with builder and Agreement was
fabricated. Hence dismissal sought.
Judge sign
6 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
4. On the basis of the above said pleadings the following
issues have been framed.
(1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have
executed JDV and GPA on 05.07.2013 in favour of
defendant Nos.1 to 3?)
Recasted Issue No.1 dated.14.01.2026.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No.1
has executed JDA and GPA dated.05.07.2013 in
favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3.?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant No.4
has executed an agreement of Sale on 11.01.2014
promising to convey a Flat No.302 at Nishitha
Apartment to them after receiving an amount of
Rs.7.26 lakhs and Rs.25,54,102/- through cheque and
RTGS?
3. Whether plaintiffs prove that the defendant No.4
had executed an Agreement of Sale after receiving
Rs.36.29 lakhs?
4. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the
defendant No.2 without notice to them sold the Flat in
favour of defendant No.5?
Judge sign
7 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
5. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the
defendant Nos.1 to 3 revoked the GPA executed in
favour of defendant No.4 by giving notice on
08.05.2018?
6. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
7. Whether the court fee paid is sufficient?
8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief
sought?
9. What order or decree?
5. In order to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff, he
himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. On
the other hand, the defendant No.2 examined himself as DW-
1and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4, they closed their respective
sides. Heard, the arguments, perused the oral and documentary
evidence on record.
6. My answer to the above issues are as under;
Issue No.1 to 3: in the Negative.
Issue Nos.4: in the Negative.
Issue No.5 to 7 in the Affirmative.
Judge sign
8 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
Issue No.8 in the Negative.
Issue No.9 As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
7. Recasted Issue Nos.1, Issue Nos.2 and 3: These three
issues are interconnected in respect of execution of GPA, JDA,
Agreement of Sale and Payment of consideration, these issues
are arises from the same facts on evidence, they are taken up
together for common discussion to averred repetation.
8. The plaintiffs have asserted that defendants No.1 to 3,
being the landowners, executed a Joint Development Agreement
and General Power of Attorney dated 05.07.2013 in favour of
defendant No.4, who is a builder, authorising him to develop the
schedule property and to deal with prospective purchasers of
flats. It is further alleged that pursuant to the said authority,
defendant No.4 executed an Agreement of Sale dated 11.01.2014
agreeing to sell Flat No.302 in the proposed apartment building to
the plaintiffs and received a total sum of Rs.36,29,000/-.
Judge sign
9 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
9. To substantiate the said contentions, PW-1, who is
plaintiff No.2, has entered the witness box and reiterated the
plaint averments in his chief-examination affidavit. He has relied
upon documentary evidence marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10.
10. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the General Power of
Attorney dated 05.07.2013. Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the Joint
Development Agreement of even date. These documents
establish that defendants No.1 to 3 had indeed entrusted
development of the property to defendant No.4. This aspect is not
seriously disputed by defendant No.2 in his written statement
either.
11. However, a careful reading of Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 shows
that the authority conferred upon defendant No.4 was conditional
and subject to performance of obligations under the development
agreement. The documents indicate sharing arrangement
between landowners and builder and do not, by themselves,
conclusively establish an unrestricted authority to sell flats
indefinitely irrespective of subsequent developments.
Judge sign
10 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
12. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are bills said to have been issued
by defendant No.4. These documents may indicate certain
financial transactions but do not conclusively establish a legally
enforceable agreement for sale of immovable property. Ex.P6 to
Ex.P8 consist of bank statements and loan documents from
Kotak Mahindra Bank, ICICI Bank and Indiabulls Housing
Finance. These documents do show that the plaintiffs had
financial transactions and loan disbursements. However, they do
not establish that such payments were made directly to
defendants No.1 to 3 nor do they establish that defendants No.1
to 3 acknowledged receipt of any consideration.
13. Ex.P9, the encumbrance certificate, reflects entries
including the subsequent sale deed in favour of defendant No.5. It
does not independently prove plaintiffs' contractual rights.
14. Ex.P10 is a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act relating to electronic records. While admissibility is
established, probative value still depends on substantive proof of
transaction. Thus, documentary evidence primarily shows
dealings between plaintiffs and defendant No.4 but does not
Judge sign
11 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
establish contractual privity between plaintiffs and defendants
No.1 to 3.
15. During cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that:
The Agreement of Sale relied upon by plaintiffs is not registered.
The negotiations and payments were primarily with defendant
No.4. Defendants No.1 to 3 were not personally present at the
time of agreement or payment. These admissions are significant
because in property transactions involving development
agreements, purchasers are expected to verify authority of the
developer, particularly when landowners are separate parties.
16. To rebut the plaintiffs' claim, the GPA holder of
Defendant No.2 entered the witness box as DW-1. He has filed
affidavit evidence reiterating written statement averments and
produced documentary evidence marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D4.
17. At the outset, it is to be noted that except Defendant
No.2, other defendants remained exparte. Nevertheless, the
evidence of DW-1 assumes significance since the principal
Judge sign
12 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
defence relates to: Revocation of GPA, Lack of privity with
plaintiffs, Validity of subsequent sale in favour of Defendant No.5.
18. DW-1 has specifically deposed that: Defendant No.4
failed to complete construction within stipulated period under
Joint Development Agreement. Due to non-performance,
landowners revoked GPA. This assertion is supported by
documentary evidence.
19. Ex.D1 is copy of legal notice issued by landowners
revoking authority of builder. This document indicates: Intention to
terminate agency. Communication of revocation. No effective
challenge is made regarding authenticity.
20. Ex.D2 is publication notifying public about revocation
of GPA. This assumes legal importance because: It constitutes
public notice. Purchasers are deemed to have constructive
notice. Thus plaintiffs cannot plead complete ignorance
indefinitely.
Judge sign
13 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
21. Ex.D3 is registered deed cancelling GPA. This is the
strongest document on record because: It is registered
instrument. Carries presumption of authenticity. Demonstrates
formal termination of agency. PW-1 has not produced any
document contradicting revocation. Under settled principles of
agency: Authority of agent ceases upon revocation. Subsequent
acts of agent do not bind principal unless ratified. Therefore, even
assuming builder received payments thereafter, landowners
cannot automatically be held liable.
22. DW-1 has stated that, the builder did not complete
construction within agreed period. Only partial structure raised.
Construction stopped. This version has not been effectively
discredited. This lends probability to defence that: GPA revocation
was consequence of builder's default.
23. DW-1 has deposed that after revocation: Landowners
resumed control. Completed construction independently. Sold
flats including Flat No.302 to Defendant No.5. This is supported
by Ex.P5 (sale deed).
Judge sign
14 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
24. Registered sale deed which carries statutory
presumption. Transfers title unless set aside. Plaintiffs have not:
Challenged sale deed separately, Alleged fraud with supporting
evidence, Produced prior registered interest. Thus Defendant
No.5 appears bona fide purchaser. The Purchaser for value
without notice acquires valid title. Unregistered prior agreements
generally subordinate. The Plaintiffs' agreement unregistered.
Public notice of GPA revocation issued. Thus Defendant No.5's
title stands protected.
25. DW-1 consistently states that, the Plaintiffs never
contracted with defendants No.1 to 3. No consideration received
by landowners. This aspect finds support from: Lack of
documentary proof of payment to landowners, Admissions of PW-
1. Thus contractual privity absent. Therefore, DW-1's testimony
consistent with documentary evidence. Supported by registered
revocation deed. Not materially shaken in cross-examination. His
evidence appears credible and reliable.
26. From defence evidence it appears GPA stood revoked
in 2018. Builder lacked authority thereafter. Landowners legally
Judge sign
15 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
sold property later. Plaintiffs' remedy, if any, lies against builder
alone.
27. It is worth to note that, A General Power of Attorney
executed in favour of a developer ordinarily confers authority to
act on behalf of the landowners subject to the terms of the
development agreement. Such authority is fundamentally
governed by principles of agency embodied in the Indian Contract
Act.
28. It is well settled that, an agent's authority continues
only so long as the principal permits it. Unless coupled with an
independent proprietary interest, a power of attorney remains
revocable. In the present case: Ex.P3 evidences execution of
GPA dated 05.07.2013.
29. Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 demonstrate revocation through
notice, public announcement and registered cancellation. Once
revocation is duly effected: The agent ceases to bind the
principal. Third parties dealing with the agent thereafter do so at
their own risk. Thus, any continued reliance by the plaintiffs upon
Judge sign
16 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
the GPA without verifying its subsistence cannot legally bind
defendants No.1 to 3.
30. Joint Development Agreements typically create a
commercial arrangement between landowners and developers
whereby: Landowners contribute land, Developer undertakes
construction, Both share developed property. Such agreements
do not automatically transfer ownership rights to developer unless
expressly provided.
31. In the present case the Ex.P4 does not show absolute
transfer of ownership. Authority to sell flats was conditional upon
performance. Where developer defaults: Landowners retain right
to revoke authority. Purchasers dealing solely with developer
must verify title and authority. Therefore, plaintiffs' reliance on
JDA without examining subsequent developments cannot create
enforceable rights against landowners.
32. Though plaintiffs have framed the suit primarily as
money recovery with alternative relief of allotment of flat,
Judge sign
17 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
principles governing specific performance remain relevant. Courts
grant specific performance only when: Contract is certain and
enforceable, Plaintiff has performed obligations, Defendant had
authority to contract, Suit is within limitation. In this case,
Agreement is unregistered. Therefore, their Authority of builder
stood revoked and third party rights intervened. Thus, the suit is
barred by limitation. Thus specific performance or alternative
allotment becomes legally untenable.
33. Protection of bona fide purchaser is a settled principle
in property law. Where a purchaser: Acquires property for
consideration, Without notice of prior enforceable rights, Under
registered conveyance, Courts generally protect such title. The
Defendant No.5 holds registered sale deed (Ex.P5). Plaintiffs'
agreement is unregistered. But, the plaintiff agreement is
unregistered, therefore Defendant No.5's title deserves
protection.
34. Plaintiffs rely on alleged oral assurances. However:
Limitation extends only upon written acknowledgment. No such
acknowledgment produced. Therefore suit clearly barred.
Judge sign
18 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
35. Having carefully considered the Pleadings of both
parties, Oral evidence of PW-1 and DW-1, Documentary evidence
Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D4, Legal principles governing
property transactions, agency law, limitation law and equitable
relief, this Court proceeds to record its final conclusions. The
evidence on record clearly establishes that defendants No.1 to 3
initially executed a Joint Development Agreement and General
Power of Attorney dated.05.07.2013 in favour of Defendant No.4.
However, it is equally established through Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 that the
said authority was revoked in May-2018 after alleged non-
performance by the builder. The plaintiffs admittedly entered into
transaction only with Defendant No.4. No independent agreement
with landowners has been proved. Further, there is no convincing
documentary evidence to show that landowners received sale
consideration from plaintiffs. Though bank records indicate
financial transactions by plaintiffs, such records only show
payments routed through builder and do not establish binding
contractual liability upon defendants No.1 to 3.
36. Once the General Power of Attorney stood revoked:
Defendant No.4 ceased to have authority to bind the landowners.
Judge sign
19 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
Any subsequent dealings with him could not automatically create
enforceable rights against defendants No.1 to 3. The plaintiffs,
being purchasers in a property development project, were
expected to verify subsistence of builder's authority before
making substantial payments. Failure to exercise such due
diligence weakens their claim. Thus, from cumulative
appreciation: Execution of GPA/JDA is proved. Agreement
between plaintiffs and defendant No.4 appears probable.
However, binding liability of defendants No.1 to 3 is not proved.
With these observations, it is my opinion that, the plaintiff fail to
prove Recasted Issue No.1, Issue Nos.2 and 3 accordingly, same
were answered in the Negative.
37. Issue No.4: Plaintiffs contend that defendant No.2
sold the flat to defendant No.5 without informing plaintiffs and
without cancelling GPA. Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the
registered sale deed dated 14.05.2020 executed in favour of
defendant No.5. A registered sale deed carries statutory
presumption of correctness unless rebutted by cogent evidence.
Judge sign
20 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
38. Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence showing
that: Defendant No.5 had notice of plaintiffs' alleged agreement,
or Sale deed was fraudulent or collusive. PW-1 admitted during
cross-examination that he came to know about sale only later and
did not immediately initiate legal action. On the contrary,
defendant No.2 has produced documents indicating prior
revocation of GPA, which legally enabled landowners to deal with
the property. Thus, plaintiffs failed to prove unlawful sale or
absence of authority. Hence Issue No.4 is answered in the
Negative.
39. Issue No.5: Defendant No.2 asserts that GPA dated
05.07.2013 was revoked through Notice dated.08.05.2018
(Ex.D1), Newspaper publication dated.09.05.2018 (Ex.D2),
Registered deed of revocation dated.21.05.2018 (Ex.D3).
40. These documents have not been seriously challenged.
PW-1 admitted lack of knowledge about revocation but mere lack
of knowledge cannot invalidate a duly registered cancellation,
especially when public notice has been issued. Legally, once GPA
Judge sign
21 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
is revoked, the agent's authority ceases. Principal cannot be
bound by subsequent acts of agent. Therefore, defendant No.4
could not bind landowners after revocation. Accordingly, Issue
No.5 is answered in the Affirmative
41. Issue No.6: The alleged Agreement of Sale is dated
11.01.2014. Even as per plaintiffs, substantial payments were
completed by 2018. The sale in favour of defendant No.5
occurred on 14.05.2020. The present suit has been filed beyond
three years from both: Date of agreement, and Date of knowledge
of adverse sale. Plaintiffs contend assurances were given by
defendants. However: No written acknowledgment is produced.
No legal notice issued within limitation period. Thus, plaintiffs
failed to satisfactorily explain delay. Civil cases decided on
preponderance of probabilities. In present case probabilities
favour defence because: Revocation documents credible, Sale
deed registered, Plaintiffs' agreement unregistered, Delay
unexplained. Thus evidentiary balance tilts against plaintiffs.
42. From combined factual and legal analysis the Builder
initially had authority but same stood revoked. Plaintiffs dealt
Judge sign
22 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
primarily with builder. Landowners not shown to have received
consideration. Subsequent purchaser holds valid registered title.
Suit barred by limitation. Therefore plaintiffs' claim cannot be
sustained in law. Accordingly, suit is barred by limitation. Issue
No.6 answered in the Affirmative.
43. Issue No.7: Though objection was raised, defendant
No.2 has not produced material demonstrating improper
valuation. Plaintiffs have valued suit for money recovery and paid
court fee accordingly. Hence court fee appears sufficient. Issue
No.7 answered in the Affirmative.
44. Issue No.8: From entire appreciation of evidence:
Plaintiffs primarily transacted with defendant No.4. GPA stood
revoked prior to final sale transaction. No evidence landowners
received consideration. Sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 is
valid registered document. Suit barred by limitation. Agreement
relied upon is unregistered and inadequately proved. Thus
plaintiffs are not entitled to: Refund against defendants No.1 to 3,
or Alternative flat, or Relief against defendant No.5. At best, claim
Judge sign
23 O.S.No.3109/2023
Judgment
may lie against defendant No.4, but suit framed jointly and barred
by limitation. Therefore Issue No.8 is answered in the Negative.
45. Issue No.9: In view of the findings recorded above, the
plaintiffs have failed to establish entitlement to the relief sought.
ence the suit deserves dismissal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass
the following;
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Stenographer through online, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 6th day of February, 2026].
(Somashekara A.) XV Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
C/c LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Judge sign 24 O.S.No.3109/2023 Judgment ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff:
PW.1 Prabhakar Gottipamula
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant:
DW.1 Manjunath
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 & 2 Bills Ex.P.3 Certified copy of the GPA Ex.P.4 Certified copy of the Joint Development agreement Ex.P.5 Certified copy of the Sale deed dated 14.05.2020 Ex.P.6 Kotak Mahindra Bank account details Ex.P.7 Detailed statement of ICICI Bank Ex.P.8 Documents of India Bulls Ex.P.9 Encumbrance certificate Judge sign 25 O.S.No.3109/2023 Judgment Ex.P.10 Application under Sec.65(B) of I.E. Act.
4. List of documents marked on behalf of the Defendant:-
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of the GPA Ex.D.2 Original copy of Samyuktha Karnataka news paper dated 09.03.2018 Ex.D.3 Certified copy of deed of revocation of GPA dated 21.05.2018 Ex.D.4 Certified copy of sale deed dated 14.05.2020 (Somashekara A.) XV Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
C/c LIX Addl. C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Judge sign