Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Submissions of learned counsel Sri Tarum G.Reddy for plaintiffs:

11.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that Development Agreement-cum-GPA is a comprehensive document and it is coupled with interest of the developer. Such document cannot be PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J CCCA Nos.111 & 112 of 2021 unilaterally cancelled by one party. The law is well settled. This very issue was considered by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.21925 of 2019, dated 16.10.2019. Said judgment applies in all fours to the facts of these cases. It is settled principle of law that unilateral cancellation of Development Agreement-cum-GPA is not permissible and is ex facie illegal. Following the law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the trial Court declared the deed of cancellation as illegal and no exception can be carved out to the said decision of trial Court. He would further submit that cause in O.S.No.719 of 2009 did not survive for consideration by the time it was heard as the developer sold 42 flats which fell to his share and share of co-owners and what remained was the portion of the property fallen to the share of the defendants. Therefore, suit ought to have been dismissed on that ground alone.

11.2. In response to the contention that even if cancellation of Development Agreement-cum-GPA is not valid, on account of notice issued by the principal on 28.11.2009, the agency stood terminated, learned counsel would submit that Section 206 do not come to the aid of the defendants to justify their action of unilateral cancellation.

According to the learned counsel, Section 202 of the Act prohibits termination of the agency, where agent has an interest in the subject matter. In the instant case, the document executed on 12.07.2007 is PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J CCCA Nos.111 & 112 of 2021 comprehensive and deals with various aspects of developing the suit schedule property and created interest in the developer/agent. 11.3. The defendants herein were owners of 1190 square yards (1st defendant) and 711 square yards (2nd defendant). Adjacent properties were pooled together to make a composite block of 5603 square yards including the land owned by defendants. The Development Agreement-cum-GPA covers the composite block covering several owners with different individual extents. Therefore, there cannot be unilateral cancellation of Development Agreement- cum-GPA by part owner of composite block.

20. In Gaddam Laxmaiah (supra), on elaborate consideration of the matter, Division Bench held:

"28. Thus, having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and provisions of the Act, in our opinion, whenever registered documents such as Development Agreement-cum-GPA, is sought to be cancelled, execution and registration of such a document/deed must be at the instance of both the PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J CCCA Nos.111 & 112 of 2021 parties i.e., bilaterally and not unilaterally. If a deed of cancellation is allowed to be registered without the knowledge and consent of other party to the deed/document, sought to be cancelled, such registration would cause violation to the principles of natural justice and lead to unnecessary litigation, emanating therefrom. In any case, as stated earlier, in the absence of any provision specifically empowering the Registrar to entertain a document of cancellation for registration without the signatures of both the parties to the document, the deed cannot be entertained. Moreover, if the Registrars are allowed to entertain a deed of cancellation for registration without signatures of both the parties to the document sought to be cancelled, such power would tantamount to conferring the power to decide disputed questions between the parties. No party to the document would ever approach for cancellation of registered document unilaterally unless there is a dispute with the other party in respect of the subject-matter of the document. In the result, we answer the question in the negative. In other words, we hold that registration and unilateral cancellation of documents such as Development Agreement-cum-General of Power of Attorney under the Registration Act is not permissible in law."

PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J CCCA Nos.111 & 112 of 2021

35. Further, Section 202 of the Contract Act in general terms regulates the relationship of principal and agent. It does not impinge upon the parties to enter into written agreements and to register those agreements. Section 202 presupposes existence of a written agreement. If such agreement requires registration, it has to be registered under the Indian Registration Act. There is no overlapping of area covered by Section 202 of Indian Contract Act and Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. They are in harmony with each other. At no stretch it can be assumed to override the statutory prescription of the Indian Registration Act and the Registration Rules made there under. The Registration Act and the Rules made there under, as held by the Constitutional Courts, prohibits unilateral cancellation of any document by one party without the consent of other party. Once an agreement is registered under the Indian Registration Act, such agreement cannot be cancelled unilaterally by one party to the detriment of other party even when it deals with agency and when no clause is incorporated in the registered document authorizing principal to unilaterally cancel the agency affecting the interest of the agent.