The High Court has the power to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected.

ORDER :

1. Plaintiff, in the suit, filed above revisions aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2022 in I.A. No. 149 of 2022 in O.S. No. 382 of 2013 on the file of the XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Additional Family Court, Vijayawada and I.A. Nos. 150 of 2022 and 151 of 2022.

2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S. No. 382 of 2013 for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint B schedule property and the sale deeds dated 11.10.2011 and 13.06.2012 and all other subsequent documents entered and executed in between the defendants are not valid under law and not binding on the plaintiff and for consequential relief of permanent injunction.

3. In the plaint, it was contended inter-alia that defendants 1 to 4 are owners of schedule property admeasuring 636 square yards of site bearing D. No. 27-19-8 situated in Durgaiah Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada described as plaint A schedule property; that defendants 1 to 4 entered into a development agreement with the plaintiff and another by name Mallikarjuna Reddy to develop the property and to construct cellar, ground, first, second and third floors in the above said site; that plaintiff obtained necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada in the name of defendants 1 to 4 by paying necessary charges; that defendants 1 to 4 came to an understanding to construct fourth floor in the above said site with a specific understanding that all expenses, fees for construction are to be shared by both of them equally; that defendants 1 to 4 are having 50% share and plaintiff is having 50% share each in the constructed area; that the plaintiff has to invest all the amounts for the purpose of obtaining permission and to complete the entire construction; that defendants 1 to 4 delivered possession of plaint A schedule property and the plaintiff completed construction as per the understanding that plaintiff; that defendants 1 to 4 and partner of plaintiff entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 28.01.2010; that as per that MOU plaintiff is entitled for first and second floors towards his share described as plaint B schedule; that defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to remaining share i.e. ground, third and fourth floors; that cellar and terrace of building have to be shared as per floor ratio; that Mallikarjuna Reddy is having no manner of right since his claim was settled by plaintiff and defendant 1 to 4; that MOU was duly acknowledged and signed by said Mallikarjuna Reddy; that defendants 1 to 4 agreed to pay Rs. 40 lakhs to plaintiff, which was paid to defendants 1 to 4 as security deposit as per the terms of agreement dated 13.10.2006; that plaintiff has to complete unfinished part on or before 31.12.2020 and to provide other amenities; that plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to sell their respective shares in the building; that if the plaintiff sells his share of property, defendants 1 to 4 have to execute regular sale deeds in the name of purchasers or their nominees; that plaintiff several times requested defendants 1 to 4 to execute regular necessary deeds in his favour or his nominees regarding first and second floors as per MOU dated 28.01.2010, however, defendants 1 to 4 postponed to execute the same; that plaintiff subsequently came to know that defendants 1 to 4 without having any manner of right over first and second floors i.e. plaint B schedule property created collusive, sham and nominal documents in the name of 5th defendant by way of sale deeds dated 13.06.2012 and 11.10.2011; that 5th defendant in turn executed agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 29.06.2012 in favour of 6th defendant in respect of item No. 1 of plaint B schedule property; that 6th defendant executed sale deed dated 19.10.2013 onto himself basing on sale agreement-cum-GPA dated 29.06.2012; that 5th defendant also created mortgage in respect of second floor, item No. 2 of plaint B schedule property, in the name of defendants 7 to 9 on 02.03.2012; that