A Joint Development Agreement is enforceable where a party can prove execution and compliance, with discrepancies in signatures deemed insufficient to challenge the agreement's validity.

JUDGMENT :

(ANU SIVARAMAN, J.)

This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree passed in Com.O.S.No.4029/2017 dated 22.05.2023 passed by the LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-88) ('Commercial Court' for short).

2. We have heard Shri. Anil Shekar K.S, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri. Shivayogi B. Hallur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The contentions of the appellants are as follows :-

The defendant in a suit for specific performance of a Joint Development Agreement ('JDA' for short) dated 08.05.2013 is the appellant herein. The appellant was the owner in possession of the property having a total extent of 30 feet x 70 feet situated on 3^rd Cross, Muneshwara Block, Bengaluru. The property was mortgaged to the Padmashree Credit Co-operative Society. The JDA was entered into by which the respondent agreed to construct a residential apartment on ground and three floors consisting of eight flats in the portion of the property measuring 30 feet x 50 feet as consideration, the respondent agreed to pay Rs.1,42,00,000/- to the appellant in consideration of the permission to put up the apartment in the said portion of the property. Further, it was agreed that the respondent would also put up a residential house consisting of ground plus three floors, with each floor measuring 600 sq. ft. in the remaining property measuring 30 feet x 20 feet. It was also agreed that the cost of construction and expenditure to obtain permissions to put up the construction of the residential house would be deducted from the agreed consideration of Rs.1,42,00,000/-. A schedule for payment of the amounts was also provided in the agreement. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the Society by way of cheques and the entire property mortgaged by the defendant was redeemed by the plaintiff. However, GPA was not executed in favour of the plaintiff as agreed. It was contended that the plaintiff had paid a further amount of Rs.75,50,000/- by way of Banker's cheque and demand drafts on different dates and spent a sum of Rs.62,00,000/- for construction of the building on the appellant's share of the land. It is submitted that pursuant to the specific agreements between the parties, the construction was made as one building consisting of four one bedroom apartments, which fell to the share of the land owner/appellant and four two bedroom apartments, which could be sold by the plaintiff - builder. However, after construction of the appellant's share of the built-up area was complete, the appellant refused to perform her contractual obligations. The plaintiff lodged a complaint before the Vyalikaval Police Station on 10.11.2016 and an injunction suit was filed by the appellant as O.S.No.402/2017 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. Further, the police complaints were also filed. It is contended that the defendant also obtained an ex-parte order of ad-interim temporary injunction against the plaintiff by suppressing true facts and it has therefore become necessary to seek the specific performance of the agreement between the parties.

4. The appellant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the contentions and stating that she is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the house property bearing BBMP Khata, PID No.99/106/1/1 of 3^rd Cross, Muneshwara Block, P.G.Halli, Bengaluru and that she had filed a suit for permanent injunction as O.S.No.402/2017 before the City Civil Court and th