JUDGMENT :

SREENIVAS RAO, J.

1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 20-01-2006 passed in O.S.No. 615 of 2000 by the XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of specific performance of development agreement dated 05.02.1997. The plaintiff filed this appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as “plaintiff” and “defendants” as they were arrayed before the trial court.

3. Originally, plaintiff has filed O.S.No. 615 of 2000 against defendant No. 1 for seeking the following reliefs:

(a) To pass a decree for a specific performance of the development agreement dated 05.02.1997 by putting the plaintiff in possession to enable the plaintiff to proceed with the development of complex.

(b) To direct the defendant to vacate the tenant premises and settle the dispute if any with third parties and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property.

(c) To direct the defendant to execute and register such deeds or documents in favour of the plaintiff or their nominees for the share of interest in land to the extent of 60% under the Development agreement dated 05.02.1997;

(d) to grant perpetual injunction restraining defendant her men, servants and all those claiming under or thrown her from alienating or in any way encumbering or obstructing plaintiff’s developmental activities on the plaint schedule property and towards the costs of the suit.

The children of the sister of defendant No. 1, who are defendant No’s.2 and 3 came on record claiming to have their vested remainder in the suit schedule property and alleging that the defendant No. 1 is only having life interest. During pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 died issueless, therefore her brother and sister were brought on record as defendant No’s.4 and 5 being the legal representatives.

4. In the said suit the plaintiff averred that plaintiff is a registered firm engaged in the business of development of property, building of complexes etc. Defendant No. 1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the property admeasuring 930 sq.yds., bearing Municipal No. 4-1-1239/3 and a portion of 4-1-1229 situated at Boggulakunta. She acquired the suit schedule property under a settlement deed dated 26.02.1952 executed by her father late Y. Satyanarayana. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 alongwith her son, Dinesh Kumar alienated the suit schedule property in favour of “Ramakrishna Mutt” under a document dated 11.02.1974. Later, “Ramakrishna Mutt” released their claim by executing document dated 08.07.1994 in favour of defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 offered the suit schedule property to plaintiff for development, representing that she is to be the only legal heir after the death of her son.

4.1 On 05.02.1993 plaintiff and defendant No. 1 have entered into development agreement. As per the agreement, the plaintiff would construct a commercial complex at their cost after obtaining due permission from Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and that plaintiff was entitled to retain 60% of the constructed area and the defendant No. 1 is entitled to the remaining constructed area. Construction should be completed within 18 months with a further extension of six months. There were two tenants in two portions of the building at the time of the agreement and the defendant No. 1 agreed to settle the issue and represented that the tenants would vacate and portion of the building would be handed over to plaintiff soon after they vacate the building. As per the terms of the agreement, plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.51,000/- on 21.09.1997 and Rs.1,49,000/- on 05.02.1997 respectively (in all Rs.2,00,000/-) as security deposit. After completion of the work, the amount has to be returned without interest. The agreement is irrevocable. Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.95,925/- towards the fee payable to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on 07.08.1997 but th