Unilateral cancellation of Development Agreement-cum-GPA is invalid if the agency has been established with an interest in the property, and requires consensus among all parties involved.

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per Hon’ble Sri. Justice P.Naveen Rao) Appellants herein are defendants in O.S.No.719 of 2009 and plaintiffs in O.S.No.173 of 2015 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C.), City Civil Court at Hyderabad. For convenience, parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in O.S.No.719 of 2009.

2. The prayers sought in both suits read as under:

O.S.No.719 of 2009

a) Declaring that the cancellation of the document bearing No.2635 of 2007 dated 12.-07.2007 by impugned document No.3573 of 2009 dated 25.11.2009 executed by defendant no.1 unilaterally as null and void and not enforceable against the plaintiffs 1 and 2;

b) Declaring that the purported cancellation of the document No.9194 of 2007 dated 12.07.2007 by impugned document No.2870 of 2009 dated 25.11.2009 executed by the defendant no.2 unilaterally as null and void and not enforceable against the plaintiffs;

c) Grant consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 and their men, agents, servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiffs; and d) Costs of the suit; and e) to grant any other relief or reliefs as may deem fit and proper by the Hon’ble Court in the circumstances of the case.

O.S.No.173 of 2015:

a) To declare that the plaintiffs are the owners of the flats bearing No.102- A, Flat No.203-A, Flat No.104-A, Flat No.401-B, Flat No.302-C, and Flat No.501-C, and to extent of 1951 Sqft in Flat No.404A and 2054A which are more fully described in schedule here under;

b) To direct the Defendant No.1 to deliver the possession of six flats bearing No.102-A, Flat No.203-A, Flat No.104-A, Flat No.401-B, Flat No.303-C, and Flat No.501-C and to extent of 1951 Sqft in Flat No.404A and 204A more fully described in the schedule here under completed in all aspects together with parking areas in favour of the plaintiffs;

c) To declare the sale deed dated 16.02.2015 bearing registered document No.2048 of 2015 executed by 1^st defendant in favour of defendant no.7 in respect of the flat no.302-C as null and void;

d) To direct the 1st defendant to pay an amount of Rs.1,17,73,440/- to the plaintiffs towards compensation for loss of rents w.e.f. 20.11.2009 to till the date of filing suit together with interest @ 18% per annum;

e) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 & 7 herein from alienating, conveying and transferring the suit schedule properties in favour of any third parties;

f) to ward costs of the suit; and to grant any such other relief or further reliefs as the plaintiffs are found to be entitled to in law and deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.

3. As the issue involved in both the appeals concerns the same suit schedule property, by this common judgment both appeals are considered and decided.

4. Heard learned senior counsel Sri V.Ravinder Rao appearing for Smt. Divya Rai learned counsel for appellants in both appeals and Sri Tarum G.Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 in both appeals.

5. Case of the plaintiffs:

5.1. Plaintiff No.1 (hereinafter referred to as P1) is a Private Limited Company while Plaintiff No.2 (hereinafter referred to as P2) is the Managing Director of P1 having registered office at Hyderabad. Defendant No.1 (D1) and P2 in their personal capacity purchased a property to the extent of 2380 sq. yards, house bearing H.No.8-1- 293/A/1, in ward No.8, Block No. 1 of Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad, vide registered sale deed document No.2595 of 2006 dated 04.04.2006 registered at Office of the Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. P2 and D1