The court held that the plaintiff's claim for specific performance and cancellation of a sale deed was untenable due to lack of legal basis and proper agreements regarding property rights and ownership.

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’ for brevity) by the unsuccessful plaintiff is directed against the decree and judgment, dated 31.07.2006, of the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Judge, Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in OS.No.461 of 2003, whereby the suit seeking the reliefs of specific performance, cancellation of a sale deed and damages was dismissed.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned senior counsel representing Sri S. Ganesh, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff; of Ms. K.N. Laxmi, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent/ 3^rd defendant; and of Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2/defendants 1 & 2. I have perused the material record.

3. The parties in this appeal shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants as arraigned in the Original Suit for convenience and clarity.

4. Since this is a first appeal and as this Court is the last Court of fact, it is necessary to refer to the pleadings of the parties.

5. The plaint averments, in brief, are as follows:

The defendants 1 & 2 are the owners of the premises bearing Municipal No.3-6-532/1 situate at Street No.7, Hardikarbagh, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. The 3^rd defendant and the Proprietor of the plaintiff concern were members of a voluntary organization called ‘Junior Chamber (Jaycees)’ and were close friends. The proprietor of the plaintiff, who is an architect, is taking up development projects. In view of the friendship, the 3^rd defendant earlier approached the plaintiff for professional advice for his friends. The plaintiff obliged and in that regard the 3^rd defendant received some commission from the plaintiff. The 3^rd defendant and the wife of the 2^nd defendant are co- employees in the Office of Accountant General. Defendants 1 & 2 intended to develop their property. Wife of the 2^nd defendant approached 3^rd defendant for guidance and advice. In turn, 3^rd defendant contacted the proprietor of the plaintiff for planning and development of the property of the defendants 1 & 2. Defendants 1 to 3 met the proprietor of the plaintiff and requested for development of the property of the defendants 1 & 2 and construction of an apartment complex. In view of the friendship between the proprietor of the plaintiff and the 3^rd defendant and the trust and confidence which the proprietor of the plaintiff had in the 3^rd defendant, the plaintiff accepted the offer made by the defendants for development of the property of defendants 1 & 2. A development agreement, dated 01.12.1995, was executed between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2. In the said agreement, it was mentioned that the 3^rd defendant would act as the agent of defendants 1 & 2 and would interact with the plaintiff for the smooth completion of the project and implementation of the terms and conditions of the development agreement. The 3^rd defendant was alone representing the defendants 1 & 2 and actively assisted in the completion of the project. As per the development agreement, the plaintiff developed the property after obtaining permission, dated 31.08.1995, from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The plaintiff constructed stilt plus four floors in the above said premises of the defendants 1 &2. As per the agreement originally entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2, the flats, G1 & G2, in the ground floor were to fall to the share of the defendants 1 & 2 and the remaining flats were to fall to the share of t