A property owner cannot obstruct development agreements if aware of terms and has executed necessary documents.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is plaintiff’s notice of motion in a suit filed by her for declaration and injunction. The declaration that is sought by the plaintiff is that the agreement of development dated 22.3.2002 Exhibit ’B’ and power of attorneys dated 10.1.2002 and 24.5.2002 Exhibits ’A’ and ’C’ stands validly terminated and for consequential reliefs.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that she was the absolute owner of the suit property, hereinafter referred to as "Lila Villa" which comprised of ground plus three upper floors having 13 floors (as stated by her) in her plaint, two garages, and a servant’s toilet etc. and that she was in possession of flat Nos.4A, 6, 9 and 13. Remaining flats were occupied by the tenants of the plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff had a son by name Suresh. He died in an accident on 23.2.2004. Defendant no. 7 is the widow of Suresh. Defendant Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are the children of Suresh.

4. According to the plaintiff sometime prior to January 2002 deceased Suresh represented to her that the suit property could be developed by utilising available FSI as held by loading TDR which could be purchased and therefore the plaintiff was persuaded by deceased Suresh to execute power of attorney in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to carry out construction on the suit property. This power of attorney dated 10.1.2002 is annexed at Exhibit ’A’ to the plaint.

5. Thereafter the plaintiff due to persuasion of the deceased Suresh entered into a development agreement dated 22.3.2002 vide Exhibit ’B’ and in pursuance of this development agreement - Exhibit ’B’, she executed power of attorney in favour of Suresh on 24.5.2002 - Exhibit ’C’.

6. According to her when the development agreement and power of attorney were executed by her in favour of her son Suresh, the power of attorney in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 became redundant. Further it was not for any consideration. The deceased Suresh appointed defendant No.1, according to the plaintiff, as contractor under the power of attorney dated 24.5.2002 Exhibit ’C’. It is consistently the case of the plaintiff that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are contractors and not developers.

7. According to the plaintiff and as per the development agreement deceased Suresh was to pay her Rs.37 lacs is consideration but she received only Rs.5 lacs from Suresh at the time of execution of the development agreement. Deceased Suresh was reminded from time to time about the balance payment but he avoided doing so. Actually according to the plaintiff and as per the development agreement Exhibit ’B’ deceased Suresh was bound to pay her Rs.9,77,000/= within 3 months of the sanction of the building plans and further a sum of Rs.25 lacs within six months from the date of payment of Rs.9,77,000/=, but neither of these amounts were paid by deceased Suresh during his lifetime. Plaintiffs have further contended that prior to the death of Suresh defendant Nos.1 and 2 commenced additional construction. They were permitted to do so as they were appointed as contractors by deceased Suresh. But according to the plaintiff after the death of her son Suresh and since no payments were forthcoming she asked the defendants to stop the work of additional construction. But defendants denied their liability to pay anything to the plaintiff and she was told that further work was being carried out under the instructions of the defendant No. 7 and if at all there was any liability to pay it was of the defendant no.7, daughter in law of the plaintiff. In this background the plaintiff sent notice dated 10.4.2004 to the defendant nos. 1 and 2 calling upon them to stop the cons