Dismissed

Ms. Aditya Imperial Heights Flat Owners Welfare Association v. Ms.Aditya Construction Company India Private limited

Telangana HC7 Jan 2022CMA/497/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed appeals challenging a trial court order granting injunctions to restrain parties from trespassing or creating third-party interests in suit schedule property. The court affirmed the injunctions, directed the plaintiff to continue commercial block construction, and ordered income from such properties to be deposited in a separate account pending suit disposal.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; injunctions confirmed; plaintiff directed to proceed with construction and deposit rents/income from commercial block in separate account pending suit disposal.

Ms. Aditya Imperial Heights Flat Owners Welfare… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APP EAL N os: 497 AND 503 0F 2021

¶7

CIVIL MISC ELLA NEOUS APPEAL NO: 497 OF 2021

¶8

Appeal filed Under order Xllll Rule 1 of code of civil procedure against the orderdated 11912021 passed in tA No.240 of 2021 in os No.93 ol 2021 on the file of the XV Additional District and Sessions Judge -cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-ll Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s. Aditya.lmperial Heights Flat owners welfare Association. Reo. bv its aurnonzeo sronalorv Mr.K.Suresh aged about 44 yearc, o/o.(Flat No.sbslgrocrB).Flat No.1-1'10, H Btock, Aditya'l;#rat lreiLiii-hpari;",ir;'-C;;;i&;'J, Hafeezpet village, Serilingampally, Hydei-abaO-SO-06+S

¶11

2 Mr..K._.Suresh, S/o. Mr.Chandra.iah aged about 44 years Rl/o.Flat No. 1110, ."ih.Bl"f Lf,1'H3 J#'fi leti;igil:, i?eg"o:i' u%"#!F,;.,^{iii",ip;i,iir jd",}

¶12

,,,APPELLANTS/RESPONOENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶13

. AND

¶14

lv/s. Ad ity_a construction company lndia private limited, Reo. bv its Manaoino Director/Executive Director oio.A'dityas t/ansion ,ptol No.rb_A: R'5ji-ilJ.,s' j"uoilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033

¶15

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Application under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support-of the petition,'tnJ iign court may o" pL*"0 r" dlspen-se-with the firing of certified copies of ei.iito p11 and R1 to R11 marked in lA.No.240 ol 2021, pending disposal ot tf.'r" Cirii ffrf i.t""tt"n"or. Appeal . NO: OF 021

¶18

Apprication under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suoport of the petition,'tnE iigh court may be preased ro direct, the respondent/ptaintiff not t"' ;;;;;;";iff, "ny^{agreements oversuit} schedule propertv pendinq disposar ot trl clrii n,{iscerrane6us"npp"rr'".0 pr"p", i. the circumstances of the &se and in tt e interesi'oiiu.,,.u.

¶19

--_

¶20

SUI' SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶21

All that the Commerc al area admeasuting 29,422.71 square fee^{(30000) situatedin} Ground⁺ 4 upper fl< ors with approximately^{40000 squarefeei sucer built up area} along with connected cellare in Aditva^{imperial Heightsin survey Nos.83,84,85.6} & 87 situtated at Ha'3ezpet village,^{Serilingampally Mandal, R.R.District bounded} by;

¶22

North Swimmir I^pool of AJHOFWA,^{South:Set Back /lnternal Road East:} Road Main Gate & Wt st:^{Apartment Compleasesof AJHOFWA.}

¶23

The Appeal cc'ning on for^{hearing,upon perusing the Petitionand the} affidavit filed in supl^{ort ihereof upon hearing the arguments of MR,APPA RAO} vuPPUTURI Advocatr^{fot the Petitionersand MT.B.BHARATHReddy, Advocatefor} Respondent the Court made^{the following.}

¶24

IA NO :3 OF 2021

¶25

Application undr r section^{148 read with section'l 51 CPC praying thatin the} circumsiances^{stated r the affidavit filed in supportof the petition,the High-Court} mavuepleasedtoexendtheordersdt,lgllll2ozlpassedinlANo2of202lin CMA No.497 of^{2021 t, till disposal of CMA.}

¶26

IA NO: 4 OF 2021

¶27

Application unde^{. Section148148read with Section 151 CPC praying that in} the circumstances sta:d^{in the affidavitfiled in supportof the petltlgn, the High} court may be^{pleased c extend the orders dt.1911112021 and29'',11l202',1passed in} lA Nos.2 ind 3 of 2021^{in CMA No.497o'f 2021 to till disposal of OIVA'}

¶28

Counsel for the^{Appell rnts :SRl.APPARAOVUPPUTURI}

¶29

Counsel for the^{Respo rdent:SRl. VEDULA VENKATA RAMANA, SENIOR} ]OUNSEL FOR SRI'^{BHARATH REDDY' BOMMINENI}

¶30

IVIL ISCE LANE U ; APPEAL NO:50 3 oF 2021

¶31

Appeal liled^{Unr er Order XLlll Rule -1 CPCagainst the Order dated} 01togt2o2lpassedirlANo.239of2o2linoSNo.93of202lonthefileof XVAdditionalDistrictandSessionsJudge-cum-XVAdditionalMetropolitan SessionsJudge-cum,llAdditionalFamilyJudge,RangaReddyDistrictat KukatPallY.

¶32

Between:""''"il,.t:+::{{'trTl:H#rnilq,"fr

¶33

;:liil1tu,ll:'l$,fr^{["]$h5r'#}hd[}

¶34

Mr.K.Suresh,^{S/o Mr'Chandraiahaged about 44 vearsR/c' Flat No 1 110'H-} Block, Aditva^{r","ii;i"Fi"ig[i! [p'drtments.Coniptexes' 'lafeezpetvillage'} $"rii; d ri r>.,, I I v, i F^a ft;^{ie o a-v oi st ri ct) H vd e ra b a d- 5 0 0 0 4e}

¶35

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDEN^{IS/DEFENDANTS}

¶36

AND

¶37

Ivl/s.Aditva Constructir^{n Co} moanv lndia,^{Private limited Rep. by its Managing..,} "d6.Xai'tv*'Ha;;;io" PioiNo.z'g-R, Rc'ad No 5 Jubilee Director/Executive^{Dir :ctor,} Hills, Hyderabad-500(^33.

tll Il

r-__

,..RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶42

lA NO: 1 OF

¶43

Application under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the aiiidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Court maybe pleased to} dispense with the filing of certified copies^{of Ex.P1 to P11 and Rl to R1 Markedln} lA. No.239 of 2021 ,^pending disposal of^{the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.}

¶44

lA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶45

Application under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{maybe pleasedto} direct the respo nd ent/pla intiff not to alter the nature of suit^{schedule property} pending disposal of the Civil Miscellanious Appeal .

¶46

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

¶47

All that the Commercial area admeasuring 29,422.71 square fee^(30000) situated in Ground⁺ 4 upper floors with approximately 40000 square feet super built up area along with connected cellare in Aditva imperial Heights in survey Nos. 83,84,85 .6 & 87 situtated at Hafeezpet village, Serilingampally lvlandal, R.R. District bounded by;

¶48

North Swimming pool of AJHOFWA, South: Set Back /lnternal Road East: Road lrilain Gate & West: Apartment Compleases of AJHOFWA.

¶49

The Appeal coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof upon hearing the arguments of MR,APPA RAO VUPPUTURI Advocate fot the Petitioners and MT.B.BHARATH Reddy, Advocate for Respondent the Court made the following.

¶50

Counsel for the Appellants :SRl. APPA RAO VUPPUTURI

¶51

Counsel for the Respondent: SRl. BHARATH REDDY BOMMINENI

¶52

The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶53

THE E ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{P. NAVEEN ITAO} AND THE H ]N'BLE^SMT. JUSTICE^{P. SREE SUIfHA}

¶54

CML MISC^{TLLANEOUS APPEALNos.497 and ll03 of 2021'}

¶55

COMMON IL DGMENT^{I (per HON'BLE sMr' IUSrlcE I' SnEl' sulll{r)}

¶56

l. C.M.A.N cs.497^{and 503 of 2021 are filed aggieved by the} common ord,'r and^{decretalorder dated 01"09'202fin} i.A.Nos.240 ar d,²³⁹ of^{2021',both filed in O S'No 93 of 2021"} respectivelv, o r the^{file of XV Additional District arrd sessions} Judge-cum-XV^{AdditionalMetropolitan Sessionsludge-cum-II} Additional Far illy Judge,^{Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally,} allowing I.A.N^{o.240 of 202L filed by the petitioner/plaintiff} against the re;pondents/defendants^{for grant of temporary} injunction rest aining^{respondentNo.2/defendant No'2and} their men, age'Its, anybody^{claimingthrough or under them} from interferin ;^{or lrespassing into the suit schedul':property'} pending dispor^{al of the suiq and also allowing I'A'No'239 of} 2021 filecl by^{thepetitioner/plaintiffagainst the} respondents/^d' 'fenclants^{for grant of temporarv injunction} restraining^{resl ondent No'1/ defendantNo 1 and its members} ancl responden^{No.2/ ciefendant No'2 and their men' agents/} anybody^{claim ng throughor under them fromentering into}

¶57

PNR.J^ANDPSS-.! 2 CIVA^{Nos 4r)7 arrd :01ol?021}

¶58

anyAgreements,Deedswiththethirdpartieswitharrintentto sell, alienate,^{create any form of third party interest'including} but not limited to^{lease, tenancy etc. with respectto the suit} schedule property,^{pending disposal of the suit, respectively'}

¶59

IS 2. The appellants^{are defendantsand the respondent} plaintiff in the suit^{O.S.No.93 of 2021' on the file of XV} Additional District and^Sessions Judge-cum-XV^Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Il^{AdditionalFamilv} Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally. For the sake of convenience, the^parties are^{referredto as they were arrayed in} the suit before the trial Court.

¶60

3 The plaintiff - M/s. Aditya Construction^{Company India} Private Limited, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad,^{has undertakerr} construction of apartment building^{complex, in amenities block} in the name and style of^"Aditya Imperial^{Heights", over the} land admeasuring Acs.10-01 guntas^{in Sy.Nos.83 to 87, situated} at Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally^{Marrdal, Ranga Reclciy} Dishict, after obtaining Building Perrnission^{vide Permitdatecl} 07.07.2011. and also obtained Occupancv Certificate dartccl 03.03.2020 As per the contract, though the plaintiff shall complete the project in all the aspects by December, 2071, it could not complete and dragged the works till 2018 and several

¶61

PN 1,] A') PSS, J CMA Nos 191anl50l ol202l

¶62

common wo ks left incomplete in the project rrnd left the project abrup ly in 2018. It has not paid the power c'onsumption charges conl umed while undertaking the c()nsEuctions, therebv the ruthorities concerned vide proceeclings dated 15.03.2027 hac declined to change the power connection in the name of the D rfendant No.1. The clefendants further stated that the residents of Aditya Imperial Heights has formed into M/s.Aditva In perial Heights Flat Owners Welfare r\ssociation, l'{afeezpet Vill rge, Serilingampally, Ranga Redc-ly t)ish'ict, arrd looking abou: maintaining "Adirya Imperial Fleights" Apartment Cor rplexs in amenities block with possession in all aspects in terrr s of Clause No.4 of Amendment Agreement to Development I greement-cum-GPA dated 24.11..20112. Clause - C of the Amenc ment Agreement is as follows :

¶63

"C. Exte rsive Club House in G + 4 floors, with A,/C Gym (F lly equipped), Health and Fitness Centre, Swimmi rg Pools (one covered pool for ladies, one for gentr and another for kids), Meditation Cenlre, Banquet Halls, Cards and Billiards Rooms, Kids Play arei , TT, Jogging Track".

¶64

It is subr Litted that as there is no^{response frcm the} plaintiff, the del :ndants were compelled to^{undertak,: pending} works and the r ame has been admitted by^the plaintiff^{in the} suit uncier the ht ad^"Cause of Action".

¶65

\ b,

¶66

4 PNR.J AND PSS, J CMA.Nos l97 drd 501 oi202l

¶67

It is submitted that some of the persons in the^{name of} plaintiff tried to interfere with the possession of the defendarrt No.1 over the suit schedule building complex in amenities block, defendant No.L filed suit in O.S.No.133 of 2021 on the file of V Additional Junior Civii Judge, Kukatpally, Ranga Redc-lv Disfrict, seeking permanent or perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property /building complex amerrities block comprising of Ground + 4 Upper floors with 40,000 sq. feet of super built up area along with corutected cellars in Aclitl,a Imperial Heights, and the said suit is pending consicieratiorr.

¶68

The defendants also stated that by suppressing all the material facts, the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.93 of 2021 seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants along with I.A.Nos.239 and 240 of 2021 with a prayer as stated above. The defendants also stated that after receipt of summons, the defendants filed written statement in the suit and counter affidavits in the above I.As. and also filed I.A.No.614 of Z02l under Order VII Rule tt (a)(d) of C.p.C. contending that the suit does not have cause of action and the same is hit by sectio. al @) of the Specific Relief Act. The defendants further submit that though the suit schedule property in amenities block

¶69

5 PNR.,I AND PSs..' CMA Noi^a97 ard ,0i oi202l

¶70

comprising o' Ground⁺ 4 Upper^{floors is underthe possession} and enjoymt nt of the^{defendants,contrary to the building} permission, tl Le plaintiff has created^{another unofficial gate vide} proceedings t f GHMC authorities^{dated 19.02.2020 in frontof} the suit sch rdule ProPerty,^{thereby the defendalltswere} constrainecl t r file^{W.P.No.15707of 2021, and this Hon'ble} directed the^< oncerned authorities^{to submit the action taken} report and th,' same^{is pending' The defendantsfurther stated} that two cella"s entire community^{has been extended beneath} the suit sched, rle^{property, which denotes that the suit schedule} property does not have any^{specificland to hold thereon and} thereby the st it schedule Property^{is nothing but an integral} part of Build.ng Permit and^{it was depicted in the sale} communicatio ts sent^{to Flat purchasersin 2011 and 2013 by the} plaintiff. The t efendants^{further submit that the suit has been} filed by one of the party^{in DevelopmentAgreement-cum-GPA} dated, 23.'12.20⁾⁹ and^{thus, the suit is not filed b1' necessary} parties as ensl rined^{under Order I Rules1 and 10 of C'P'C'} Thev further s.ated^{that though the extent of land of Acs 10'10} gts. as shown^{I n the Development Agreement-cum-GPA dated} 23.1,2.2009, the rlaintiff^{had obtained permissiononlv for Acs'9-} 04 gs. and^{distr ibuted the land to 980 Flat purchasersbasing on} the Developm^{rnt Agreement-cum-GPAdated 23'1'2'2009as}

¶71

PNR..J^ANDPSS'] CMA Nos^{49,a$d501ol.2021}

¶72

¶73

Acs.10-'1.0^{gts., thereby the Flat purchasers are deprivedof more} than an extent^{of Ac.1-00 and hence,no land is availableto the} plaintiff.^{The defendants aiso disputedthe fact that the subiect} matter in^{the suit O.S'No.133of 2021and O S'No 93 of 202fis} one and the^{same. The defendantsfurther contended that the} suit has to be^{initiated by one party, instead of both the parties} viz. developer^{and the land ownerand hence the suit is hit by} mis-joinder of proper^{and necessaryparty. The defendantsalso} contended that there^{is no material evideirce filed by the} plaintiff with regard to handing^{over of 10,000 sq' feet area in} the building complex to the defendants^{and that ir,corporation} of clause about the mentioning of 10,000 sq. feet towards Club House in the Sale Deed dated 27.02,2020 is nothing but an after thought of the plaintiff just before issue of Occupancy Certificate dated 03.03.2020 in order to create litigation over the suit schedule property.

¶74

The trial Court basing on the averments and counter averments and the evidence on record placed before it, ailowed both the I.A.Nos.239 and, 240 of 2021 vide order dated 01.09,2021observing that O.S,No.133 of 20l1is filed earlier rhan the suit in O.S.No.93 of 2021and the cause of action in both the suits is different and there is no suppressio. of *aterial facts. It

¶75

¶76

7 PNR,J AND PSS. J CMA Nn,l9? urd 503 of202l

¶77

;

¶78

is also obser red that though Section 10 of C.P.C. provides for stav of the rial of the suit proceedings of the sanre subject matter betwt en the same parties with same reliel', it does not applv to tl-re i rterlocutory proceedings.

¶79

I.A.No.1 40 of 2021. is filed^{to restrain the defendantsfrom} interfering or ffespassing^{into the suit schedule property'} I.A.No.239 of Z02f^{is filed to restrainthem fiom alienating or} creating third^{party interest in the suit scheduie property'} Aggrieved by^{he said order,these appeals are Preferred'}

¶80

g. Aggrievtd by the said common^{order dated 01 09'2021'} the appellant: /defendants^{have filed the presentappeals} seeking to^{set aside the said commonorder dated01"09'2021} passed^{bY the t'ial Court'}

¶81

Admittet^{ly, the piaintiff in the suit has undertaken} construction^{oi apartment buildingcompiex,,in amenities block} inthenameardstyleof,,AdityalmperialHeights,,,overthe Iand^{admeasur ng Acs'10-01 guntasin Sy'Nos'83 to 87' situated} at Hafeezpet^{village,SerilingampallyMandal'Ranga Reddy} Dislrict,^{after c ltainingBuildingPermissionvide Permit dated} 07.O7.2[11ovel^{an extent o( Acs'9'04 guntas'and also obtained} Occupancv^{Ct rtificate dated 03'03'2020'Out of the area}

raa-r--,@a:.n*""

,---

PNR.l^ANDPSS.,I CMA^{Nos497and 501of 2021}

¶86

¶87

admeasuring^{29,422.71' sq. ft (approximately 30'000 sft)' the} plaintiff^{left an extent of 10,000sft for construclionof club} house and intended^{to construct amenities block in Ground} plus four upper^{floors(G+4) in an extent of 30,000 sft There is} no dispute with^{regard to club housein an extentof 10'000sft'} The main dispute^{between the parties is only regarding} amenities block in^{an extent of 30,000 sft' The plaintiff} contended that^{defendant No.1 is entitled to hold possession of} the suit schedule ProPerty^{as per the AmendmentAgreement} to Development Agreement-cum-GPA^{dated24.11,.2012.It is} also contended that O.S.No,133of^{2021 is filed regarding 40,000} sft. And the cause of action in^{the said suit arose on 03.03.2020} and20.12.2020, whereas^{O.S.No.93 of 202f is filed for au extent} of 30,000 sft and the cause of^{actiou for the said suit aroseorl} 11..09 .2019,^-17 .02.2021",^{19 .02.2021 and 22.02.2021. Thetr i a I Cou r t} held that the extent of land in both^{the suits and the datesof} cause of action arose in both^{the suits is differentand hence the} suit O.S.No.93 of 2021 is not hit by^{the principlesof resjudicata.} It was also observed that though Section¹⁰ of^{C.P.C. provides} for stay of the trial of the suit proceedings of the same subject matter between the same parties with same relief, it does not apply to the interlocutory proceedings.

¶88

The cas' of the plaintiff is that thev corrstrut:ted 980 residential Ap rrtments and also club house and also rtbtained permission for construction of commercial buildinl; comprises of Ground + 4 upper floors in an extent of 40,000 sq.ft, which ultimately feil to the exclusive share of the plaintilf.^The plaintiff retain rd ownership of the^{commercial buildir-rg and} handed over t. re area of 10,000 sft.^{set up for. the purpose of} club house, Gy n and other amenities^as Per^{Clause 5(c) of the} Agreen.rent dat, 11 24.11.2012,^{whichreadsas follows:}

¶89

"fhe pa'ties of the First and Second Part does by way of i bsolute sale hereby^{grant, convey, transfer} and ass gn onto the Vendees the Flat^No.1204 aclmeasr ring 1490 sft. including^{common area in} 12th floo' along with Two Car^{parking in Aditya} Imperial Heights (Richmond D-Block),^A Designa :d Proiect club^{house of 10,000 sft is} provide< in the Commercial^{Block to all Imperial} Heights^ilat Owners".

¶90

12, The comrr:rcial^{block in an extent of 30,000 sft js not part} of commorr area of^{the Project as it is worth Rs'40-00Orores,the} plaintiff entered into^{Lease Agreement with M/s' Ratna Deep} Super Market^I y^{virtue of Ex.A-7Lease Agreementdated} 09.02.201.9.^Whe r^{they are carrying out interior works,the} Presiclent of def,'ndant^{No'1 along with others trespassedinto} the, premises^{an, t also made largeinscriptions on the walls of} the suit schedult^{properryi.e., "NOTFOR SALE OR LEASE"} "THIS PROPER: Y BELONGS^{TO AIHFOWA" on al' sides of}

¶91

PNR..I ANI)^PSS,.] CMA Nos^{197and50i otl02l}

¶92

¶93

the walls and also threatened^{the EstateManagerwith dire} consequences, as such, the plaintiff gave^a police^complainton 19.0'1.2021 before SHO, Miyapur Police Statiorr. The plaintiff further stated that without any right, when the cleferrdants hietl to trespass into the suit schedule propertv of the plairrtiff ar.r c'l fix the banners and sign board of the tenant Vijetha Super Market, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present su it O.S.No.93 of 202'l along with I.A.Nos.239 ancl 240 of 2021 arrcj the trial Court has rightly allowed both the applications.

¶94

According to learned counsel for the plaintiff, the plaintiff constructed residential apartments and also commercial block handed over the residential flats and club house in an extent of 10,000 sft to defendant No.1, but retained 30,000 sft in commercial block as the ownership of the said commercial block always vests with them and hence defendant No.1 has no right or title over the suit schedule property. It is contended that when defendant No.1 tried to interfere with its possession, the plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent irrjunction.

¶95

The learned counsel for plaintiff contended that as per Annexure - 16, Agreement dated 04.09.2027, a 5% of the site area out of 9 Acres (excluding iand area gone under road widening) which comes to 2000.11 sq. meters is only meant for

¶96

ii CMA Nos PNR,IANDPSS.^{19? and501ol202l} J

¶97

commercial^{e nd amenities block, and as per OccuPancy} Certificate^{G'ound + 4storied amenities block is for} commercial^{us age by the plaintiff only' It is furthercontended} that since the^{ciaintiff has not recognizeddefendant No'1, the} Corpus Fund^{.s not transferred, nor were the commonareas/} handedovertldefendantNo'1'Further'defendantNo'l'was registered^{unc er the SocietiesRegistration Act' but not under} the Cooperab^{ve Societies Act and they never paid any} consideration^{:o the Developer for commercial or amenities} block, buildini ;^{area, nor paid the stamp duty underStamps} and Registrati^{>n Act, nor got any title through 'Iransferof} Property^{Act, nor derived title nnder the provisions of} Telangana^{A rartments (PromotionofConstructionand} OwnershiP)^{A' t, 1987'}

¶98

It^{is fu. ther contendedthat in the absence of any} registered^{dee 1, the defendantNo'Lcannotclaim any rights} over^{anvarei s of the Proiect, includingthe suit schedule} property.^{That the word "handedover" is mainly based on the} title through^{'he registered deed' Initially'in the Agreement} dated^{24.11.2C12, the share of ratio between the plaintiff and} defendant^{No. t was stipulatedas 45% and 55%' but later it was} amendedas3l%totheownerand'7}%totheDeveloper.The

¶99

¶100

PNR.] AND PSS. J CM^.Nos 49'r .M 501ol20rl

¶101

¶102

plaintiff also got issued legal notice dated 26.02.2021 lo M/s.Vijetha Super Market and filed C.R.p.No.352of 2021 and obtained status-quo order dated 01.03.2021. pursuant to the same, the said M/s.Vijetha Super Market gave an undertaking to stop further activities in the suit schedule property. Further, despite the status-quo order dated 01..03.2021,, when defendant No.1 tried to interfere with the suit schedule property, the Estate Manager of plaintiff filed FIR.No.572 of 2027 on the file of SHO, Miyapur^police Station and second FIR.No.724 ol 2021 was filed against the defendant No.1 and its Members.

¶103

Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submitted that plaintiff delayed construction works for 4 years ancl after completion of residential and commercial blocks could not hand over the premises. Later, he illegally erected separate entry for the commercial bock in an extent of 30,000 sft. Though in all the documents, it was clearly mentioned that the plaintiff shall hand over possession of the residential block and also club area, including Ground + 4 upper floors of the amenities block. now the plaintiff is contending that the commercial block totallly belongs to it and entered into an agreement with M/s. Ratna Deep Super Market, without knowledge of deferrdaut No.1. He therefore, submits that O.S.No.1 33 of 2027was filed

¶104

¶105

PNR,.] AND PSS, J CMA Nos,l97 nrd tol ol202l

¶106

praying to grant decree restraining the ptaintiff from proceeding r,^'ith the said construction

¶107

Both th r suits are filed seeking injunction reslraining each other, thoui h the dispute belween them is regarding orvnership of 10,000 sft which is treated as commercial block,ⁱⁿ the entire arei of construction.

¶108

These aI 3 matters which^{require consideratiotrduring the} course of tria in the suit.^{We refrain from expressing anv} opinion ou all :ontentious^issues.

¶109

Suffice o note that^{Clause-4 ofthe Ame'ndment} Agreementd'a'ed24.'l1r.20l2istotheeffectlhat"ThttcbLbhouse' xoimming pool,^{gardens and otfur amenitiesshallbe o'tl)ned iointly} and will be hant^{ed oaer to the Flat Owners Association/Society aftet} tlrc project is^{cc npleted anr) deliaeredto the Flat Oruners'"Prima} .fnt:ie,^{as per Clause-4 mentioned above' the club and other} amenities^{shall be owned} iointly^{and they will be handed over} to the defendar^{t No.1 after completion of the Project'}

¶110

Further,^{t re Building Permissionorder' in u'hich it was} was sanctioned for^residential held that^the Permission apartments anc^{Ground+ 4 upper floors for amenities block} Admittedly,^{tl econslructionofthe CommercialBlock}

¶111

PNR,IAND^{PsS I.".,} ( MA Nos^{4el ad ir)- ol rurl} l4

¶112

consisting^{of Ground + 4 upperfloors is still going on'} ect is^comPletedand therefore,^{it cannot be said that the Proj} handed^{over to defendant No 1'}

¶113

21.^{Therefore, it is not Properto restrain the plaintiff from} proceeding^{with the consffuction of commercialblock in an} extent^{of 30,000 sft in the interestof both the plaintiffand also} defendant^{No.1. The issue regarding ownership of an exteut of} 30,000 sft^{and also thelocus standi ol defendantNo1 are to be} decided^{in a suit filed in appropriate forum bv both the parties'} as O.S.No.133^{of 2027 and O S'No'93 of 2021' are filed onlv for} grant of^{permanent iniunction'Therefore' we do not fiud anv} reason to interfere^{with the order dated 01"09'2021' passed bv} thetrialCourtrestrainingdefendantNo.lfrominterferingand trespassing into^{the suit schedule property; so also in} I.A.No.239 of^{2021, wherein defendant No'1 was restrained} from entering into^{agreementswith the third parties (M/s'} Vijetha Super^{Market).The Court finds just and reasonable to} direct the plaintiff to proceed^{with the constructionof} commercial block and complete^{expeditiously'}

¶114

However, as clause 4 of the Amendment^Agreement dated 24.1-1,.20L2 prima facie contemplate vesting of entire amenities cenke to the residential association, we deer-n it

¶115

appropri Lte to direct the plaintiff to dePosit the, rents, advances and other rncome received from the commerci,al b,uildings in a separate a l count in a scheduled bank/commercial bank opened for this pr rrpose and shall not withdraw the amount withor_rt the prior l,ermission from the trial Court. The details of the bank accor nt shall be furnished to the tria i court within four w,eeks Thr rents, advances and other rncome shall be received only throul h account payee cheque/ bankers cheque,/ oniine hansfer.

¶116

In thr result, both the appeals are clisnrissed bv con-firming t re order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the trial Court No order as o costs.

¶117

Misceilrneous apllications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶118

¶119

SdIB,S,CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

¶120

The xv Addition rr District.and sessions Judge -cum- XV Additionar r,4etroporitan Sessions Judge -cum- ll Additional Famity.t"uOge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally,

¶121

?. 9n" !!^to !r!^{A rpa Rao Vupputuri, Advocate (OPUC)}

¶122

One CC to Sri B rarath Reddy 8., Advocate tObUCJ

¶123

Two CD Copies

¶124

One Spare Copy

¶125

¶126

A\A

¶127

HIGH COURT DATED:07 t}ltiil2}

¶128

;? $ rA ,' di
)
i 1B,lar{2022

¶129

COMMON JUDG MENT

¶130

CMA.No.497 anc 503 ot 2021

¶131

DISMISSING BO'iH CMAs NO COSTS.

Ms. Aditya Imperial Heights Flat Owners Welfare Association v. Ms.Aditya Construction Company India Private limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Aditya Imperial Heights Flat Owners Welfare Association v. Ms.Aditya Construction Company India Private limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Chitrala Chandrakala and 7 Others

M/s. Indukuri Life Spaces LLP Vs Sri. C. Kumar Goud and 4 Others

N Man Mohan Raj Vs Church of South India Trust Association

M/s Kshitij Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai and 2 Others

Kasu Ram Reddy and 2 Ors. Vs M/S,Sri Homes and Anr.

Noor Educational Trust Vs M/s. Z.N.S Builders and Developers