The plaintiff appellant alleged in their plaint that they are the owner of 67,824.50 sq.
Still, in order to be satisfied on the question of companystruction in the suit property, as numbered herinearlier, we appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who submitted its report.
In one application, the main relief that was claimed by the plaintiff appellant was to restrain the defendants respondents from alienating or transferring the suit property including the structures companying up thereon and in the other, for injunction over the suit property from changing the nature and character thereof pending disposal of the suit.
16.72 crores 11 post dated cheqeus for Rs.
The High Court as well as the trial Court companycurrently found, after going through the report of the Advocate Commissioner, which was appointed by the trial Court, that substantial companystruction has already been made in the suit property.
1 and 2, as mentioned above, are companycerned in the order of the trial Court.
1.4 crores each were dishonoured on presentation and balance cheques were number presented.
28,00,000/ into Court within one month.
Since numberobjection was raised by either of the parties to the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner, we accept the same without any objection and direct that the same may be kept on record.
The Advocate Commissioner appointed by the trial Court submitted his report, which is already on record.
Apartments Block II 2 Rows 150 Apartments in the Block III 2 Rows 85 Apartments Triangular area.
iii Rs.
So far as the findings of the High Court on the question of extent of companystruction is companycerned, it is also the finding of the High Court that the defendants respondents have already taken over possession and made substantial companystruction, as would be evident from the record and also from the report of the Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed by the trial Court.
While deciding the applications for injunction, the said report was taken into companysideration by the trial Court and after hearing the learned companynsel for the parties, the trial Court was prima facie satisfied that substantial companystruction was undertaken and companypleted by the defendants respondents, which had required them to invest crores of rupees.
Since the agreement was terminable and when it was found by the plaintiff appellant that the defendants respondents were proceeding to change the nature and character of the suit property, a suit has been filed by the plaintiff appellant for recovery of possession and damages.
Accordingly, the learned Advocate Commissioner visited the spot and submitted his report, which was also taken up for companysideration along with the main matter.
While dealing with the applications for injunction, the Second Additional City Civil Judge at Hyderabad had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to find out the extent of companystruction raised by the defendants respondents in the suit property as the plaintiff appellant sought to companytend that there was numberconstruction at all in the suit property.
30.50 crores in the following manner Rs.
Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, two appeals were preferred by the plaintiff appellant before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, which by the impugned order, had affirmed the order of the trial Court on the question of companystruction in the suit property, but set aside the directions given by the trial Court so far as Clause Nos.
It is these companycurrent orders, which are number under challenge before us in these appeals.
So far as the findings of the trial Court regarding companystruction on the suit property is companycerned, let us look into its said findings on the question of companystruction, which are as follows In the light of the above circumstances, I find that, already as per the report of the companymissioner and also as per the photographs produced by him, major companystruction work was undertaken and companypleted, it must have required the respondent to invest crores of rupees.
1.32 Crores.
Each Block is divided into various Rows.
That the defendants respondents shall number claim equities over the companystruction made in the land and they are bound by the decision in the suit.
vi The respondents were selling dwelling units to persons who cannot be termed as members of the weaker sections of the society.
iv The respondent number 1 did number carry out companystruction in accordance with the sanctioned scheme.
Some Blocks have more Rows and some Blocks have less Rows.
ii Rs.
1.40 crores each and one post dated cheque for a sum of Rs.
iii Out of the 12 post dated cheques given by the Respondent, 2 cheques were honoured, 4 of Rs.
In the plaint as well as in the application for injunction, it was alleged by the plaintiff appellant that the defendants respondents, after paying first installment, had failed to pay the balance installments as agreed upon by them because of an order of injunction obtained by the plaintiff appellant against the defendants respondents in a writ petition filed by them in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
In the aforesaid suit, two applications for injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure were filed by the plaintiff appellant.
Under the said Agreement, the defendants respondents agreed to pay an aggregate sum of Rs.
16.72 crores for utilizing the companysultations, advice and services of the petitioner over the suit property along with service tax o the said amount for which invoices had been raised by the plaintiff appellant.
The report of the Advocate Commissioner may be kept on record.
yards of land, situated at Borabanda, Fathenagar, Ashok Marg, Hyderabad hereinafter referred to as the suit property .
The respondents entered into agreement with third parties without furnishing any details thereof.
16.72 crores and also did number pay the service tax payable on the said amount.
There is numberevenness in the number of Rows for each Block.
The Defendants respondents shall furnish the particulars of the prospective buyers of the residential units in advance to the Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling, and it must be made clear to the prospective buyers that their purchases are subject to the result of the suit by making a specific recital in the agreement of sale or sale deed, as the case may be.
ii The respondent did number furnish a Bank Guarantee for the amount of Rs.
1 issued 12 post dated cheques for a total sum of Rs.
13.50 crores by way of number refundable amount.
iii Whether such companystructions can be said to be substantial companystructions or number iv Whether companystructions have been companypleted in some blocks of the suit property and the flats companystructed in such blocks are ready for use and occupation Also to see the local features.
These are the two companycurrent findings of fact arrived at by the High Court as well as by the trial Court on the question of extent of companystruction on the suit property.
Some of the breaches of the agreement in question, as alleged by the plaintiff appellant, are as follows The respondent No.
The layout is as under 1 Block I 2 Rows 60 Apartments 295 .
28,36,525/ towards the companyt of land.
On behalf of the plaintiff appellant, Mr. Nariman, learned senior companynsel, submitted that even from the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court, it would be clear that substantial companystruction has number been made in the suit property, whereas Dr. Singhvi, learned senior companynsel, also has drawn our attention to the report of the Advocate Commissioner of this Court and submitted that there cannot be any doubt that a substantial companystruction has already been made by the defendants respondents, for which a huge sum of money has already been invested.
The plaintiff appellant as well as the defendants respondents executed a Development Agreement cum Power of Attorney on 21st of September, 2007.
The Blocks are numbered in the site plan attached herewith as Annexure C 3.
It is the case of the plaintiff appellant that since the defendants respondents had acted in breach of the agreement, the same was duly terminated.
For better understanding and for better description of the areas in the Blocks, I had given numbers for the Rows in each Block separately in the site plan.
These two appeals have been filed from a companymon order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, by which the High Court had affirmed an order of the Second Additional City Civil Judge at Hyderabad, disposing of an application for injunction filed at the instance of the plaintiff appellant on two applications for injunction in a suit for recovery of possession and damages.
That it shall furnish bank guarantee for the value of the unrealized post dated cheques, and pay deposit the value of four cheques, which were dishonoured, within one month from today.
TARUN CHATTERJEE,J. Leave granted.
At the time of admission of this matter, caveat had already been filed by the defendants respondents.
On the question of extent of companystruction made by the defendants respondents in the suit property, we have, therefore, companysidered the findings of the High Court as well as of the trial Court and also the report submitted by the learned Advocate Commissioner in this Court.
