Telangana High Court
M//S. Konstruct Realty India Pvt. Ltd vs Gokaraju Pandu Ranga Raju on 26 March, 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
***
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRP.Nos.1930, 2053, 2094, 2115, 2116,
2118, 2757, 2774 AND 2775 of 2025
26th March, 2026
CRP No.1930 of 2025:
Between:
M/s. Konstruct Realty India Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director M. Bala Krishna Rao
...Petitioner
And
Gokaraju Pandu Ranga Raju and Four Others
...Respondents
CRP No.2053 of 2025:
Between:
M/s. Konstruct Realty India Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director M. Bala Krishna Rao
...Petitioner
And
Smt.Kundharaju Kumari and Four Others
...Respondents
CRP No.2094 of 2025:
Between:
M/s. Konstruct Realty India Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director M. Bala Krishna Rao
...Petitioner
And
Gokaraju Pandu Ranga Raju and Four Others
...Respondents
2
CRP No.2115 of 2025:
Between:
M/s. Konstruct Realty India Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director M. Bala Krishna Rao
...Petitioner
And
Gokaraju Venkata Narasimha Raju and Four Others
...Respondents
CRP No.2116 of 2025:
Between:
M/s. Konstruct Realty India Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director M. Bala Krishna Rao
...Petitioner
And
Smt.Kunadharaju Kumari and Four Others
...Respondents
CRP No.2118 of 2025:
Between:
M/s. Konstruct Realty India Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director M. Bala Krishna Rao
...Petitioner
And
Gokaraju Venkata Narasimha Raju and Four Others
...Respondents
CRP No.2757 of 2025:
Between:
M/s. Taramandal Estates Private Limited,
Rep. by its Director Rajesh Agarwal
...Petitioner
And
Gokaraju Pandu Ranga Raju and Five Others
...Respondents
3
CRP No.2774 of 2025:
Between:
M/s. Taramandal Estates Private Limited,
Rep. by its Director Rajesh Agarwal
...Petitioner
And
Smt.Kunadharaju Kumari and Five Others
...Respondents
CRP No.2775 of 2025:
Between:
M/s. Taramandal Estates Private Limited,
Rep. by its Director Rajesh Agarwal
...Petitioner
And
G.Venkata Narasimha Raju and Five Others
...Respondents
Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel, learned counsel representing Ms. A.
Tejaswi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in CRP.Nos.2757, 2774 and
2775 of 2025.
Mr. Sunil B.Ganu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. I. Ramesh, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner in CRP.Nos.1930, 2053, 2094, 2115, 2116 and
2118 of 2025.
Mr. E.Ajay Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Suresh Bhaktula,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.
COMMON ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. All the Civil Revision Petitions (CRPs) are being disposed of by this Common Order in view of the similarity of facts and issues raised before the Court.
2. The nine CRPs arise out of six impugned orders dated 27.02.2025 by which the Trial Court allowed the three Interim 4 Applications (IAs) filed by the plaintiffs and dismissed three Interim Applications filed by the defendant No.1/Konstruct.
3. The CRPs can be divided into three groups.
3.1. CRP Nos.2053, 1930 and 2115 of 2025 have been filed by the defendant No.1 - M/s. Konstruct Realty India Pvt. Ltd. ("Konstruct") for setting aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 passed in applications filed by the plaintiff directing the defendant No.1 to deposit arrears of rent to the credit of the Suit as well as future rents. 3.2. CRP Nos.2094, 2116 and 2118 of 2025 have been filed by the defendant No.1/Konstruct to set aside the impugned orders dated 27.02.2025 dismissing the applications filed by the defendant No.1 seeking refund of the security deposit from the plaintiff. 3.3. CRP Nos.2757, 2774 and 2775 of 2025 have been filed by the defendant No.6 - M/s.Taramandal Estates Private Limited ("Taramandal") to set aside the impugned orders dated 27.02.2025 allowing the applications filed by the plaintiff for a direction on the defendant No.1 to deposit arrears of rent and future rents.
4. The three plaintiffs viz., Smt.Kundharajau Kumari, Venkata Narasimha Raju and Gokraju Pandu Ranga Raju individually filed three suits i.e., COS Nos.45, 43 and 44 of 2023, respectively, against the defendants for specific performance of a Development Agreement dated 05.02.2020 and for a declaration that the Letters of Intent 5 (LOIs) executed by the defendant No.1 (D1) in favour of the defendant Nos.2 to 4 as null and void. The plaintiffs also prayed for recovery of arrears of rent pertaining to their share in the property in I.As.
5. The contesting parties, namely D1, D6 and the plaintiff, were represented by learned Senior Counsel. The submissions made by Senior Counsel appearing for the parties summed-up the cases of D1 (Konstruct), D6 (Taramandal) and the plaintiff with reference to the impugned orders.
6. The CRPs filed by D1/Konstruct were taken up for hearing on the request of Senior Counsel appearing for the parties.
7. Senior Counsel appearing for D1/Konstruct submits that the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts and is hence not entitled to any equitable relief. Counsel submits that the plaintiff is also estopped from raising a plea which is contrary to the Development Agreement-cum-GPA with reference to non-receipt of the refundable security deposit. Counsel submits that the plaintiff was aware of the Settlement with Taramandal (D6) at all material times and counsel urges that the Court cannot re-write the contract between the parties and direct D1 to deposit rents which is contrary to the clauses of the Development Agreement.
6
8. The primary contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for Taramandal is that the arrears of rent to the extent of 25% which fell to the share of Taramandal were directed to be deposited without providing an opportunity of hearing to Taramandal. Counsel submits that the Trial Court should have considered the events subsequent to the execution of the Development Agreement under which the plaintiffs authorised the developer/Konstruct to sign on their behalf pursuant to which the developer signed the MOU dated 12.02.2021 on behalf of the plaintiffs. Counsel reiterates the submission made on behalf of Konstruct that the plaintiffs are guilty of suppression of material facts to the extent that the plaintiffs were a party to the contempt proceedings initiated by Taramandal and a party to the MOU dated12.02.2021.
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in the three Suits narrates the background facts to urge that the plaintiffs did not give any authority to D1 to sign the MOU on behalf of the plaintiffs whereby 50% of the entire constructed area of the plaintiffs was illegally transferred in favour of Taramandal without the plaintiffs' consent. It is also submitted that no property rights could have accrued in favour of Taramandal in the absence of the plaintiffs' consent to relinquish its share in the property in favour of Taramandal. Counsel further submits that D1/Developer has illegally collected rents which rightfully belong to the plaintiffs and that the Trial Court correctly directed D1 to deposit the rents which were part 7 of the admitted position expressed on behalf of D1. Counsel submits that the impugned order is an innocuous order passed in the interest of the parties to the Suit as it merely directs D1 to deposit the arrears of rent in Court.
10. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the admitted facts which led to filing of the three Suits, the interim applications and culmination of the same in the form of the impugned orders dated 27.02.2025.
11. The common effect of the impugned orders is as follows:
First, D1/Konstruct was directed to deposit the monthly rents of 50% of the area being collected from the tenants - which fall in the plaintiffs' share as per the Development Agreement-cum-general power of attorney to the credit of the Suit. Second, D1 was directed to deposit the monthly rent every month in the same proportion until further orders or disposal of the Suit, whichever is earlier. Third, D1 was also directed to deposit rents in respect of 25% of the area collected from the tenants which were lying with D1 from the date of lease till the date of the impugned order to the credit of the Suit within 15 days. Last, the Trial Court rejected the D1's prayer for refund of the security deposit which D1 claimed was lying with the plaintiff.
12. The brief facts leading to the filing of the three Suits and the applications are as follows:
8
13. The plaintiffs (respondent No.1 in each of the CRPs) are the absolute owners of the Suit schedule properties forming the subject matter of the three Suits. The plaintiffs entrusted the land to the defendant No.1 for developing a commercial building complex under a registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 05.02.2020. Under the said Development Agreement, the development of the commercial building was to be completed within 36 months from the date of obtaining the sanctioned plan (Clause 7). Clause 5.1 of the Development Agreement provided that the plaintiffs would be entitled to 50% of the super built up area including common areas, circulation area, balconies, parking area along with proportionate along with proportionate share of undivided land. Further, as per Clause 22.3 of the Development agreement, Konstruct/D1 was to hand over the constructed area to the owners or his purchasers after payment of their proportionate share of amount towards metro water works, TSGENCO, Generator and Service Tax.
14. D6/Taramandal put forth a rival claim on the Suit schedule property and obtained an order of status quo on 02.08.2019 in Civil Revision Petition (CRP) No.1621 of 2019 filed by Taramandal. The plaintiff was not a party to the said CRP. The Development Agreement between the plaintiff and Konstruct was executed after the aforesaid interim order dated 02.08.2019. Konstruct/D1 assured the plaintiff that the constructed area would be handed over to the plaintiff as per the Development Agreement and as agreed between the parties. 9 Taramandal filed Contempt Case No.788 of 2020 against the respondents in the CRP including the plaintiffs and Konstruct, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 29.07.2022.
15. In the meantime, D1 completed construction of the commercial complex but failed to hand over the constructed area to the plaintiffs as was agreed by the parties under the Development Agreement. D1 alleged that it had entered into an MOU dated 12.02.2021 with the plaintiffs and Taramandal. The plaintiffs contend that this MOU was executed without their knowledge or consent. The plaintiffs also submit that they did not sign the MOU and did not confer any authority on D1 to sign the MOU on their behalf. It was further submitted by the plaintiffs that D1 illegally transferred 50% of the entire constructed area falling to the plaintiffs' share in favour of Taramandal, falsely showing that the plaintiffs had signed the MOU.
16. D1/Konstruct started to collect the proportionate rents belonging to the plaintiffs and admitted the fact of leasing out areas to various third parties. The plaintiffs filed three Suits for a direction on D1 to deposit the rents collected by D1 in Court on the claim that D1 had illegally transferred the plaintiffs' rights in favour of Taramandal. D1 in turn alleged that there was an oral understanding between D1 and the plaintiffs in respect of signing of the MOU and filed applications seeking refund of the security deposits from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs disputed the fact of receiving any security deposit and 10 contended that D1 had in fact promised to pay security deposit to the plaintiffs at a later point of time.
17. The background to filing of the nine CRPs should be clarified.
18. The plaintiffs filed three Suits, namely COS Nos.43, 44 and 45 of 2023. COS No.43 of 2023 was filed by Smt. Kundharaju Kumari for specific performance of the Development Agreement-cum-GPA dated 05.02.2020, for a declaration that the Letters of Intent (LOIs) executed by D1/Konstruct in favour of D2 to D4 are null and void and for a direction on D1 to pay Rs.31,88,595.80/- towards arrears of damages and Rs.3,82,631.50/- towards future damages.
19. COS No.44 of 2023 was filed by Venkata Narasimha Raju for specific performance of the Development Agreements-cum-GPAs dated 07.02.2020 and 17.02.2020, for a declaration that the LOIs executed by D1 in favour of D2 to D4 are null and void and for a direction on D1 to pay Rs.19,94,622/- towards arrears of damages and Rs.2,44,357/- per month towards future damages in respect of A and B schedule properties.
20. COS No.45 of 2023 was filed by Gokaraju Pandu Ranga Raju for specific performance of the Development Agreement-cum-GPA dated 07.02.2020, for a declaration that the LOIs executed by D1 in favour of D2 to D4 are null and void and for a direction on D1 to pay Rs.31,87,386/- towards arrears of damages and Rs.4,56,952/- per month towards future damages.
11
21. The Commercial Court passed six orders on the same date, i.e., 27.02.2025, in six Interlocutory Applications filed by the parties herein. I.A. Nos.126, 127 and 125 of 2024 were filed by the plaintiffs seeking deposit of arrears and future rents from D1. I.A. Nos.201, 205 and 197 of 2024 were filed by D1/Konstruct seeking a direction on the plaintiffs to refund the security deposit. The Trial Court disposed of the three I.As filed by the plaintiffs by directing D1/Konstruct to deposit monthly rents in respect of 50% of the area collected from the tenants which had fallen to the share of the plaintiffs as per the Development Agreement, to the credit of the Suits. The Trial Court also directed D1 to continue to deposit the aforesaid amount every month until further orders and further directed D1 to deposit rents in respect of 25% share already collected from the tenants and lying with D1 from the date of the lease, including security deposits/advance deposits paid by the tenants, till the date of the impugned order, to the credit of the Suits.
22. The three I.As filed by D1/Konstruct were dismissed with the observation that the refund of the security deposit can be considered after D1 establishes its case on merits. The Trial Court also observed that D1 would have a lien on the refundable deposit amount as per the terms of the Development Agreement out of the arrears of rents and future rents to be deposited by D1.
12
23. It would be evident from the above facts that the Development Agreement executed between the plaintiffs and D1/Konstruct dated 05.02.2020 is an admitted document and is valid and subsisting as on date. The Development Agreement describes the plaintiffs as "landowners" and D1/Konstruct as "developers/builders". The recital to the Agreement refers to the title of the plaintiffs to the schedule property as being absolute, good, marketable and subsisting.
24. Clause 5.1 of the Development Agreement provides for sharing of the built-up area and stipulates that Konstruct shall deliver 50% of the super built-up area to the plaintiffs and the Konstruct would be entitled to the remaining 50% of the super built-up area. The Agreement also contains tables reflecting the portions agreed to be shared with the plaintiffs/landowners and the portion allotted to the share of the developer/D1/Konstruct. Hence, the sharing of the built- up area as provided under Clause 5.1 of the Development Agreement- cum-Irrevocable GPA dated 05.02.2020 stood crystallised between the plaintiffs and D1/Konstruct and remains undisputed.
25. On the other hand, the MOU dated 12.02.2021 between Taramandal, the Directors and sons of the Directors of Konstruct, is a disputed document. Although the name of the plaintiffs is reflected as the fourth party to the said MOU, the plaintiffs urge that the MOU was executed without their knowledge or consent. 13
26. As stated above, the plaintiffs say that the MOU does not reflect that the plaintiffs were represented by D1 in its capacity as the plaintiffs' GPA holder. The plaintiffs also contend that Konstruct was not given any authority to sign the MOU on behalf of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the MOU dated 12.02.2021 is a disputed document where the issue of authenticity and lack of authority raised by the plaintiffs' merits serious consideration. This is all the more so since D1/Konstruct claims that the plaintiffs relinquished their rights to the extent of 25% in favour of Taramandal.
27. Further, D1/Konstruct admitted in its written statement that it had leased out areas of the suit schedule property to third parties. These third parties are the other respondents in the CRPs. D1 further admitted that it is collecting rents from these third parties/tenants. The aforesaid statement has been made by D1 in its written statement. The impugned order also records the statement made on behalf of D1 that it is ready to deposit 50% of its share in the Court on account of the above Suits.
28. The above three paragraphs would show the extent of the admissions made by D1/Konstruct during the hearing of the applications before the Trial Court. It would also reflect that while the Development Agreement between the plaintiffs and D1 is an undisputed document, the MOU executed between Taramandal, the plaintiffs, Konstruct and the Directors and sons of Konstruct, who also claim to be part landowners, is a disputed document. 14
29. Hence, the Trial Court rightly concluded that the issues raised by the parties with regard to the MOU are matters which are required to be decided at trial since both the parties would be required to adduce evidence to prove the genuineness (or the lack thereof) of the MOU.
30. Further, the Trial Court correctly found that the main dispute between the parties, namely between the plaintiffs, D1 and Taramandal, was restricted to the earmarking of 25% of the 50% share of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' consequential demand with regard to deposit of rents collected by D1. The Trial Court also found that there is no dispute with regard to allotment of 50% share of the plaintiffs and that D1 had categorically admitted to receiving rents of 50% of the area which had fallen to the plaintiffs' share as per the Development Agreement. The Trial Court noted the submission made on behalf of D1 that it was ready to deposit the rents of the 50% area to the account of the present Suits and accordingly directed D1 to deposit the rents of the 50% area which was contractually allotted to the share of the plaintiffs as per the Development Agreement. The Trial Court also found it necessary to direct D1 to deposit the rents in respect of 25% of the area already collected from the tenants which were lying with D1 from the date of the lease till the date of the impugned order also to the credit of the Suits.
15
31. We do not find any error in these directions by reason of the fact that the plaintiffs' share of 50% stood crystallised under the Development Agreement. On the other hand, the plaintiffs relinquishment of 25% (of the plaintiffs' 50% share) in favour of Taramandal under the MOU dated 12.02.2021 is disputed. Hence, the direction on D1 to deposit the rents to the credit of the Suit until the factum of the MOU was established in the course of Trial was justified and expedient. In fact, the Trial Court balanced the rival contentions and only directed deposit of rents (as per the submissions made on behalf of D1) without permitting the plaintiffs to withdraw the deposited amounts.
32. Further, there is no doubt that D1 has collected and continues to collect substantial amounts of rents from the tenants considering that the tenants are popular eating places/restaurants. Hence, deposit of rents on a monthly basis is a balanced direction in the face of the claims raised in the Suit and the applications filed by the plaintiffs.
33. The contention of Taramanal that the plaintiffs authorised Konstruct to sign on their behalf and also agreed to transfer 25% of their share in favour of Taramandal reinforces the view that the disputed questions of fact can only be resolved through evidence at the stage of trial. The fact that Taramandal was not given an opportunity of hearing before the impugned decision of the Court for deposit of arrears of rent pales into insignificance since the very claim 16 of Taramandal to 25% of the plaintiffs' share to rents is disputed. The plaintiffs refuting the MoU dated 12.02.2021 and denying any authorisation given to Konstruct to represent the plaintiffs is certainly a matter which can only be adjudicated in trial. Taramandal's alleged prejudice by reason of the impugned direction can very well be addressed and adjudicated upon if Taramandal (and Konstruct) are able to prove that the plaintiffs consented to relinquishing of their 25% of the share in favour of Taramandal.
34. Public Service Commission v. Mamta Bisht 1 imported the principle of non-joinder of necessary parties to Writ Petitions. In that case, the Supreme Court placed emphasis on the principles of natural justice in respect of a person who was likely to suffer from the order of the Court but was not impleaded as a party to the proceedings. However, in the present case, Taramandal is already a party to COS No.43 of 2023 and the impugned orders are only interim in nature.
35. Moreover, the fact that the plaintiffs were party respondents to the Contempt Proceedings filed by Taramandal does not amount to the plaintiffs acceding to the transfer of rights to Taramandal under the disputed MoU dated 12.02.2021. The Contempt was in any event dismissed on 29.07.2022. All the issues raised by both Konstruct and Taramandal can await the final result of the Suit after a full - fledged trial. Arunima Baruah v. Union of India 2 dealt with a case of 1 (2010) 12 SCC 204 2 (2007) 6 SCC 120 17 suppression of material facts and that a party certainly would not be permitted to pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same subject matter. The plaintiffs in the present case have only filed three suits in the Trial Court and there is no plausible case made out for suppression of material facts on the part of the plaintiffs. B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy 3 elaborated on the rule of estoppel as a rule of evidence and explained that a person is forbidden in law to speak against his own act or deed. We fail to see how the rule of estoppel can be made applicable to the present case. In Venkataraman Krishnamurthy v. Lodha Crown Buildmart Private Limited 4, the Supreme Court emphasised that the duty of the Court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties and the Court should not make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves.
36. In our view, the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 05.02.2020 crystallized the rights between the plaintiffs and Konstruct in terms of allocation of the constructed area and all rights pertaining thereto. The MOU dated 12.02.2021 has specifically been disputed by the plaintiffs. Hence, there is no scope to hold that the Trial Court altered the contractual terms as settled in the Development Agreement dated 05.02.2020.
3 (2003) 2 SCC 355 4 (2024) 4 SCC 230 18
37. Prem Singh v. Birbal 5 and Hemalatha v. Tukaram 6, reinforces the presumption that a registered document is validly executed and is prima facie valid in law. In Prem Singh, it was further held that the onus of proof would be on the person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the present case, the stage for the parties to lead evidence is yet to arrive. At the cost of repetition, both Konstruct and Taramandal are parties to the suits before the Commercial Court and would be called upon to lead evidence to prove their respective case.
38. Lastly, the impugned order is an innocuous order since the Commercial Court directed only deposit of arrears of rent in Court and did not permit the plaintiffs to withdraw the same. The impugned orders make it clear that the plaintiffs were not able to establish a prima facie case in their favour including to the effect that Konstruct/D1 entered into a MOU on plaintiffs' behalf and transferred 50% of the plaintiffs property to Taramandal without any authority and leased out the plaintiffs' property to the defendant Nos.2 - 5 and collected huge amounts towards rent which would have rightfully fallen to the plaintiffs' share.
39. The Commercial Court directed deposit of rental arrears and future rents upon being satisfied of the prima facie case established by the plaintiffs. The Commercial Court's refusal to order refund of deposit from the plaintiffs was also reasonable in the light of admitted facts and particularly that Konstruct/D1 had transferred valuable 5 (2006) 5 SCC 353 6 2026 SCC OnLine SC 106 19 property belonging to the plaintiffs in favour of Taramandal without any authority and had also leased out the constructed area belonging to the plaintiffs to third parties for the purpose of collecting rents from them. The Commercial Court also found that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury if they were not granted some form of protection by way of arrears of rent.
40. The impugned orders are well-reasoned. The Commercial Court considered the relevant facts and material before it and rightly directed Konstruct/D1 to deposit the rents also in view of Konstruct's stand that it was willing to do so. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. All the contentions raised by Konstruct and Taramandal are matters fit for trial and evidence. Konstruct and Taramandal do not have any basis to complain or assail the impugned orders since Konstruct is only directed to deposit arrears of rent in the manner as set out in the impugned orders. Konstruct's prayer for refund of deposit is also a disputed issue and hence fit for trial. We hence find the Civil Revision Petitions to be wholly without merit and liable to be dismissed on that ground.
41. C.R.P.Nos.1930, 2053, 2094, 2115, 2116, 2118, 2757, 2774 and 2775 of 2025, along with all connected applications, are accordingly dismissed.
20
42. This is a fit case for imposing costs on the petitioners for challenging directions which are wholly non-injurious and innocuous. We however restrain ourselves from imposing costs and request the Commercial Court to expedite hearing of the Suits without granting any adjournments to the parties before it.
_________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J ____________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 26th March, 2026.
NDS/BMS 21 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CRP.Nos.1930, 2053, 2094, 2115, 2116, 2118, 2757, 2774 AND 2775 of 2025 26th March, 2026 NDS/BMS