Patsamatla Ranga Raju vs Shanmukha Prasad Yelamanchii And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 56 Tel

                                1


          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

             HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

           C.M.A.Nos. 498, 499, 500 and 502 of 2021

                        Date :05.01.2022

CMA 498 of 2021
Between:
Patsamatla Ranga Raju
S/o P Bhima Raju Aged about 53 years Occ Business H No 1241
AGR Gardens Survey No 86 87 Hydernagar Kukatpally Hyderabad
Or at 327 Vikrampuri Street No 4 Habsiguda Hyderabad
                                                     Petitioner

                             And
Shanmukha Prasad Yelamanchii and 2 Others
S/o Y Venkata Ramana Aged about 43 years Occ Business R/o
162227/76 Plot no 76 Sardar Patel Nagar Opp to Ratnam Techno
School Kukatpally Hyderabad 500072
                                                   Respondents

The Court made the following:

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

C.M.A.Nos. 498, 499, 500 and 502 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P Naveen Rao)

Heard Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing

for Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for appellants in CMA No.498

of 2021 and 502 of 2021; Sri V Ravinder Rao, learned senior counsel

appearing for Sri Sourabh Agarwal for appellants in CMA Nos. 499 and

500 of 2021 and Sri V.Seetharam Avadhani learned counsel for

respondents 1 and 2 in all the appeals.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as

arrayed in C.M.A. No. 498 of 2021. In C.M.A No. 498 of 2021 the

appellant is defendant no.1; respondents 1 and 2 are plaintiffs and

respondent no.3 is defendant no.2.

3. To the extent relevant, the facts in issue are as under:

(a) It is the case of respondents 1 and 2 that they have lent

.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees ten crores only) in cash to the appellant. As

proof of receipt of 10 crores appellant executed promissory note dated

15.12.2017. Vide letter dated 16.12.2017, he has also pledged original

pattadar pass books of petition schedule "A and B" properties. Schedule

"A" property is land admeasuring Acs.2.12½ guntas forming part of

survey no.86/B (admeasuring Ac.0.37 ½ guntas), Sy.No.87/B

(admeasuring Ac.1.15 guntas) and Sy.No.87/A (admeasuring Ac.2.12 ½).

Schedule "B" is land admeasuring Ac.0.09 ¼ guntas bearing Sy.No.87/A.

All these Survey numbers are in Hydernagar village, Balanagar mandal,

Hyderabad.

(b) Alleging that the said amount is not repaid in spite of

request made several times, causing loss and hardship, respondents 1

and 2 have instituted above suit quantifying the amount by adding

interest at Rs.12,70,25,000/- (Rupees twelve crore seventy lakhs and

twenty five thousand only), with future interest @ 12 % per annum from

the date of suit till the date of realization and costs. Apprehending that

appellant is contemplating to alienate the entire suit schedule land and

change the physical features of the land, respondents 1 and 2 filed I A

No. 672 of 2020 to furnish proper security towards the suit amount and

I.A. No. 673 of 2020 for temporary injunction.

4. Having prima facie found merit in the claim of respondents 1

& 2, the trial Court allowed I.A. No. 673 of 2020 and granted temporary

injunction restraining appellant his subordinates, agents etc from

changing the nature of the land by doing development activities in

respect of petition "A and B" schedule properties until the conditions

imposed in I.A. No. 672 of 2020 are complied with or until further orders.

I.A. No. 672 of 2020 was allowed by specifying the conditions. Appellant

was directed to provide third party security for a sum of Rs.13 crores

towards suit claimed amount, future interest and costs within a period of

three months from the date of order and in the meanwhile attached the

petition schedule "A and B" properties. The appellant was also granted

liberty to furnish sufficient proof to the satisfaction of the court to show

that even part of the petition "A and B" schedule properties are sufficient

towards required security and to seek to raise the attachment on the

remaining extent of the suit schedule land.

5. These four appeals are preferred against orders of XV

Additional District and Sessions Judge cum XV Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge cum II Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy district,

Kukatpally (for brevity referred to as the 'Trial Court') in I.A. Nos. 672 of

2020, 673 of 2020 in O S No. 49 of 2020. C.M.A Nos. 498 and 502 of

2021 are filed by appellant and C.M.A Nos. 499 and 500 of 2021 are filed

by third respondent.

6. While appellant denies allegation of borrowing money from

respondents 1 & 2, respondents 1 & 2 assert this claim by relying on

promissory note alleged to have been executed by the Appellant on

15.12.2017 and pledging of original pattadar passbooks of suit schedule

land on 16.12.2017. These are issues which can be gone into during the

course of trial.

7. Suffice to note at this stage that on the one side is the

apprehension of respondents 1 and 2 on attempts of appellant to alienate

and change physical features of the suit schedule land and on the other

side is the interest of appellant and the 3rd respondent to go ahead with

the proposed construction of multi-storied residential project in the suit

schedule land.

8. During the course of hearing learned Senior Counsel for

appellant and 3rd respondent assure the Court that they will reserve

20,000 Square feet of built up area or as suggested by the Court, whose

value may be approximately Rs.12 Crores and to that extent enter into a

supplemental agreement. Learned counsel for respondents expressed

doubts on completion of project as there appears to be litigation pending

on suit schedule 'A' properties and that market value of flats is about

Rs.4000/- per square feet only in that area and therefore 20,000 square

feet will not meet the suit claim. He further submits that appellant has

already alienated suit schedule 'B' land.

9. While the course suggested by learned Senior Counsel for

appellant and 3rd respondent would safeguard the interest of

respondents 1 and 2 at the same time the concerns expressed by learned

counsel for respondents also require consideration.

10. Taking due note of respective submissions and to balance

rival claims, the following directions are issued in modification of the

orders of the trial Court:

(i) The appellant and respondent No.3 may take immediate

steps to complete all the formalities required for development

of the residential complex and respondent No.3 in turn may

obtain permissions and commence construction.

(ii) After obtaining permissions for construction of residential

complex, the appellant and respondent No.3 shall enter into

a supplementary agreement identifying the flats earmarked

for the appellant as part of his share.

(iii) The said agreement shall also incorporate specific flats

whose total built up area is 30,000 sq. feet to be reserved

and not to alienate mortgage or create third party interest till

O.S.No.49 of 2000 is disposed of or further orders are passed

by the trial Court.

(iv) For any reason, if the appellant and respondent No.3 part

ways and development activity is not taken up on the suit

schedule "A' land, the appellant shall not alienate the

schedule 'A' land without the leave of the trial Court.

11. The C.M.As. are accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous

Petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.

___________________ P NAVEEN RAO, J

_______________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J Date: 05.01.2022 TVK/KH

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

C.M.A.Nos. 498, 499, 500 and 502 of 2021

Date :05.01.2022