[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
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
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
(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.
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
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
(2003) 2 SCC 355
(2024) 4 SCC 230
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
(2006) 5 SCC 353
2026 SCC OnLine SC 106
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.
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
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
