SMT. R. RAMYA, D/O S. RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 2151, 17TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU Vs. SRI. KRIPLANI MADANAKANTHA, S/O MADANAKANTHA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 2093, 16TH "B MAIN ROAD, HAL 2TH STAGE, INDIRANAGARA, BENGALURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the defendants miscellaneous first appeal against the order dated 23rd Sept., 2016 passed on I.A.I in O.S.No.25520/2013 on the file of the 28th Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall (CCH-29), Bengaluru disposing of the application-I.A.I filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or creating any third party interest in the 41.5% share of the built up area for which the plaintiff is entitled to as per the Joint Development Agreement including the car parking facility and other amenities as detailed in clause No.3 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 17.4.2006 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) The respondent, who is plaintiff before the trial Court filed a suit for declaration, injunction and possession of the suit schedule property contending that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and there was a registered Joint Development Agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants on 17.4.2006. In terms of the said agreement, the plaintiff had to receive 41.5% of the developed area as well as a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs as refundable security deposit. The project was to be completed in April, 2007. The defendants completed the project only on the end of Dec. 2007 and they did not handover the possession. Therefore, he was constrained to issue legal notice on 4.7.2008 demanding the defendants to hand over 41.5% of the developed area. The defendants did not comply with the same. Therefore, the plaintiff has revoked the Power of Attorney given to the defendants on 31.7.2008 and that the defendants were trying to alienate the remaining part of the developed area in order to deprive the plaintiff, etc.

(3.) Defendants filed their written statement denying the plaint averments except the Joint Development Agreement dated 17.4.2006 between the parties and the percentage of share was 41.5%. They contended that they had borrowed the amount at the heavy rate of interest and they had to refund the said amount after completion of the project with high rate of interest for the delayed payments. Therefore, the plaintiff is also bound to pay the same. Under the Joint Agreement Development, the defendants are entitled for five flats. The alienation in favour of 3rd defendant is the flat that has come to the share of the defendants. The defendants have stated that they will not sell three flats bearing No.002, 102 and 202 to anybody and they do not have any such intention. They are aware that the said flats have to be handed over to the plaintiff. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the suit contending that the very suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable.