Order Complaint No. 277 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 277 of 2025
Dated: 13th March, 2026
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

Ravi Kumar Anchoori,
Rep by his GPA holder Anchoori Yadagiri,
R/o. Flat No.908, Block 1,
My Home Avatar, Narsingi,

…Complainant

Hyderabad, Telangana - 500089

Versus
M/s Candeur Developers & Builders,
Rep by its Managing partner, Sri Kattamreddy Ramvishnunandan Kumar Reddy,
R/o. Flat No. 402, Kamala Aurum Apartment,
Plot No. 9, Huda Enclave, Road No. 70, Journalist Colony,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500033

…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned herein above came up for
hearing before this Authority in the presence of the Complainant in person and the Counsels
for Respondent, Mr. KRK Chary, Mr. B. Suresh, Mr. S. Ganesh Bharadwaj, Mr. K. Vivekanand,
and upon hearing the submissions of both the parties, this Authority proceeds to pass the
following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “RE(R&D) Act”)
read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the Respondents.
A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainant booked a 2BHK residential unit bearing Flat No. 703 in Tower-B of

the Candeur-40 Apartment Complex, an upcoming project being developed by the Respondent.
An amount of ₹10,000 was paid online towards the booking. Subsequently, the Complainant
paid a further sum of ₹30,00,000 by cheque dated 21.07.2024 as part payment towards the sale
consideration and, on the same day, entered into an Agreement of Sale with the Respondent.
Thereafter, another payment of ₹32,40,000 was made by cheque dated 01.09.2024, bringing
1 of 14

---

With the intention of proceeding with registration of the said flat jointly in his and his

father’s name, the Complainant sent his father to the promoter’s office on 21.12.2024. The
promoter’s staff provided a draft copy of the Sale Deed via email for verification and requested
the Complainant to communicate any required corrections. A demand note for the balance
payment was also handed over, and it was informed that registration could take place in the
first week of January 2025. Upon scrutiny of the draft Sale Deed, the Complainant noticed
several omissions that were required to be incorporated in accordance with RERA and the
Registration Rules.
5.

The omissions identified were: (i) the absence of full particulars of registration of the

partnership firm M/s. Candeur Developers & Builders as mandated under RERA; (ii) incorrect
mention of the place of execution as “Registration Office, Ranga Reddy” instead of the
promoter’s office in Hyderabad; (iii) omission of reference documents establishing title and
link documents for the project land, despite reference to Annexure-A which was not appended;
(iv) absence of measurements or extent of car parking space in Sq. feets, as required under
RERA; (v) under payment of sale consideration, the reference with regards to TDS payment
under the Income Tax Act is omitted; (vi) omission of jurisdictional details of the registering
officer under the Registration Act; and (vii) non-mention of the boundaries of the flat as
mandated by Section 21 of the Registration Act.
6.

To seek rectification of these omissions and obtain a corrected draft, the Complainant’s

father revisited the promoter’s office on 03.01.2025, offering to pay the balance amount upon
receipt of the revised draft. However, the staff refused to incorporate the omissions and insisted
that the Sale Deed prepared by the promoter was final and non-negotiable, directing the buyers
either to accept it as is or to withdraw from the purchase. The Complainant objected to this
unilateral preparation of the Sale Deed and emphasized that such a document must be executed
with the mutual consent of both parties. Despite repeated requests, the promoter continued to
refuse to issue a revised draft.
7.

Thereafter, on 22.03.2025, the promoter sent an email stating that the flat was open for

sale and that cancellation proceedings had been initiated, which would take about 90 days after
deduction of applicable charges. The Complainant responded on 23.03.2025, clarifying that the
period of 90 days relied upon by the promoter is not applicable to their case. The Complainants
2 of 14

---

The Complainants further state that any delay in payment of the balance amount or in

the registration of the flat has occurred solely due to the promoter’s refusal to rectify the draft
sale deed prepared unilaterally by it.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
9.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following relief:
i.

The entire amount/money of Rs. 62,50,000/- (Rupees sixty two lakhs fifty thousand
only), so far paid by the Complainant, shall have to be refunded by the said promoter
without any further delay, together with interest and compensation, if any applicable,
since the Complainant does not intend to withdraw from buying the flat in the said
project at his own option, but solely because of the promoter’s fault in non-compliance
and non-acceptance in preparing a proper sale deed without taking into consideration
the buyer’s consent.

C. Counter on behalf of the Respondent:
10.

At the outset, the Respondent denies all allegations and averments made by the

Complainant as false, fabricated, concocted and untrue except those specifically admitted, and
submits that the Complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts, and has been filed with
frivolous, vexatious and mala fide intent to blackmail and harass the Respondent for wrongful
gain.
11.

In response to the factual averments, the Respondent states that the Complainant

booked a 2BHK residential flat bearing No.703 in Tower-B of the “Candeur-40” Apartment
Complex, an upcoming project of the Respondent, and paid a sum of ₹10,000/- as initial
booking amount, which is admitted. It is also admitted that the Complainant paid ₹30,00,000/3 of 14

---

The construction of the apartment was nearing completion at the time of execution, and

possession was to be delivered on or before 30.09.2024, which implied that the Complainant
was required to pay the entire balance by that date. The Respondent further states that it
submitted the Building Completion Notice to GHMC on 11.09.2024, demonstrating substantial
compliance with construction obligations. However, the Complainant failed to honour the
payment schedule, thereby breaching the terms of the Agreement.
13.

It is admitted that the Complainant paid another sum of ₹32,40,000/- through cheque

dated 01.09.2024, and that the total amount paid to date is ₹62,50,000/- out of the total sale
consideration of ₹93,69,150/- (inclusive of GST @ 5%, parking and amenities), but the
Respondent asserts that the said amount of ₹32,40,000/- was paid with a delay of 27 days.
14.

The Respondent denies the allegations made under Sub-Clause 5 of Para 4 of the

Complaint, and submits that upon the Complainant’s failure to pay the balance amount by
30.09.2024, a final demand notice dated 21.12.2024 was issued calling upon him to pay the
outstanding ₹31,19,150/- by the first week of January 2025 along with applicable penalty as
stipulated in the Agreement, and enclosing the draft Sale Deed prepared in compliance with
statutory norms.
15.

Instead of complying with the payment obligation, the Complainant raised frivolous

objections to the contents of the draft Sale Deed. It is submitted that the Complainant had no
right to question the draft sale deed without first discharging his obligation of paying the
balance sale consideration, and that such conduct reflects a lack of bona fides and an attempt
to evade contractual obligations.
16.

The Respondent further denies allegations regarding omissions in the draft Sale Deed,

stating that the document includes complete and accurate particulars of the promoter, including
constitution of the partnership, address, PAN, and particulars of the managing partner. The
Respondent asserts that the allegation regarding place of execution is misconceived, because
under the Registration Act, 1908, the execution is deemed complete at the time and place of
registration, which necessarily occurs at the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar’s office by following

4 of 14

---

The Respondent denied the allegation that link documents or title flow details were

omitted, and clarified that the same had been provided in a separate annexure appended to the
document thereby complying with the legal requirement of disclosing title particulars. It is
further submitted that the Complainant voluntarily executed an Agreement of Sale dated
21-07-2024, wherein the same annexure (Annexure-A) containing the title details was enclosed
and duly acknowledged by him.
18.

The allegation that the car parking area was not disclosed was also denied, stating that

in accordance with Section 2(h) of the Telangana RERA Rules, 2017, the number and location
of the parking slots will be made strictly as per applicable rules and regulations, and that there
is no legal requirement under the RERA Act, 2016 or the Telangana Rules to mention the exact
square footage in the Sale Deed. The allegations regarding omission of TDS reference are also
denied, the Respondent had submitted that, as per Section 194-1A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
it is the statutory obligation of the purchaser i.e., the Complainant to deduct tax at source (TDS)
at the rate of 1% on each instalment of the sale consideration exceeding 50 lakhs, and to remit
the same to the credit of the Central Government. Further, the purchaser is also mandated to
furnish the relevant TDS challans (Form 26QB) to the seller/promoter for appropriate credit
and record. Despite being fully aware of this obligation, the Complainant failed to comply with
the same and has not submitted the necessary TDS challans to the Respondent till date.
19.

Allegations regarding omission of jurisdiction of the Registering Officer are also

denied, stating that the draft Sale Deed clearly mentions the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar’s
Office on the first page. The Respondent states that the draft Sale Deed contains a detailed and
unambiguous description of the subject flat, including its four boundaries, which are clearly set
out in Schedule 'A' & 'B' annexed thereto. The said schedule provides a complete and precise
delineation of the flat's location and measurements, in strict conformity with the requirements
prescribed under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908.
20.

The Respondent denied the allegation that the draft Sale Deed was prepared unilaterally

or that the promoter’s office refused to make corrections sought by the Complainant. It is
submitted that the draft Sale Deed was prepared in strict adherence to the terms of the
Agreement of Sale and in compliance with all applicable statutory requirements, and that the
objections raised by the Complainant were examined and found to be legally untenable,
5 of 14

---

The Respondent denied the allegation of unilateral cancellation of the flat, and has

stated that the Complainant himself, through an email titled “Last & Final Letter”, stated that
they would not proceed with the transaction unless certain changes were made to the draft Sale
Deed and also sought refund of ₹62,50,000/-, clearly indicating an intention to withdraw.
Consequently, the Respondent initiated cancellation as per the Agreement of Sale and informed
the Complainant that the flat would be open for sale and refund processed within 90 days after
deductions.
22.

It is further denied that delay in payment or registration was due to the Respondent;

rather, the delay was solely attributable to the Complainant’s insistence on unwarranted
modifications and failure to make timely payments. It is submitted that as per Clause 7.5 of the
Agreement of Sale, in the event of cancellation by the purchaser, the promoter is entitled to
deduct certain charges, and that Clause 44 provides for interest at 12% per annum for delayed
payments. Accordingly, since the Complainant had withdrawn from the transaction without any
fault on the part of the Respondent, the latter was entitled to deduct an amount of ₹15,11,980/comprising GST amount of ₹3,12,500/-, interest of ₹2,62,565/- and booking amount of
₹9,36,915/-, and to refund ₹47,38,020/- out of the total payment of ₹62,50,000/- after resale of
the flat or within ninety days, whichever was later. It was stated that as the flat had not yet been
resold, the refund was not due.
23.

The Respondent further submitted that acting in good faith and without prejudice to his

rights, he offered to refund the full amount of ₹62,50,000 on the condition that the Complainant
withdraw the complaint, waive all future claims, and return the original Agreement of Sale. It
is stated that on 30.06.2025, the Complainant expressed willingness to withdraw the Complaint
and waive any claims for compensation or legal expenses upon receipt of the full amount, while
seeking interest as per RERA and RBI norms. Accordingly, on 07.07.2025, the Respondent
refunded the entire sum of ₹62,50,000 by RTGS, even though he was legally entitled to deduct
₹15,11,980 as per the Agreement of Sale.
24.

It is submitted that, as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement of Sale, there is

no clause that entitles the Purchaser to insist that the Sale Deed be drafted strictly in accordance
to his personal preferences or specifications. The purchaser cannot seek unilateral
6 of 14

---

It is further submitted that the Complainant failed to pay the balance sale consideration

within the stipulated timelines as per the Agreement of Sale, and appears to have chosen to exit
the transaction due to financial constraints and prevailing market conditions. It is understood
that the Complainant, currently employed abroad, and his father, a retired official from the
Registration Department, are well-versed with property documentation procedures. Their
subsequent objections to the draft Sale Deed are thus clearly afterthoughts, raised only to evade
contractual obligations and seek a refund contrary to the Agreement.
26.

The Respondent contends that the Complaint constitutes an abuse of legal process, filed

with suppression of material facts and misrepresentation of events. The Complainant, having
defaulted under the Agreement of Sale, cannot seek relief under RERA, and the Complaint is
liable to be dismissed in limine.
27.

The Respondent submits that since the entire amount was refunded despite being liable

to refund only ₹47,38,020/-, the excess payment of ₹15,11,980/- was made without legal
obligation. The Respondent, therefore, files a Counter Claim for recovery of ₹15,11,980/- from
the Complainant towards the excess amount paid. The Respondent prayed that the complaint
be dismissed with costs and that the counter claim be allowed by directing the Complainant to
refund ₹15,11,980 to the Respondent.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant:
28.

At the outset the Complainant denies all the allegation and averment made by the

Respondent in the counter as false, baseless, immaterial, untenable and frivolous, as the same
do not align with the facts on record and appear to be nothing but an afterthought to evade the
Respondent’s statutory obligations under RERA and the Registration Act and Rules and to
avoid payment of interest and compensation legitimately and lawfully due to the Complainant
under the Agreement of Sale.
29.

The Complainant therefore submits the following rebuttals. The allegation that the

Complaint is frivolous, baseless, mala fide or intended to harass is wholly denied since the
7 of 14

---

It is submitted that by terming legally mandated requirements as “frivolous,” the

Respondent has effectively questioned the necessity of compliance with RERA and the
Registration Rules, thereby undermining the very legislative framework meant to protect home
buyers. The promoter’s refusal to incorporate the omissions prejudices not only the
Complainant’s rights but also reveals the Respondent’s disregard for mandatory legal
provisions and supports the Complainant’s contention that the promoter was unwilling to
execute a proper sale deed in accordance with law, thereby forcing the Complainant into an
involuntary withdrawal.
31.

It is submitted that the Complainant’s communication clearly stated that withdrawal

would occur only if the Respondent refused to correct the draft sale deed by supplying the
omissions, making it a forced and involuntary withdrawal solely due to the Respondent’s noncompliance. As per Section 55(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, it is the buyer who is
responsible for preparing and tendering the draft sale deed, and in obedience to that provision
the Complainant prepared a fresh draft incorporating only the mandatory omissions without
altering any other clause. While the Respondent may consider such omissions immaterial, the
Complainant, as the purchaser and owner of the deed, considers them necessary to avoid future
legal complications especially in the event of a resale where another buyer may object. As a
consumer, the Complainant’s intention was only to ensure that no fatal defects in the draft sale
deed prejudicially affect his rights.
32.

It is submitted that the allegation regarding delay in payment is irrelevant since the

Respondent himself created a legal impediment by failing to provide a statutorily compliant
sale deed draft. Under Section 19(3) of TG RERA Act, the buyer’s payment obligations are
linked to the promoter’s performance, and the Complainant was always ready and willing to
make the balance payment immediately upon receiving a proper sale deed draft duly supplying
the omissions.

8 of 14

---

It is submitted that before executing the Agreement of Sale dated 21/07/2024, the

Complainant had already paid Rs.30,10,000/-, and on 01/09/2024 paid Rs.32,40,000/-, totalling
Rs.62,50,000/-, being more than 65% of the sale consideration. Out of this, the promoter
adjusted Rs.18,73,830/- as booking advance at 20%, in violation of Section 13 of TG RERA
Act, which restricts such advance to 10%. Another Rs.42,16,117/- was adjusted up to the 9th
instalment, leaving Rs.1,60,000/- with the promoter. As per the promoter’s own demand note
dated 21/12/2024, the balance amount was Rs.31,19,150/-, and the Complainant even raised a
cheque dated 03-01-2025 for that amount and generated a challan for registration charges, both
of which were ready to hand over subject only to approval of the corrected sale deed. When
the Complainant handed over his draft on 03-01-2025 in the presence of the promoter’s staff,
they refused to incorporate any corrections and insisted that he must accept the existing format,
since the same draft was being used for all purchasers, and further stated that they might
consider discussing with their Managing Director, though offering no assurance. Thus the
cheque would have been handed over the same day had the request been accepted.
34.

It is submitted that the allegation that the buyer exited due to market conditions or

financial constraints is speculative, unsupported and irrelevant, since all communications show
the Complainant’s readiness to complete payment upon receipt of a proper sale deed. The
withdrawal occurred only due to the Respondent’s refusal to make statutory corrections and
due to the Respondent’s own statement that if the Complainant did not accept their unilaterally
prepared draft sale deed he must withdraw.
35.

The complainant, in rebuttal, has reiterated that upon verification of the draft Sale Deed

furnished by the promoter, several legal and procedural deficiencies were noticed, which had
already been specifically pleaded in the original complaint. It is submitted that the place of
execution of the Sale Deed was incorrectly mentioned as the Registrar Office, Ranga Reddy,
whereas in practice the Sale Deeds are executed by the authorized Managing Partner at the
promoter’s office, Hyderabad, and only presented for registration through a Power of Attorney
holder. The distinction between the place of execution and the place of registration was ignored,
and mentioning an incorrect place of execution without the buyer’s consent is stated to be
misleading and untenable. It is further contended that the Sale Deed failed to disclose
mandatory particulars relating to the partnership firm, including its registration details and the
specific resolution authorizing the Managing Partner to execute Sale Deeds. Such disclosure,
along with annexing the resolution, is stated to be compulsory as per the prescribed template
under the TG-RERA Rules and is essential to establish the authority of the signatory. The
9 of 14

---

The complainant has also pointed out that mandatory link document references,

required under the Registration Act to establish title and chain of ownership, were neither
mentioned in the Sale Deed nor appended as an annexure, despite a reference to such an
annexure in the draft. Similarly, the Sale Deed allegedly omitted material particulars regarding
the car parking space, including its measurements in square feet, though consideration with
applicable GST was collected for the same, which is required for transparency and valuation at
the time of registration.
37.

It is further stated that the complainant never refused to comply with TDS obligations

under the Income Tax Act but only insisted that proper TDS references be incorporated in the
Sale Deed for mutual record and clarity. According to the complainant, the promoter failed to
furnish a corrected and final Sale Deed incorporating these essential details, and only upon
such correction would the complainant have provided the TDS challan. Additionally, omissions
were alleged with respect to jurisdictional particulars of the registering authority in the property
schedule, as well as the boundaries of the flat/apartment, which are mandatory requirements
under the Registration Act for proper identification of the property.
38.

It is submitted that under the Development Agreement-cum-GPA dated 23-12-2020, the

promoter was to complete the project within 36 months from GHMC permission dated
16-09-2020, with 6 months grace, totalling 42 months. Under the Agreement of Sale dated
21-07-2024, the promoter also agreed that timely delivery was the essence, and assured
possession with OC on or before 30-09-2024, with penalty for delay, but failed to fulfil this
obligation. Though the promoter obtained OC only on 08-02-2025 and informed the
Complainant on 19-02-2025, as per Supreme Court rulings the purchaser is not bound to accept
delayed possession and may seek refund with compensation. Section 18 of RERA mandates
full refund with interest when the promoter fails, and the purchaser is legally entitled to refund
with compensation.
39.

It is further submitted that despite the promoter’s failure, the Complainant visited the

promoter’s office on 21-12-2024 but received no cooperation. On 01-03-2025, the Complainant
met the Managing Partner at the Registration Office and explained the omissions, but was told
that they would rectify only after consulting their lawyer and otherwise the Complainant must
withdraw and that no response was received despite follow-up messages.
10 of 14

---

It is submitted that the provisions under Section 88 of RERA, including the right to

refund with interest and compensation, were also ignored by the promoter. The promoter’s
counterclaim that the refund was in good faith is false, since refund without deduction is a legal
obligation when the promoter is at fault. The Complainant further submits that in spite of
repeated emails and personal visits, the promoter failed to provide a corrected draft. Due to this
non-compliance and refusal to prepare a proper sale deed, and solely because of the promoter’s
conduct, the Complainant withdrew subject to full refund with interest.
41.

It is submitted that the promoter sent an email on 22-03-2025 stating that cancellation

was initiated and refund would take 90 days. The Complainant immediately replied on
23-03-2025 that the 90-day period does not apply since the withdrawal was compelled by the
promoter’s fault and that refund must be with interest. The Complainant submits that after
receiving RERA notice, the promoter’s staff repeatedly pressurised the Complainant to
withdraw and file a compromise memo and that they would refund full principal amount and
requested to waive interest and compensation. On 29-06-2025, the promoter sought bank
details and sent a draft compromise memo. On 30-06-2025, the Complainant agreed to
withdraw subject only to refund of principal with applicable interest. However, on 07-07-2025
the promoter refunded only the principal and again insisted that the Complainant compromise
without claiming interest.
42.

In view of the above, the Complainant prays that the counterclaim of the Respondent

be dismissed and that interest on the principal amount from 21-07-2024 to 06-07-2025 be
awarded as per TG RERA guidelines, and further prays that compensation be granted since the
Complainant has suffered significant mental and physical distress.
E. Points to be determined:
43.

Based on the facts and circumstances placed before this Authority, the following

questions arise for adjudication:
I.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought? If so, to what extent?

F. Observations of the Authority:
44.

This Authority has carefully examined the pleadings, documents placed on record and

the submissions advanced by the parties. It is not in dispute that the Complainant booked Flat
No.703 in Tower-B of the project “Candeur-40” being developed by the Respondent and that
an Agreement of Sale dated 21.07.2024 was executed between the parties governing the terms
11 of 14

---

The Complainant has contended that the draft Sale Deed contained several omissions

and deficiencies which, according to him, were contrary to the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act,
2016, the Telangana RERA Rules, 2017 and the Registration Act, 1908, and that the
Respondent’s refusal to incorporate the suggested changes compelled him to withdraw from
the transaction. The Respondent, on the other hand, has consistently maintained that the draft
Sale Deed was prepared strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory requirements, and
that the objections raised by the Complainant were either legally untenable or not mandated by
law.
46.

At the outset, this Authority finds it necessary to observe that neither the RE(R&D) Act,

2016 nor the Telangana RE(R&D) Rules, 2017 prescribe any mandatory or uniform format for
a Sale Deed. The statutory framework under RERA provides a model format only for the
Agreement for Sale, with the object of ensuring transparency at the pre-conveyance stage. The
Sale Deed, being an instrument of conveyance, is governed primarily by the applicable laws,
and the contractual understanding between the parties. Therefore, the contents and structure of
the Sale Deed necessarily flow from the terms agreed between the parties, subject to
compliance with general registration requirements and in accord with RE(R&D) Act
provisions, and an allottee cannot insist upon incorporation of matters which are not statutorily
mandated.
47.

With respect to the Complainant’s objection regarding non-mention of full particulars

of the partnership firm M/s. Candeur Developers & Builders, it is observed that the draft Sale
Deed contains the name of the firm, its constitution, address, and details of the authorised
signatory executing the document. There is no provision which mandates that registration
particulars of the partnership firm or internal resolutions authorising execution must invariably
form part of the Sale Deed itself. Such authorisation is a matter of internal governance of the
firm and, so long as the execution is by a competent authorised signatory, the absence of such
internal documents in the Sale Deed cannot render the conveyance invalid.
48.

The Complainant has also objected to the mention of the place of execution as

“Registration Office, Ranga Reddy” instead of the promoter’s office. In this regard, this
12 of 14

---

As regards the allegation of omission of link documents or title flow details, it is

observed that the title particulars were referenced and annexed, and that the same title
documents had already formed part of the Agreement of Sale acknowledged by the
Complainant. There is no material placed on record to show that the title documents were
withheld or concealed. Mere dissatisfaction with the manner of reference or annexure cannot
be equated with non-compliance of statutory requirements.
50.

With respect to the allegation regarding omission of reference to TDS under the Income

Tax Act, 1961, this Authority observes that deduction and remittance of tax at source under
Section 194-IA of the said Act is a statutory obligation cast upon the purchaser. When the
Complainant himself has admittedly not furnished the requisite TDS challans evidencing such
deduction and remittance, it cannot be expected of the Respondent to incorporate a reference
to the same in the Sale Deed. The said omission, therefore, cannot be construed as a deficiency
or non-compliance attributable to the Respondent.
51.

The objection relating to omission of jurisdictional particulars of the registering

authority and boundaries of the flat has also been examined. It is observed that the draft Sale
Deed contains schedules describing the subject flat along with its boundaries and reference to
the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. The Complainant has not demonstrated that the property
description was vague, ambiguous or incapable of identification for registration purposes.
52.

Upon a cumulative consideration of the above, this Authority finds that the objections

raised by the Complainant pertain predominantly to drafting preferences and interpretational
differences rather than to demonstrable violations of statutory provisions. While an allottee is
entitled to clarity and transparency, such entitlement cannot be extended to insist upon a
particular drafting format in the absence of a statutory mandate or express contractual
stipulation.
53.

The material placed on record further indicates that during the pendency of the present

proceedings the Respondent refunded the entire amount of ₹62,50,000/- paid by the
13 of 14

---

Further, having voluntarily refunded the full principal amount without deductions, the

Respondent cannot now be permitted to pursue a counter-claim seeking recovery of any portion
thereof. The said refund, having been effected during the pendency of the proceedings pursuant
to a mutual understanding between the parties and having been accepted and acted upon by the
Complainant, has attained finality between the parties.
55.

In the absence of any established violation of the provisions of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and in the absence of proof that the promoter failed
to discharge any statutory obligation, this Authority is of the considered view that the
Complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought.
56.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the Complaint is devoid of merit and is liable to

be dismissed. The counter-claim raised by the Respondent also does not survive in view of the
refund already made and is accordingly rejected.

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson,
TG RERA

14 of 14

---