Order Complaint No. 511 of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.511 OF 2023
3rd September, 2024
Corum:

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

Smt. Basham Shobha Rani
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Reliance Developers
2. S.Purnachandra Rao
3. S.Laxmi
4. S.Rajesh Kiran
5. B.Sarvani
6. S.Ravali
7. Kiran Kabalvai

…Respondent (s)

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for final
hearing on 25.06.2024 before this Authority in the presence of Counsel Sri
Gana Vara Prasad for Complainant, Counsel Rusheek Reddy for Respondent
1,2,3,& 5, Counsel M.S.Achyuth Bharthwaj for Respondent 7, counsel
K.Balakrishna for Respondent 6 & 3 and as all parties involved, agreed for
settlement through conciliation, while exercising its powers under section
32(g) had sent the parties for conciliation. However, the said conciliation
failed, and the parties were called for final hearing on 25.06.2024, and upon
hearing the arguments of the parties, this Authority passes the following
ORDER:
2.

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

Estate (Regulation and 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
directions from this Authority to take action against the Respondent.
1 of 87

A. Brief Facts on behalf of the complainant:
3.

The Respondents are the absolute owners and possessors of the

property, i.e., a west-facing residential flat bearing No. 102 on the first floor,
with a super built-up area of 1900 sq. ft. (inclusive of balconies and common
areas), along with an undivided share of 71 sq. yards of land out of a total of
710.25 sq. yards (equivalent to 593.8 sq. meters), and two car parking spaces
on the stilt floor in the premises known as 'Reliance Eternis', situated at
Begumpet, Hyderabad, bearing M.H. No. 1-10-38/2. The Respondents offered
to sell this property to the Complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.
1,32,50,000/- (Rupees One crore thirty-two lakhs fifty thousand only), and
the Complainant agreed to purchase the same (hereinafter referred to as the
"Suit Schedule Property").
4.

The Complainant has paid Rs. 1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One crore twenty

lakhs only), i.e., 90% of the total sale consideration, which was acknowledged
by Respondent No. 4 as the authorized representative on behalf of Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2, and others.
5.

Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are family members: Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

are husband and wife, Respondent No. 4 is their son, Respondent No. 6 is the
wife of Respondent 4, and Respondent No. 5 is the daughter of Respondent
No. 2. The Respondents, doing business under the name and style of M/s.
Reliance Developers, entered into a Development Agreement cum Irrevocable
GPA with Shikaram Ramananda Gupta, Venkatarama Raviphani Kumar
Gupta, and Chitra Nag Kanumary regarding the residential land property
measuring 710.25 sq. yards or 593.8 sq. meters, in the premises bearing M.H.
No. 1-10-38/2, situated at Begumpet, Hyderabad, in which the Suit Schedule
Property is situated.
6.

That Respondent No. 4 is authorized to act on behalf of Respondent No.

1 for conducting day-to-day business transactions in Hyderabad, as
Respondent No. 2 was occupied with other projects in the Telangana and
Andhra Pradesh states. Respondent No. 4 has the authority to execute Sale
Agreements, receive payments, and issue receipts in the course of their daily

2 of 87

business transactions. This authorization was granted to Respondent No. 4
on 28.11.2018 by Respondent No. 2, Managing Partner of M/s Reliance
Developers. Subsequently, Respondent No. 4 entered into an Agreement of
Sale with the Complainant on 29.01.2019.
7.

That the total sale consideration for the Suit Schedule Property was

valued at Rs. 1,32,50,000/- (Rupees One crore thirty-two lakhs fifty thousand
only). The Complainant has paid Rs. 1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One crore twenty
lakhs only) to date, which is more than 90% of the total sale consideration.
The amounts paid, pursuant to the Agreement of Sale, on various dates are as
follows: (1) Rs. 29,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-nine lakhs only) paid by RTGS
vide UTR No. SBINRS201902200101925 dated 22.01.2019; (2) Rs. 1,00,000/(Rupees One lakh only) by Check No. 667626 dated 21.01.2019 of SBI,
Chandrayangutta, Kanchanbagh Branch, Hyderabad; (3) Rs. 75,00,000/(Rupees Seventy-five lakhs only) in cash; (4) Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
lakhs only) paid by RTGS vide UTR No. SBINRS2019031100107649 dated
11.03.2019 of SBI, Chandrayangutta, Kanchanbagh Branch, Hyderabad; and
(5) Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) paid by RTGS vide UTR No.
ORBCH9283051716 dated 10.10.2019 of OBC, Santhosh Nagar Branch,
Hyderabad. It was mutually agreed that the Complainant would pay the
remaining balance of the sale consideration after the completion of the fifthfloor slab, brickwork, and plastering, at the time of handing over the flat.
8.

That, after the payment of the advance sale consideration on

10.10.2019, the Complainant began requesting the Respondents to receive
the balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed in her
favor. However, the Respondents have been postponing the matter on various
pretexts. Meanwhile, Respondent No. 6 issued a Public Notice on 09.08.2020
in the Eenadu daily newspaper stating that she, as a partner of M/s Reliance
Developers, was compelled to dissolve the firm by way of a Legal Notice dated
09.06.2020 and followed it with a paper publication dated 11.06.2020 to
other partners, cautioning the public not to enter into any agreements or sale
deeds contrary to her interests.

3 of 87

9.

That the Complainant was shocked, astonished, and dismayed upon

seeing the Public Notice issued by Respondent No. 6, who is the wife of
Respondent No. 4 and daughter-in-law of Respondent No. 2. The family
disputes among the Respondents are detrimental to the Complainant’s
interests and rights. Despite having paid 95% of the sale consideration and
being ready to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve
lakhs fifty thousand only), the Respondents have committed a breach of
contract and breach of trust as per the Agreement of Sale. They agreed to
hand over possession of Flat No. 102 to the Complainant after 11 months
from the date of the Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019 but failed to fulfill
this obligation. Additionally, Respondent No. 2 registered two flats to other
purchasers: (i) Vikram Baru, Vijayalakshmi Baru, and Anjani Rao, Sale Deed
No. 745/2021 dated 15.03.2021 for Flat No. 401; (ii) Aravind Baid and Neeraj
Baid, Sale Deed No. 746/2021 dated 15.03.2021 for Flat No. 502.
10.

That the Respondents are not inclined to register Flat No. 102 in favor

of the Complainant due to malafide, malicious, and fraudulent intentions,
attempting to avoid the execution of the registered sale deed and cause
wrongful loss to the Complainant. The Respondents have created a false
narrative of financial disputes to evade their legal obligations and avoid the
registration of flats sold to other purchasers.
11.

That the Respondents are involved in a conspiracy to harass and cheat

the Complainant. They are fraudulently dragging the Complainant into
disputes and attempting to alienate the Suit Schedule Property in favor of
third parties.
12.

That the Respondents have colluded with a fraudulent intention to

cheat the Complainant and, in this process, initiated arbitration proceedings
and legal notices with the intent to prevent the transfer and execution of the
registered sale deed. The Complainant’s health has deteriorated significantly,
leading to hospitalization in the ICU on 23.12.2020. Currently, the
Complainant is on a strict medication schedule due to the stress and trauma
caused by the Respondents. The sense of being a victim of fraud and cheating
has severely impacted her physical and psychological well-being.
4 of 87

13.

That whenever the Complainant and her husband, Mr. Srinivas Rao,

visited the Respondents' office to request the registration of the flat, the
Respondents threatened them with dire consequences and used abusive and
vulgar language. The Complainant and her husband, being senior citizens
with serious age-related ailments, have suffered greatly due to these actions.
14.

That a complaint was lodged, which was re-registered as FIR No.

550/2022 U/S 406, 420 R/w 34 IPC after being transferred from the Jubilee
Hills Police Station to the Panjagutta Police Station.
15.

That there was an agreement between the Complainant and M/s

Reliance Developers regarding the purchase of Flat No. 102. As per the
agreement, the Complainant paid Rs. 1,20,00,000/- to M/s Reliance
Developers. Rajesh Kiran, the son of Purnachandra Rao and Managing
Partner authorized to sell flats on behalf of M/s Reliance Developers, received
the payment. However, the members of Reliance Developers began avoiding
and evading the Complainant with malicious and fraudulent intentions. It was
later revealed that Mr. Purnachandra Rao had sold Flat No. 102 to Kiran
Kabalavai S/o Sri Kabalvai Keshava Rao, as per Document No. 269/2023
dated 08.02.2023.
16.

That Purnachandra Rao, upon investigation, claimed that the flat had

been

registered

to

another

person

and

refused

to

respond

to

the

Complainant’s demands. Respondent No. 2 admitted to the police in
Panjagutta that he had already sold and registered the flat to someone else,
thereby committing fraud and cheating.
17.

That there are several pending cases against Rajesh Kiran and other

members, including Cr. No. 349/2020, Cr. No. 397/2020, Cr. No. 75/2020,
Cr. No. 171/2021, and a complaint dated 09.04.2021. The registered
company has also been closed, with the branch in Somajiguda being shut
down.
18.

That the Respondents are habitual offenders with significant influence

and are likely to tamper with evidence or escape the country, given their
international movements.
5 of 87

19.

That a legal notice dated 29.08.2021 was issued to Respondents No. 1

to 6. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 replied on 12.09.2021. In their reply,
Respondent No. 4 confirmed entering into the Agreement of Sale with the
Complainant, receiving the sale consideration, and transferring some
amounts to the Respondent firm via RTGS.
C. Relief(s) Sought:
20.

It is prayed that the Honorable Authority may order the builder,

promoter, and developer M/s Reliance Developers, represented by S.
Purnachandra Rao and Mr. Rajesh Kiran (Authorized Signatory), to register
Flat No. 102, M.H. No. 1-10-38/2, Reliance Eternis, Begumpet, Hyderabad,
Telangana, in favor of the Complainant. Additionally, the Complainant prays
for the cancellation and declaration of Sale Deed No. 269/2023 dated
08.02.2023 as void and illegal. The Complainant also requests that M/s
Reliance Developers be blacklisted on all ongoing projects, and that S.
Purnachandra Rao and Mr. Rajesh Kiran, as Authorized Signatories, be
barred from any further dealings on behalf of M/s Reliance Developers in the
interest of justice.
D. Interim Relief:
21.

Pending the final decision on the complaint, the Complainant seeks the

issuance of an Interim Order or Injunction to prevent the alienation of M.H.
No. 1-10-38/2, Flat No. 102, Reliance Eternis, Begumpet, Hyderabad,
Telangana, to any other parties by Purnachandra Rao and Kiran Kabalvai.
Furthermore, it is requested that M/s Reliance Developers be blacklisted on
all ongoing projects, and that Purnachandra Rao and Kiran Kabalvai be
restrained from any further alienation, transfer, or sale of the Suit Schedule
Property.
Scheduled Property-A: The residential land property admeasuring 710.25 Sq
Yards or 593.8 Sq Meters, situated at M.H. No. 1-10-38/2, Begumpet,
Hyderabad. The property is bounded by:



North: Plot Nos. 5, 4, and 3
South: 40 Feet Wide Road
6 of 87




East: Plot Nos. 15, 10, and 11A
West: Plot No. 13

Scheduled Property-B: The west-facing residential flat bearing No. 102 on
the first floor, having a super built-up area of 1900 Sq. Ft. (inclusive of
Balconies and common areas), with 71 Sq. Yards of undivided share of land
out of 710.25 Sq. Yards equivalent to 593.8 Sq. Meters. This flat includes
two car parking spaces on the stilt floor within the premises of Reliance
Eternis, located at M.H. No. 1-10-38/2, Begumpet, Hyderabad. The flat is
bounded by:





North: Open to sky
South: Open to sky
East: Open to sky
West: Lobby, Lift, Staircase, and Flat No. 101

E. Respondents Reply:
22. Respondent 1 and 2 submitted the following:
i.

That Respondent 2 is the Managing Partner of the Respondent No. 1
herein and am arrayed in my personal capacity as Respondent No. 2. As
such, I am well aware of the facts of the case and competent to depose
as under.

ii.

At the outset, the contents of the instant Complaint are denied in toto
except those which are specifically admitted hereunder. Nothing
contained in the Complaint shall be deemed to be admitted by the
Answering Respondents for the reason of non-traverse. It is submitted
that the instant Complaint is devoid of merits and an abuse of the
process of law and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The Complainant
is guilty of alteration of material facts and has approached this Hon'ble
Authority with unclean hands.

iii.

The Answering Respondents crave the leave of this Hon'ble Authority to
advert to preliminary objections before adverting to para-wise reply. It is
submitted that the Complaint filed by the Complainant is based on false
and baseless allegations and the same is illegal and not maintainable as
per the provisions of the TS Real Estate (Regulation & Development)

7 of 87

Act, 2016. The instant Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this
ground alone.
iv.

It is submitted that the proceedings with regard to the Complaint filed
by Smt. Basham Shobha Rani are not within the scope and jurisdiction
of this Hon'ble Authority and are not within the mandate and scope of
the TS Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016. It is pertinent
to mention that a complaint alleging disputed questions of fact, more so
with regard to title over a property, can be taken up only by a
competent Civil Court and as such, the instant Complaint is liable to be
dismissed on this ground alone.

v.

It is submitted that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, under the
provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016,
does not have the authority/power to register any property nor does it
have the authority/power to cancel/declare registered documents as
null and void. The Complainant herein is seeking reliefs which are
beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Authority and as
such, the instant Complaint ought to be dismissed on this ground
alone.

vi.

It is submitted that the Complainant herein does not fall under the
category/purview of purchaser to the said flat/apartment as the alleged
Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019 was not signed by any of the
partners, much less the Managing Partner, and is a fraudulent
document which has been brought to light for the purpose of gaining
illegally. It is pertinent to note that Respondent No. 4 herein is not in
any way authorized to represent/enter into any agreement/receive any
amounts on behalf of the Firm. No authorization has been given to
Respondent No. 4 either by the Answering Respondents nor by the
other partners nor by virtue of the Partnership Deed of the Respondent
No. 1 Firm. Even assuming, and not admitting, that the Complainant is
a purchaser, as per Section 38 of the Real Estate (Regulation &
Development) Act, 2016, the Powers given to the Real Estate Regulatory
Authority are only limited to imposing a penalty or interest regarding
any contravention of obligations cast upon the promoters or the real
8 of 87

estate agents, and not to allot a flat in favor of the Complainant and
adjudicate upon disputed questions of title. Therefore, the above
Complaint ought to be dismissed in limine.
vii.

Even according to the documents filed by the Complainant, none of the
Partners, much less the Managing Partner, had signed either on the
alleged Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019 or on the receipts attached
along with the alleged Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019.

viii.

It is submitted that the addresses of the Respondents 1 to 3 and 5 have
deliberately been wrongly mentioned by the Complainant in order to
avoid service. Further, the Complainant, to suit her case, has wrongly
arrayed the Respondents 3 to 6 as the Managing Partners of the
Respondent No. 1 Firm. The correct addresses and designations of the
Respondents 1 to 6 are as follows:
1. M/s Reliance Developers, having its erstwhile office at: Flat No. 401,
Lovely Mansion, 6-3-1090/C/A, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500082,
represented by its Managing Partner, Mr. Somuri Purnachandra Rao.
2. Somuri Purnachandra Rao, S/o. Late Somuri Srinivasa Rao; Age: 65
years; Occupation: Managing Partner of the Respondent No.1 Firm.
3. Somuri Lakshmi, W/o. Somuri Purnachandra Rao; Occupation:
Partner of the Respondent No.1 Firm; Age: major; residing beside
Harsha Toyota, Kothaguda, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy
District, Telangana.
4. Somuri Rajesh Kiran, S/o. Somuri Purnachandra Rao; Age: 36 years;
Occupation: Business; residing at H.No. 8-2-293/82/A/239/A, Road
No. 18, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500033.
5. Sarvani Boppana, W/o. B. Venkateswara Rao; Age: 39 years;
Occupation: Partner of the Respondent No. 1 Firm; residing at Flat
No. 301, Reliance Avans Court, Road No. 5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad
- 500033.
6. Somuri Ravali, W/o. Somuri Rajesh Kiran; Age: 33 years; Occupation:
Partner of the Respondent No. 1 Firm; residing at H.No. 8-2293/82/A/239/A, Road No. 18, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500033.
9 of 87

ix.

The Answering Respondents crave the leave of this Hon'ble Authority to
put forth brief facts before adverting to a para-wise reply.

a) That, Somuri Purnachandra Rao, S/o Late Somuri Srinivasa Rao, aged
about 65 years, Occupation: Managing Partner of the Respondent No. 1
Firm, residing at Flat No. 2A, Sneha Soudha Apartments, Plot No. 54,
Jubilee Gardens, Beside Harsha Toyota, Kothaguda, Serilingampally
Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana, do hereby solemnly affirm and
swear on oath as follows:
b) I am the Managing Partner of Respondent No. 1 herein and have been
arrayed in my personal capacity as Respondent No. 2 herein. As such, I
am well aware of the facts of the case and competent to depose as
under.
c) At the outset, the contents of the instant Complaint are denied in toto
except those which are specifically admitted hereunder. Nothing
contained in the Complaint shall be deemed to be admitted by the
Answering Respondents for the reason of non-traverse. It is submitted
that the instant Complaint is devoid of merit and constitutes an abuse
of the process of law, warranting dismissal in limine. The Complainant
is guilty of altering material facts and has approached this Hon'ble
Authority with unclean hands.
d) The Answering Respondents crave the leave of this Hon'ble Authority to
advert to preliminary objections before addressing the para-wise reply.
It is submitted that the Complaint filed by the Complainant is based on
false and baseless allegations, is illegal, and not maintainable under the
provisions of the TS Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.
The instant Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
e) The Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6 herein have entered into a
registered Partnership Deed bearing Doc. No. 3248/2011 dated
27.10.2011 and established the Firm 'M/s. Reliance Developers'
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Firm'). Thereafter, the Firm was
registered with the Registrar of Firms by duly complying with all the
regulations and provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, and a
10 of 87

Certificate of Registration was issued on 10.11.2011. A copy of the
complete Form No. 1 as submitted by the partners, along with the
registered Partnership Deed dated 27.10.2011 bearing document No.
3248 of 2011 and the certificate of registration dated 10.11.2011, is
filed herewith as Document No. 1.
f) The Firm was established for undertaking construction of roads and
highways, bridges, buildings, and other contract works from any
Government and/or private parties. It was further agreed that the
Respondent No. 2 shall be the Managing Partner of the Firm,
empowered to enter into agreements, receive payments, appoint
necessary staff, incur necessary expenditure, and perform all acts
incidental to carrying on the business of the Firm. Clause 5 of the said
Partnership Deed dated 27.10.2011, which designates the Respondent
No. 2 as the Managing Partner, is extracted hereunder for ease of
reference:
"Clause 5: Partner No. 1, Sri Somuri Purnachandra Rao, shall be the Managing Partner
of the firm with the power to apply for tenders and negotiate terms, enter into
agreements, and receive payments. He shall also have the power to appoint necessary
staff, maintain books of account, incur necessary expenditure, and do all acts and
things necessary and incidental to carry on the business of the firm."

x.

Respondent No. 2 and his wife, Respondent No. 3, have invested
substantial funds into the Firm for undertaking various projects. Apart
from using most of their savings from previous businesses and
employment, Respondent No. 3 sold her flat at Basheerbagh and availed
an amount of Rs. 1 crore through a mortgage loan against her Villa No.
15 at Mokhila to provide capital to the Firm. Respondent No. 5 also
invested substantial funds by selling her flat at Marredpally and
gathering funds from other sources, depositing the same into the Firm's
bank accounts immediately after their opening. Apart from these
investments, Respondent No. 2 borrowed huge sums from private
financiers from time to time for the Firm, based on his goodwill and

11 of 87

reputation. However, neither Respondent No. 4 nor Respondent No. 6
have invested any capital in the Firm.
xi.

Respondents 3 and 5 were sleeping partners in the Firm, and all its
affairs were managed by Respondent No. 6 and her husband,
Respondent No. 4, in Hyderabad, while projects in Vijayawada were
managed by Respondent No. 1. Respondents 3 and 5 were not involved
in the Firm's business, sales, expenditures, or income, reposing utmost
trust and faith in Respondent No. 6 and her husband, who handled the
Firm's accounts from its office in Jubilee Hills, later shifted to
Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

xii.

As per the family and partner's understanding, Respondent No. 2 was
responsible for undertaking various projects and selling built-up areas
in flats/commercial spaces. Respondent No. 2 borrowed substantial
sums for the Firm from private financiers, friends, and well-wishers at
market interest rates and entered into several development agreements
on behalf of the Firm with various landowners based on his goodwill
and reputation. Respondent No. 6 and her husband managed the Firm's
accounts and primarily operated its bank accounts.

xiii.

At no point was Respondent No. 4 authorized to represent the Firm,
enter into agreements, or receive sale considerations. Clause 5 of the
Partnership Deed dated 27.10.2011 clarifies that Respondent No. 2
alone has the authority to enter into agreements and receive sale
considerations. Any agreements or sale considerations handled by
Respondent No. 4 are unauthorized and cannot be deemed as entered
into by the Firm. Respondent No. 6 and her husband have committed
fraud upon third parties, the Firm, and its partners. Numerous FIRs
have been filed against Respondent No. 4 for these fraudulent activities.

xiv.

Prior to the institution of this Complaint dated 17.06.2023, the
Complainant filed a criminal complaint on 14.04.2022 before the
Jubilee Hills Police Station U/S 420, 406, R/W Sec 34 IPC, registered
as FIR No. 190/2022 on 14.04.2022, with the same allegations as in
the present complaint before this Hon'ble Authority. The criminal
complaint was later transferred to Punjagutta Police Station due to
12 of 87

jurisdiction issues, registered as FIR No. 550/2022, dated 18.10.2022.
In FIR No. 550/2022, Respondent No. 2 filed a detailed reply dated
22.11.2022, and Respondent No. 4 also filed his reply. Copies of FIR No.
190/2022, FIR No. 550/2022, and Respondent No. 2's reply dated
22.11.2022 are attached herewith as Document Nos. 2, 3, and 4
respectively.
xv.

Respondent No. 6 preferred a Writ Petition bearing W.P. No. 7516 of
2021 before the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravati against the APRERA, Union Bank of India, and Respondents
2, 3, and 5 herein, seeking to declare the action of the APRERA in
directing Union Bank of India to permit Respondent No. 2 to operate the
bank accounts bearing Nos. 640601010050304 and 640601010050305
by way of letter dated 02.03.2021 as arbitrary, unreasonable, biased,
and against the provisions of partnership law and principles of natural
justice. The Hon'ble High Court, by Order dated 30.06.2021, disposed
of the Writ Petition, leaving it open for the Petitioner to file an
appropriate complaint before the competent authority, i.e., APRERA,
within one week from receipt of the order. A copy of the Order dated
30.06.2021 in W.P. No. 7516 of 2021 is attached as Document No. 5.

xvi.

Pursuant to the Order dated 30.06.2021, Respondent No. 6 preferred
CP No. 24 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Real Estate Regulatory Authority
(RERA) at Vijayawada. The Hon'ble RERA framed the following issues:
a. ISSUE 1: Whether the present Complaint is maintainable or not?
b. ISSUE 2: Whether the partnership firm ceases to exist in case of
dissolution and whether the promoter firm is entitled to continue the
project in the capacity of promoter?
c. ISSUE 3: Whether the 1st Respondent needs to be directed to submit
the entire transactions over the two projects namely: - Reliance Avans
Krishna Grandeur, Enikepadu, Vijayawada (RERA No. P061060160624)
- Reliance Island Garden, Sri Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada (RERA
No. P06170010625)
13 of 87

d. ISSUE 4: Whether the 1st Respondent can be directed to deposit the
total amounts collected by him over the two projects to their respective
RERA Accounts (Nos. 640601010050304 and 640601010050305)
maintained with Union Bank of India, Bharathi Nagar, Vijayawada?
e. ISSUE 5: Whether the Respondents can be directed to furnish the
details of completion of pending works, along with amounts required for
the completion of the works?
f. ISSUE 6: Whether the Respondents need to be restrained from
operating bank accounts other than the RERA Account pertaining to
the two projects mentioned supra?
xvii.

In CP No. 24 of 2021, the Hon'ble APRERA, by Order dated 22.12.2022,
directed Respondent No. 2 to comply with the APRERA Act and operate
the RERA accounts for the respective projects. The APRERA held that
the Firm was registered and entitled to complete the ongoing projects,
with Respondent No. 2 authorized to receive funds and continue the
operations of the projects as per Clause 5 of the Partnership Deed dated
27.10.2011. A copy of the Order dated 22.12.2022 in CP No. 24 of 2021
is attached as Document No. 6.

xviii.

The Complainant's allegations against the Respondents herein are
merely an attempt to circumvent the findings of the Hon'ble APRERA
and reopen settled issues. The Complainant has approached this
Hon'ble Authority without any new facts or evidence, thus rendering the
present Complaint frivolous and vexatious. The Complainant has not
only misrepresented facts but also failed to disclose the complete
background of the dispute and previous proceedings before the Hon'ble
APRERA.

xix.

In

light

of

the

aforementioned

facts

and

circumstances,

the

Respondents herein submit that the instant Complaint is an abuse of
the process of law and warrants dismissal in limine.
ISSUE No. 5:

14 of 87

"As per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in We Hat 7516/2021,
this authority had decided to involve all the allottees tech flat purchasers who are the
ultimate consumers in both the projects. As such, this authority issued directions dated
08.09.2021 to the complainant to implead all the stakeholders as parties to the
complaint and solicited their opinions. Feedback from the allottees has already been
received by this authority.
This authority also conducted a survey to understand the grievances of allottees, if any,
regarding the two projects. After scrutinizing the representations made and the
affidavits filed by the landowners, this authority opines that the landowners, who are
major stakeholders in both projects, did not support the version of the complainant. They
stated their utmost belief in the 1st respondent, who is actively involved in the project's
completion and management. Similarly, representations received through mail from the
allottees of the firm indicate their satisfaction with the promoter firm's work and their
lack of awareness or interaction with the appellant. Therefore, they prefer to continue
with the same promoter firm, with Respondent No. 1 as the promoter/developer.
Consequently, this authority is concerned with the satisfaction of the allottees/buyers
and landowners. The takeover of the project and its handover to another builder, as
prayed by the complainant, need not be considered. Hence, the promoter firm is entitled
to continue the projects in the capacity of the promoter, keeping in view the interest of all
the stakeholders of the projects.”

xx.

The contents of Para 1 (Particulars of the Complainant) are denied for
want of knowledge. The Complainant is put to strict proof thereof.

xxi.

The contents of Para 2 (Particulars of the Respondents) are false,
baseless, and hence denied. The Complainant is put to strict proof
thereof. It is submitted that the addresses of Respondents 1 to 3 and 5
have been deliberately misrepresented by the Complainant to avoid
service.

Furthermore,

the

Complainant

has

incorrectly

arrayed

Respondents 3 to 6 as Managing Partners of Respondent No. 1 Firm to
suit her case.
xxii.

The contents of Para 3 (Jurisdiction of the Authority) are false, baseless,
and hence denied. The Complainant is put to strict proof thereof. It is
submitted that this Hon'ble Authority has no jurisdiction to either
register a property or declare/cancel any registered document. Thus,
the instant Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

15 of 87

xxiii.

The Answering Respondents address Para 4 (Facts of the Case) and
deny

Para

4

in

toto

unless

specifically

admitted

herein.

The

Complainant is put to strict proof thereof.
xxiv.

In reply to the averments made in Para 1, it is denied that the
Respondents are the absolute owners and possessors of the property
described as West faced residential flat bearing No. 102 on the First
Floor with a super built-up area of 1900 Sq. Ft. (inclusive of balconies
and common areas) and 71 Sq. yards of undivided share of land out of
710.25 Sq. Yards equivalent to 593.3 Sq. Mtrs, along with two car
parking spaces in the premises 'RELIANCE ETERNIS,' located at
Begumpet, Hyderabad. It is submitted that the said property belongs to
Respondent No. 1 Firm alone and not to the remaining Respondents. It
is specifically denied that either Respondents 1, 2, 3, or 5 have
individually/jointly offered to alienate the Complaint Schedule Property
in favor of the Complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.
1,32,50,000/- and that the Complainant agreed to and accepted the
purchase. The Complainant is put to strict proof thereof. It is pertinent
to note that neither Respondents 1, 2, 3, nor 5 have authorized or
signed the alleged Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019. It is submitted
that Respondents 4 and 6, in collusion with each other, opened Axis
Bank accounts authorizing only Respondent No. 6 to withdraw the
funds. Respondent No. 2 first became aware of the INR 45,00,000/transfer into said account in 2020 when a written request was made to
the Bank Manager for account statements. Since Respondent No. 2 was
unaware of the transfer's purpose, the amount of INR 45,00,000/- was
categorized as an Unsecured Loan, which is reflected in the Firm's IT
Returns.

xxv.

The contents of Para 2 are false, baseless, and hence denied. The
Complainant is put to strict proof thereof. It is denied that as per the
above-said offer and acceptance, the Complainant paid Rs.1,20,00,00/(Rupees One Crore Twenty Lakhs only), i.e., 90% of the entire sale
consideration, and the same was acknowledged by Respondent No. 4
herein as an authorized person on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and 2
16 of 87

and others. It is submitted that Respondent No. 2 is the Managing
Partner of the Firm, and as per the Partnership Deed, he alone is
authorized to execute agreements of sale and Sale Deeds in favor of
purchasers of Flats. No other partner, much less Respondent No. 4,
who is not even a partner of the Firm, is authorized to execute any such
documents. It is submitted that neither Respondents 1, 2, 3, nor 5
authorized or signed the alleged Agreement of Sale and have not
received any amounts from the Complainant towards the alleged sale of
the Complaint Schedule Property. However, since Respondent No. 2 was
unaware of the transfer's purpose, the amount of INR 45,00,000/- was
categorized as an Unsecured Loan, reflected in the balance sheet and IT
Returns of the Firm. Respondent No. 1 and Respondents 2, 3, and 5 are
only liable to return an amount of INR 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Five
Lakhs Only) credited into the Firm's account and have nothing to do
with the alleged payment of INR 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five
Lakhs Only). The Complainant is put to strict proof thereof. The
Answering Respondents specifically deny that the Firm received any
money other than Rs. 45 lakhs from the Complainant, much less an
amount of Rs. 75 lakhs as alleged. The accounts reflecting the money
received from the Complainant by the Firm are also submitted to the
Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal. Additionally, when the Firm had its registered
office at Somajiguda, a property belonging to Respondent No. 6's
parents, Respondents 4 and 6, in collusion, stole documents and
records belonging to the Firm and some personal documents of all
partners. Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint against Respondents 4
and 6, resulting in FIR No. 171/2021 dated 02.04.2021 being registered
by the concerned police.
xxvi.

Addressing the second Para 4, the contents are false, baseless, and
hence denied. The Complainant is put to strict proof thereof. It is denied
that out of the total agreed sale consideration of Rs.1,32,50,000/-, the
Complainant paid Rs.1,20,00,000/- in total, which is more than 95% of
the total sale consideration. It is submitted that apart from the following
amounts, neither the Firm nor Respondents 2, 3, and 5 received any
17 of 87

amounts and thus cannot be held liable. The amount of INR
45,00,000/- was deposited in the AXIS Bank account, opened by
forging the signatures of the Firm's partners, solely controlled by
Respondent No. 6, the wife of Respondent No. 4:
S.no

Date

Amount

Mode

of

payment

xxvii.

1. 21.01.2019

1,00,000/-

Cheque

2. 22.01.2019

29,00,000/-

RTGS

3. 11.03.2019

10,00,000/-

RTGS

4. 10.10.2019

5,00,000/-

RTGS

It is specifically denied that an amount of INR 75,00,000/- (Rupees
Seventy-Five Lakhs) was paid to the Firm. It is pertinent to note that an
amount of INR 75,00,000/- towards the alleged sale consideration was
paid in cash, which is against the law. It is a settled law that any
amount received towards the said property must be deposited in the
RERA Account linked with the said property. It is denied that it was
mutually agreed that the Complainant shall pay the remaining balance
of the sale consideration after the completion of the 5th floor in the
building. The Complainant is put to strict proof thereof. It is submitted
that

the

Respondent

Firm's

flat

purchasers/allottees

and

the

landowners of the projects have expressed their utmost confidence and
satisfaction in the work undertaken by Respondent No. 1 Firm. As
such, this Hon'ble Authority issued directions dated 08.09.2021 to the
Complainant to implead all stakeholders as parties to the Complaint
and solicited their opinions, which was executed as per the directions.
xxviii.

The contents of Para 5 are false, baseless and hence denied. The
Complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It is denied that after
payment of advance sale consideration on the last occasion on
18 of 87

10.10.2019 the Complainant started requesting the Respondents to
receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute the
registered Sale Deed in her favour but the Respondents had been
postponing the matter on one pretext or the other for the reasons best
known to them but not ready to perform their part. It is submitted that
the Respondent No. 2 as Managing Partner of the Firm much before the
alleged Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019 has executed an Agreement
of Sale dated 05.05.2018 in favour of Respondent No. 7 i.e., Sri Kiran
Kabalavai, S/o.Kesava Rao and received substantial amount towards
advance sale consideration. The said agreement holder having come to
know about the claim of the Complainant herein has filed a Suit in
C.O.S.No.17/2021 before the Hon'ble Vacation Civil Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad and obtained Injunction Order dated 19.05.2021 in
I.A. No. 57 of 2021 in COS No. 17 of 2021 against the Firm from
alienating the Complaint Schedule Property. Subsequently a registered
Sale Deed bearing Doc. No. 269/2023 dated 08.02.2023 was executed
in favour of Sri Kiran Kabalvai in respect of the Complaint Schedule
Property. It is admitted that the Respondent No. 6 gave Public Notice on
09.08.2020 in Eenadu Daily News Paper stating that "She as a partner
of M/s. Reliance Developers, Hyderabad was compelled to dissolve the
said firm by way of Legal Notice dated 09.06.2020 and followed it with a
paper publication dated 11.06.2020 to other partners Sri. Somuri
Purnachandra Rao, Smt. Somuri Lakshmi and Smt. Boppan Sarvani
and that she filed Arbitration Application and cautioned the general
public no to enter into any agreements or any type of Sale Deeds which
is against her interest pertinent to note that that said Arbitration is still
pending. A copy of the Injunction Order dated 19.05.2021 in L.A. No. 57
of 2021 in OS No. 17 of 2021 is herewith being attached as Document
No. 8.
xxix.

The contents of para 6 are false, baseless and hence denied. The
Complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It is denied that the
Complainant was shocked to see the Public Notice by Respondent No. 6,
wife of Respondent No. 4 and daughter-in-law of Respondent No. 2, who
19 of 87

issued a Public Notice through P. Rajesh Babu, Advocate on 09-082020 for want of knowledge. The Complainant is put to strict proof of
the same, It is denied that and that the family disputes among the
Respondents are totally against the interests and rights of Complainant
and that the Respondents all have committed Breach of Contract and
breach of trust against the Complainant against the Complainant as per
the Agreement of Sale, though the Complainant paid 95% of the sale
consideration and is ready to pay the balance sale consideration of INR
12,50,000/- and perform her contract and that the Respondents all had
agreed to give possession of Flat No. 102 to the Complainant after 11
months from the date of Agreement of Sale i.e., 29.01.2019 but failed to
perform the said contract also. It is pertinent to note that Respondent
No. 4 had alone without authorization had signed on behalf of the Firm
as Managing Partner and also on behalf of the land owners as their GPA
Holder for which the Respondent No. 4 was never authorized. It is
admitted that the Respondent No. 2 being the Managing Partner has
registered two Flats to other purchasers viz., (i) Vikram Baru,
Vijayalakshmi Baru& Anjani Rao, Sale Deed No. 745/2021, dated 1503-2021, Flat No. 401 and (ii) Aravind Baid, Neeraj Baid, Sale Deed, No.
746/2021, dated 15- 03-2021, Flat No. 502. It is submitted that
Respondent No. 2 being the Managing Partner of the Firm is authorized
to enter into agreements and execute register Sale Deeds and there is
no impropriety in the same. . The contents of Para 7 are false baseless
and hence denied. The Complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It
is denied that the Respondents are not inclined to come forward to
register the Flat No. 102 in favour of Complainant with a malafide,
malicious and with fraudulent intentions, defying logic and reasoning in
order to siphon off the property and in order to gain unlawfully and the
cause wrongful loss to the

Complainant herein and that

the

Respondents are having financial disputes and that they are they are
their own created, false and fabricated story and the story is cooked up
cock and bull story in order to escape from their legally enforceable
duty. It is submitted that part of the contents of Para 7 are not legible
20 of 87

in the copy provided to the Answering Respondents and the Answering
Respondents reserve their right to submit additional pleadings as and
when deemed necessary and when a clear copy is served on the
answering Respondents. However, the same are denied for want of
knowledge. It is submitted that the Respondents 4 & 6 have siphoned
the firm's money and have committed a lot of irregularities within the
firm and therefore the Respondent No. 2 representing the Respondent
No. 1 have filed several police complaints against them:
a. FIR No.349/2020 dated 28.06.2020 of Jubilee Hills PS, Hyderabad.
b. FIR No.397/2020 dated 28.06.2020 of Banjara Hills PS, Hyderabad.
c. FIR No.549/2020 dated 07.08.2021 of Banjara Hills PS, Hyderabad.
d. FIR No.75/2020 dated 03.07.2020 of C.C.S, Hyderabad.
e. Charge Sheet (Under Section 173 Cr.P.C.) Cr No. 1247/2022 for FIR
No.75/2020.
f. FIR No.171/2021 dated 02.04.2021 of Panjagutta PS. Hyderabad.
xxx.

Several civil suits have been against the Respondents (apart from
respondent No. 7) and an Arbitration vide A.A. 46 of 2020 was preferred
by the Respondent No. 6 and the same is pending adjudication. In
furtherance to the above, the Respondent No. 2 had also preferred the
following Protest Petitions against the Respondents 4 and 6

xxxi.

FIR No. 397/2020 was closed by the concerned PS, and Respondent No.
2 herein preferred a Protest Petition vide Crl. M.P. No. 348 of 2021
against the said closure. The Hon'ble III Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Hyderabad, vide its Order dated 28.04.2023, was pleased
to allow the said Petition.

xxxii.

FIR No. 549/2021 was closed by the concerned PS, and Respondent No.
2 herein preferred a Protest Petition vide Crl. M.P. No. 549 of 2021
against the said closure. The said protest petition was allowed by the
Hon'ble III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

21 of 87

xxxiii.

FIR No. 171/2021 was closed by the concerned PS, and Respondent No.
2 herein preferred a Protest Petition vide Crl. M.P. No. 1198 of 2023
against the said closure. The said protest petition was allowed by the
Hon'ble XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

xxxiv.

A copy of FIR No. 349/2020 dated 28.06.2020 of Jubilee Hills PS,
Hyderabad is attached herewith as Document No. 9. A copy of FIR No.
397/2020 dated 28.06.2020 of Banjara Hills PS, Hyderabad is attached
herewith as Document No. 10. A copy of the Order dated 28.04.2023 in
Crl. M.P. No. 348 of 2021 is attached herewith as Document No. 11. A
copy of FIR No. 549/2021 dated 07.08.2021 of Banjara Hills PS,
Hyderabad is attached herewith as Document No. 12. A copy of the
Order dated 28.04.2023 in Crl. M.P. No. 549 of 2021 is attached
herewith as Document No. 13. A copy of FIR No. 75/2020 dated
03.07.2020 of C.C.S, Hyderabad is attached herewith as Document No.
14. A copy of the Charge Sheet (Under Section 173 Cr.P.C.) Cr No.
1247/2022 for FIR No. 75/2020 is attached herewith as Document No.
15. A copy of FIR No. 171/2021 dated 02.04.2021 of Panjagutta PS,
Hyderabad is attached herewith as Document No. 16. A copy of the
Order dated 21.07.2023 in Crl. M.P. No. 1198 of 2023 is attached
herewith as Document No. 17.

xxxv.

The contents of para 8 are false, baseless, and hence denied. The
Complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The averments made in
the first line of para 8 are not legible, and the Answering Respondents
reserve their right to reply to the same. However, the same are denied
for want of knowledge. It is denied that the Respondents are taking care
of all the business transactions of receiving advances from buyers and
making payments, but only avoiding the Complainant and not
performing their part of the contract. Due to the increase in land prices
and with a malafide intention of cheating the Complainant to earn
money,

the

Respondents

have

been

evading

and

avoiding

the

Complainant and also trying to alienate Flat No. 102 to others,
breaching and violating the Agreement of Sale, and committing the
breach of contract. It is submitted that the Complainant had entered
22 of 87

into the alleged Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019, wherein
Respondent No. 4 had signed on behalf of the Firm (as Managing
Partner) and as well as the landowners (as GPA Holder). The alleged
Agreement of Sale is void ab initio and nonest in law as the same is
without any authorization. The alleged Agreement of Sale is not binding
upon Respondents 1, 2, 3, and 5, and no relief whatsoever can be
claimed against Respondents 1, 2, 3, and 5 with regards to the same.
xxxvi.

The contents of para 9 are false, baseless, and hence denied. The
Complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It is denied that it is a
clear conspiracy by the Respondents to cause harassment and to cheat
and cause wrongful loss to the Complainant. It is further denied that
the Respondents are fraudulently, maliciously, and unnecessarily
dragging the Complainant into disputes in collusion with each other
and on the other hand trying to alienate the Suit Schedule Property. It
is submitted that the Complaint Schedule Property has already been
alienated in favor of Respondent No. 7 herein vide registered Sale Deed
bearing Doc. No. 269/2023 dated 08.02.2023. A copy of the Agreement
of Sale dated 05.05.2018 is herewith attached as Document No. 18. A
copy of the registered Sale Deed bearing Doc. No. 269/2023 dated
08.02.2023 is herewith attached as Document No. 19.

xxxvii.

The contents of para 10 are false, baseless, and hence denied. The
Complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It is denied that the
Respondents colluded and conspired together with a malafide and
fraudulent intention to cheat the Complainant and in that process,
initiated COP and Arbitration Proceedings and other legal notices and
public notices with an ill intention not to transfer and execute any
registered Sale Deed or Conveyance Deed to the bonafide purchaser,
i.e., Complainant. It is pertinent to note that the alleged Agreement of
Sale is void ab initio and non-est in law as the same is without
authorization, and as such, the Complainant does not fall under the
purview of Purchaser and, therefore, cannot fall under the purview of
Complainant before this Hon'ble Authority. It is denied that the
Complainant's health has deteriorated drastically and that she was
23 of 87

hospitalized in ICU on 23.12.2020 and that at present, the Complainant
is on a strict medication schedule due to stress and trauma caused by
the Respondents as they have ignored the Complainant's constant pleas
to complete the execution of the registered sale deed. The feeling of
being a victim of fraud and cheating is constantly haunting the
Complainant and has shaken her trust in future dealings, thereby
leaving perpetual damage to her physical and psychological well-being.
The Complainant is put to strict proof of the same.
xxxviii.

The contents of para 11 are false, baseless, and hence denied. The
Complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It is denied that
whenever the Complainant, along with her husband Mr. Srinivas Rao,
visited the office of the Respondents and requested the registration of
the Flat, the Respondents threatened them with dire consequences,
abused them in the most filthy and vulgar language, and misbehaved
with the Complainant, saying that they are not scared of any authority.
It is also denied that the Complainant and her husband have been
suffering

from

serious

old

age-related

ailments

and

that

the

Complainant's health deteriorated due to the criminal intimidation by
the Respondents.
xxxix.

The contents of para 12 are a matter of record and do not warrant any
traverse.

xl.

The contents of para 13 are false, baseless, and hence denied. The
Complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It is denied that there
was an agreement between the Complainant and M/s. Reliance
Developers regarding the purchase of Flat No. 102 and that as per the
agreement, the Complainant paid INR 1,20,00,000/- to M/s. Reliance
Developers and Rajesh Kiran, who is the son of Purnachandra Rao and
Managing Partner, who is authorized to make sale agreements on behalf
of M/s. Reliance Developers. It is also denied that after receiving the
amounts, the Reliance Developers members started avoiding and
evading the Complainant with malicious malafide and fraudulent
intentions

and

colluded

together

to

conspire

and

cheat

the

Complainant. It is admitted that Respondent No. 2 executed a
24 of 87

registered Sale Deed bearing Doc. No. 269/2023 dated 08.02.2023 in
favor of Respondent No. 7 herein.
xli.

In reply to the averments made in para 14, it is submitted that when
Respondent No. 2 was called for investigation, Respondent No. 2
informed the concerned police authorities that he had alienated the
Complaint Schedule Property in favor of Respondent No. 7 herein. It is
denied that Respondent No. 2 has committed cheating and fraud, and
the Complainant is put to strict proof of the same.

xlii.

The contents of para 15 are a matter of record and do not warrant any
traverse. In fact, Respondents 2, 3, and 5 have also lodged criminal
complaints against Respondents 4 and 6 for their wrongdoings.

xliii.

The contents of para 16 are false, baseless, and hence denied. The
Complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It is denied that they are
habitual offenders and highly influential persons with high chances of
tampering with evidence, holding passports, and there is a high chance
of escaping from this country as they are actually moving around the
world. The Complainant is put to strict proof of the same.

xliv.

It is submitted that neither the Firm nor the partners of the Firm are
signatories to the alleged Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019 said to be
executed in favor of the Complainant. The alleged Agreement of Sale
dated 29.01.2019 is without authorization and as such the same is void
ab initio and non-est in law and not binding on Respondent No. 1 Firm
or its partners. Further, it is submitted that as per the books of the
accounts of Respondent No. 1 Firm, an amount of INR 45 Lakhs is
shown to the credit of the Complainant under the head "Unsecured
Loans" having received the same through the bank account. The said
amount standing to the credit of the Complainant is payable to the
Complainant as an unsecured loan, and the same is subject to the
orders that may be passed by the Hon'ble Arbitrator in Arbitration Case
No. 46/2020 pending before the Hon'ble sole arbitrator Justice Sri Goda
Raghuram (Retired Judge, A.P. High Court).

xlv.

Therefore, in view of the above-mentioned circumstances of the case, it
is prayed that this Hon ble Authority may be pleased to dismiss the
25 of 87

Complaint with exemplary costs and pass such other Order or Orders
as this Hon'ble Authority deems fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case.
23. Respondent No.4

i.

Respondent No. 4 was only an employee in the firm M/s. Reliance
Developers. M/s. Reliance Developers Hyderabad was a partnership
firm, with Sri Somuri Purnachandra Rao as the Managing Partner, who
oversaw the firm's affairs. The partnership firm was registered before
the Registrar of Firms in 2011. Respondent No. 4 worked as a salaried
employee and acted according to the instructions and directions of the
Managing Partner of the firm. Smt. Boppana Sarvani, Respondent No.
4's sister, was one of the partners in the firm. The firm had four
partners: Sri S. Purnachandra Rao, Smt. Somuri Lakshmi, Smt.
Boppana Sarvani, and Smt. Somuri Ravali, the wife of Respondent No.
4.

ii.

It is further humbly submitted that Respondent No. 4 was in no way
concerned with the affairs of M/s. Reliance Developers, represented by
its Managing Partner Sri S. Purnachandra Rao. Respondent No. 4 was
only an employee and discharged duties at the instructions of the then
Managing Partner of the firm. Respondent No. 4 had no involvement
with the transactions that took place between Respondent No. 2 and the
Complainant herein.

iii.

The present complaint before this Hon'ble Authority pertains to the
project

named

Reliance

Eternis

at

Begumpet,

Hyderabad.

The

Project Name,Place, Regd. DGPA TS RERA

TS

RERA

owners

REG. Date

particulars of the project are as follows:
S.no
1.

Reliance

Doc.no
Eternis 1161

Begumpet,Hyd,

Reg.no

of PO250000185 21-09-2019

2017

Telangana

26 of 87

iv.

It is further humbly submitted that TS RERA issued Form 'C', the
registration certificate of project Reliance Eternis under Section 5,
bearing registration number P02500000185 dated 21-01-2019.

v.

It is further humbly submitted that on 07-09-2021, Respondent No. 4
replied to the legal notice dated 29-08-2021 of the Complainant.

vi.

In his reply, Respondent No. 4 mentioned that he was only an employee
in the firm M/s. Reliance Developers (dissolved firm) and that
Respondent No. 2 used to look after the day-to-day affairs of the
dissolved firm. Respondent No. 4 acted upon the directions of
Respondent No. 2.

vii.

Respondent No. 4 clearly mentioned in his reply notice to the
Complainant that the averments made in paragraph 2 of the
Complainant's notice are false. It was the responsibility and binding
duty of Respondent No. 2 to act as per the rules and regulations of the
TS RERA Act. Respondent No. 4 acted only on the directions of
Respondent No. 2.

viii.

It is further humbly submitted that the averments made in the
Complainant's notice are all false and fabricated and are not binding
upon Respondent No. 4.

ix.

Respondent No. 4 had no right to take independent decisions and
always acted upon the instructions/directions of Respondent No. 2.

x.

Respondent No. 4, as per the instructions of Respondent No. 2, entered
into an agreement of sale with the Complainant. The Complainant paid
the sale consideration to Respondent No. 2, and the amounts were
transferred to Respondent No. 1 firm by way of RTGS.

xi.

The Complainant never approached Respondent No. 4 and never
requested him to execute the registered sale deed in her favor. In fact,
Respondent No. 4 had no power or title to execute the registered sale
deed in favor of the Complainant.

27 of 87

xii.

The averments made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the notice of the
Complainant are not related to Respondent No. 4, as he is not a partner
of Respondent No. 1 firm and is only an employee. This fact is well
known to the Complainant. The averments made in paragraph 9 of the
notice of the Complainant are also not related to Respondent No. 4, who
never agreed to give possession of Flat No. 102 to the Complainant after
eleven months from the agreement of sale dated 29-01-2019.

xiii.

The averments made in paragraph 13 of the notice of the Complainant
pertain to the transactions of Respondent No. 1 firm and are not related
to Respondent No. 4.

xiv.

The averments made in paragraph 13 of the notice of the Complainant
regarding the sale deeds executed by Respondent No. 2 in the names of
Vikram Baaru, Vijaya Lakshmi Baaru, Anjani Rao, Arvind Baid, and
Neeraj Baid are not related to Respondent No. 4.

xv.

The averments made in paragraphs 15 to 23 of the notice of the
Complainant are not related to Respondent No. 4. The Complainant
issued the legal notice at the instructions of Respondent No. 2. The
agent is not concerned with the activities of Respondent No. 2, who is
liable for the activities of his agent.

xvi.

The averments made in paragraph 24 are false, and Respondent No. 4
has not received any payment or amount from the Complainant at any
point in time.

xvii.

The firm M/s. Reliance Developers was dissolved by Respondent No. 6
on 09-06-2020, and the dissolution was confirmed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Telangana vide orders dated 08-06-2021 in Arbitration
Application No. 46 of 2020. The relevant orders are annexed for
reference, and the 46th paragraph confirming the dissolution is
extracted below for ready reference:
"46. In the result, the arbitration application is allowed. Sri Justice Goda
Raghuram, former Judge of High Court, is nominated as the sole Arbitrator for
the resolution of the disputes (other than the dissolution as there is no
28 of 87

dispute regarding the same) between the applicant and the respondents,
arising out of the partnership deed dated 27-10-2011 and amended
partnership deed dated 18-09-2014, in accordance with the provisions and
mandate of the Act of 1996. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs."

xviii.

The Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in the above judgment in Arbitration
Application No. 46 of 2020 categorically mentioned, starting from the 7th line
of page no. 71 of the document, which is extracted below for ready reference.

xix.

Likewise, it was pleaded by the respondents that the husband of the
applicant was the key person and he is the alter-ego of the applicant.
But, admittedly, the husband of the applicant is an employee of the firm
and he cannot be related to claims made in the arbitration. Moreover,
he is neither a partner nor a party to the arbitration agreement and till
date, he did not make any claim against the firm or the partners.
Therefore, he is no way concerned with the affairs of the firm except in
the capacity of an employee.

24. Respondent 6
i.

It is respectfully submitted that Respondents 2 and 3 are the father-inlaw and mother-in-law, respectively, and the 5th Respondent is their
daughter, i.e., Respondent No. 6's husband's elder sister.

ii.

It is further humbly submitted that all four persons established a
Partnership

Firm

by

the

name

M/s.

Reliance

Developers

for

development activities, including the construction of roads and
highways, bridges, buildings, commercial or residential structures, and
contract works of any kind from any Government, Quasi Government,
local bodies, and/or private parties. They intended to execute or get
executed any works on a sub-contract basis, either by taking from or
giving to other contractors, and engage in related activities. It was
further agreed that the partners might expand into any other business
activity as decided from time to time.
iii.

It is further humbly submitted that these terms, along with several
other terms, were included in the Partnership Deed dated 27-10-2011
29 of 87

between Respondents No. 2, 3, 5, and 6. The 2nd Respondent was
appointed as the Managing Partner of the Firm, M/s. Reliance
Developers, while Respondent No. 6 agreed to act as the working
partner of the firm, with Respondents 3 and 5 as partners.
iv.

It is further humbly submitted that, among several other terms of the
Partnership Deed, the profit and losses of the firm, after charging
interest and remuneration, were to be shared by all partners as per
Clause No. 9 of the original partnership deed dated 27-10-2011.
According to this clause, Respondent No. 6 is entitled to 25%, the 2nd
Respondent is entitled to 10%, Respondent No. 3 is entitled to 40%, and
the 5th Respondent is entitled to 25%. The remuneration to be paid to
all of them was clearly mentioned in the deed as per Clause No. 7.

v.

It is further humbly submitted that in 2014, Respondent No. 6 and
Respondents No. 2, 3, and 5 intended to amend the original Partnership
Deed dated 27-10-2011 regarding the profit, loss, and remuneration
sharing pattern. Respondent No. 6 was accepted and declared as a 65%
sharer, while Respondents 2 and 3 each held 5%, and the 5th
Respondent held 25%. The amended deed was accepted to come into
effect from 01-10-2014, with other clauses remaining as in the original
Partnership Deed dated 27-10-2011.

vi.

It is further humbly submitted that, pursuant to the establishment of
the firm, with active support from her father Sajja Prabhakar, they
undertook

a

total

of

14

development

projects,

including

the

construction of apartment buildings as a developer under Development
Agreements with respective owners.
vii.

It is further humbly submitted that while all 14 projects commenced,
six projects in Hyderabad were completed, and possession was given to
the respective purchasers. However, the 2nd Respondent obtained
occupancy certificates for only two projects and failed to obtain them for
the remaining four. The other projects in Hyderabad and Vijayawada
were half-completed and could not proceed further due to the
mismanagement and actions of the 2nd Respondent, who was the
Managing Partner of the Firm.
30 of 87

viii.

It is further humbly submitted that although Respondent No. 6 was the
working partner of the firm, the 2nd Respondent, as the Managing
Partner, had control over maintaining accounts and project completion.
Despite commencing two major projects in Vijayawada, the entire
construction work of the projects in Hyderabad and Vijayawada
remained under the 2nd Respondent's control, and he never allowed
Respondent No. 6 to participate in any activities, despite the trust
placed in him.

ix.

It is further humbly submitted that the project Reliance Eternis at
Begumpet, Hyderabad, was not completed due to the 2nd Respondent's
mismanagement and misdeeds. He failed to properly account for all
partners, especially Respondent No. 6, diverted firm funds for his own
purposes, and did not render accounts by the financial year ending 31
March 2019, postponing it on various pretexts. It also came to light that
the 2nd Respondent contracted several personal debts and attempted to
convert them into firm loans, trying to show the firm's outstanding
liability.

x.

It is further humbly submitted that when all these facts came to
Respondent No. 6's knowledge, she was advised to withdraw from the
firm M/s. Reliance Developers. Respondent No. 6 wrote letters dated
24-05-2019 and 12-06-2019, withdrawing from the partnership and
asking the 2nd Respondent to settle her capital, loan, remuneration,
and profits. Her withdrawal from the firm M/s. Reliance Developers was
accepted with effect from 12-06-2019. Respondent No. 6 has no role in
the affairs of the firm after this date. Consequently, the firm M/s.
Reliance Developers was reconstituted by deleting the name of
Respondent No. 6, and a new partnership deed dated 12-06-2019 was
executed by Respondents 2, 3, and 5, confirming her withdrawal and
acceptance.

xi.

It is further humbly submitted that Respondent No. 6 reserved her right
to seek legal action and claim all her dues under the Partnership Deed,
including

capital,

loan,

remuneration,

and

profits,

against

the

partnership firm and the remaining partners.
31 of 87

xii.

It is further humbly submitted that the firm M/s. Reliance Developers
took up various projects, including the development of land and
construction of flats, under an agreement dated 06-07-2015 entered
into with the Complainant for the development of G+2 floors of
residential apartments at Bhashyam Street, Teachers Colony, behind
Green Hotel, Vijayawada, on her land admeasuring 481.84 square
yards.

xiii.

It is further humbly submitted that Respondent No. 6 was never
informed about the agreements or their copies with the complainant by
the 2nd Respondent, who was in sole control of the project. Respondent
No. 6 was never provided with copies of agreements or informed about
the partnership firm's commitments. Respondent No. 6 was kept in the
dark regarding the said project, and Respondents 2, 3, and 5 executed
the work without her participation.

xiv.

It is further humbly submitted that the 2nd Respondent executed the
work at the complainant's project, initially carried out up to the
basement level. However, due to the 2nd Respondent's financial
mismanagement and deviation of firm funds to his personal account,
the project could not be completed. Subsequently, the complainant filed
a case before your Hon'ble Authority.

xv.

It is respectfully submitted that Respondent No. 6 was informed that
the complainant lodged a complaint before your good offices under Rule
34 (1) & (2) of the TS Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act 2016
& Rules 2017. However, as previously stated, Respondent No. 6 received
the complaint copy and complete set of documents only on 06-10-2023.
Therefore, the Hon'ble Authority, having received the Respondent No.
6's reply letter dated 01-09-2023, must consider the facts presented in
this detailed reply and also grant time to submit any further
information, if needed.

xvi.

It is further humbly submitted that after the passing of the above orders
by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, Respondent No. 6 came to
know of further irregularities committed by the 2nd Respondent, in
complete contravention of Section 11 of the RERA Act, which mandates
32 of 87

the promoter to act and implement the provisions of the Act in their
true letter and spirit.
xvii.

It is further humbly submitted that Respondent No. 6, in her Claim
Statement filed in Arbitration Claim No. 1 of 2021 in Arbitration
Application No. 46 of 2020, annexed hereto, has prayed to the Hon'ble
Sole Arbitrator to declare the Agreements of Sale and Sale Deeds
executed by the 2nd Respondent in favor of the alleged purchasers null
and void in the eyes of the law and contrary to the provisions of the
RERA Act. Respondent No. 6 prayed for 65% of her share of flats
allotted in the name of M/s. Reliance Developers (Dissolved Firm) as per
the Amended Partnership Deed dated 18-09-2014. Respondent No. 6
prayed for partition and separate possession of her 65% share of flats
out of the Developer's share, i.e., flats allotted in the name of Reliance
Developers (Dissolved Firm). The subject claim is pending before the
Arbitral Tribunal between Respondents Nos. 2, 3, 5.

xviii.

It is further humbly submitted that Respondent No. 6 became aware of
the registration of Sale Deed bearing No. 269/2023 dated 08-02-2023
pertaining to Flat No. 102 in Reliance Eternis at Begumpet, Hyderabad,
through the first undated letter from the Secretary, TS RERA. The sale
deed was registered subsequent to the dissolution of the firm (i.e., on
09-06-2020) and the passing of sale consideration mentioned in the
said sale deed was not routed through the RERA accounts, as the
operation of the accounts in Hyderabad was stalled subsequent to the
dissolution on 09-06-2020. The aforementioned sale deed, registered
after the dissolution of the firm and subsequent to the judgment by the
Hon'ble High Court in Arb. Appl. No. 46 of 2020 on 08-06-2021,
demonstrates the 2nd Respondent's audacity in disregarding the
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, amounting to disobedience.

xix.

It is further humbly submitted that the above-mentioned document
registered on 09-06-2020 is a voidable transaction, as Respondent No.
6 had, in her first legal notice dated 06-05-2020, categorically
demanded the 2nd Respondent refrain from any transactions in the
name of the firm, having lost trust and confidence in the 2nd
33 of 87

Respondent and disputing the management of the firm’s accounts and
funds. Nonetheless, the 2nd Respondent willfully and intentionally
created the above-registered document.
xx.

It is further humbly submitted that Respondent No. 7 filed OS No. 43 of
2021 before the 1st Addl Chief Judge Court, Secunderabad, Telangana
against eight respondents, including Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 6 of
this complaint and three landowners of the DAGPA. On 31-03-2023,
Respondent No. 7 filed a memo to not press the suit, resulting in its
dismissal. This act of filing and withdrawing the civil suit by
Respondent No. 7 illustrates a collusion with Respondents Nos. 2, 3, 5
to register the sale deed illegally without the consent of Respondent No.
6.

xxi.

It is further humbly submitted that Respondent No. 2 does not have
any right to register the above-mentioned sale deed without the consent
of Respondent No. 6, as the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana
categorically confirmed the dissolution of M/s. Reliance Developers in
Para No. 46 at Pages 106, 107 of the list of documents. Due to the short
time given by the TS RERA committee members to Respondent No. 6 to
submit the reply, the enclosed encumbrance certificate obtained online
shows that Respondent No. 2 executed the sale deed on behalf of a
defunct and dissolved firm (M/s. Reliance Developers). Respondent No.
6 obtained the certified copy of the illegal sale deed No. 269/2023 dated
08-02-2023 pertaining to Flat No. 102 in Reliance Eternis at Begumpet,
Hyderabad, and the following observations are recorded from the sale
deed:

i. As per the sale deed, Respondent No. 2 executed the registered sale deed in
favor of Respondent No. 7 illegally in the capacity of the Managing Partner of the
dissolved firm M/s. Reliance Developers without the consent of Respondent No. 6.
How can Respondent No. 2 execute a registered sale deed as the Managing
Partner of a dissolved firm?
ii. As per Para No. 1 of Page No. 262 of the list of documents, Respondent No. 2 in
the capacity of the Managing Partner of the dissolved firm M/s. Reliance
34 of 87

Developers settled with Respondent No. 7 illegally for Rs. 25,00,000 (Rupees
Twenty-Five Lakhs Only). How can Respondent No. 2 settle with Respondent No.
7 for Rs. 25,00,000 when the Vendor No. 4 itself is a dissolved firm?
iii. As per Para No. 1 of Page No. 262 of the list of documents, Respondent No. 2
diverted the amounts paid by Respondent No. 7 illegally to benami suppliers,
stated as "at the instance of Developer/Vendor No. 4," without the consent of
Respondent No. 6. How can Respondent No. 2 divert the funds to benami persons
without routing them through proper TS RERA Bank Accounts?
iv. The above diversion of Rs. 25,00,000 is evident from Para Nos. 1(a) to 1(e) at
Page No. 264 of the list of documents.
v. Respondent No. 2, who is fortunately not a doctor by profession, is capable of
performing a surgery/operation on a dead person (like a dead firm in this case)
and collecting money against the same surgery/operation.

xxii.

It is further humbly submitted that the matter pertaining to the suit
filed by Respondent No. 7 is elaborately discussed in the ongoing
Arbitral Proceedings before Justice Goda Raghuram (Retd) between
Respondents Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6. During these discussions, Respondent
No. 6 came across an amount of Rs. 60,00,000 (Rupees Sixty Lakhs
Only) shown by the 2nd Respondent in the Income Tax Returns filed by
him and submitted before the Arbitral Proceedings for the A.Y. 2020-21
dated 15-02-2021 at 13:48 hrs as "Unsecured Loan" at Page Nos.
001713, 001723, and more specifically at Page No. 001855 of Volume 8
annexed

herewith,

not

under

the

head

of

Advances

from

Customers/Purchasers. Respondent No. 6 should applaud the 2nd
Respondent's capability in showing the amounts as per his convenience
across various statutory authorities like Income Tax, TS RERA, and
Arbitration Proceedings, attempting to twist the real facts of the case
and shift the burden of the amount onto Respondent No. 6. The abovementioned Income Tax Returns were filed by Respondent No. 2 on
behalf of the dissolved firm after dissolution without the consent of
Respondent No. 6.
35 of 87

xxiii.

It is further humbly submitted that the matter pertaining to the Arbitral
Proceedings before Justice Goda Raghuram (Retd) between Respondents
Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 6 revealed an amount of Rs. 45,00,000 (Rupees FortyFive Lakhs Only) shown by the 2nd Respondent in the Income Tax
Returns filed by him and submitted before the Arbitral Proceedings for
the A.Y. 2020-21 dated 15-02-2021 at 13:48 hrs as "Unsecured Loan"
at Page Nos. 001712, 001722, and as "Sundry Creditor" at Page No.
001832 of Volume 8 annexed herewith, same as Volume 8 as list
document No. 22. Respondent No. 6 is totally unaware of the cash
transactions mentioned in the Agreement of Sale dated 29-01-2019 of
the Complainant. Respondent No. 6 should again applaud the 2nd
Respondent's capability in showing the amounts as per his convenience
across various statutory authorities like Income Tax, TS RERA, and
Arbitration Proceedings, attempting to twist the real facts of the case
and shift the burden of the amount onto Respondent No. 6. The abovementioned Income Tax Returns were filed by Respondent No. 2 on
behalf of the dissolved firm after dissolution without the consent of
Respondent No. 6.

xxiv.

It is further humbly submitted that Respondent No. 6 replied on 12-092021 to the legal notice dated 29-08-2021 from the Complainant.

xxv.

It is directed that both parties are to be equally responsible for
completing both projects as soon as possible and for handing over the
flats to the allottees at the earliest to avoid further complications.
Despite the dissolution of the firm, the firm does not cease to exist until
all liabilities are cleared and necessary obligations are performed.
Therefore, the promoter firm is entitled and duty-bound to continue the
project in the capacity of the promoter to avoid future complaints and
litigation. Hence, Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.

25. Respondent 7
i.

At the outset, all the averments/allegations made in the above complaint
are false and incorrect, and are hereby denied. The Complainant is put to
strict proof of the same. The Complainant has filed the above complaint
36 of 87

with unclean hands and by suppressing material particulars. As such, the
above complaint is neither maintainable in law nor as per the averments
on record, and the above complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.
Nothing herein shall be deemed to be admitted for the reason of nontraverse.
ii.

The Respondent takes the following preliminary objections regarding the
maintainability of the above complaint filed by Smt. Basham Shobha Rani.

iii.

The Respondent submits that the above complaint filed by Smt. Basham
Shobha Rani is based on false and baseless allegations and is not
maintainable as per the provisions of the Telangana State Real Estate
(Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.

iv.

The Respondent submits that in the above complaint, the Complainant has
sought relief to register Flat No. 102, H.No.1-10-38/2, Reliance Eternis,
Begumpet, Hyderabad, Telangana State in favor of the Complainant, and
for cancellation and declaration of Sale Deed dated 08.02.2023 bearing
Doc. No. 269/2023 as void and illegal, and to blacklist the developer. It is
respectfully submitted that the prayer in the above complaint does not fall
within the purview and ambit of the RERA Act, 2016 and the rules framed
thereunder. It is further submitted that the reliefs sought in the complaint
are declaratory in nature and adjudication of the same can only be dealt
with by the competent civil court. Therefore, on this ground alone, the
complaint is liable to be dismissed.

v.

The answering Respondent submits that the powers of this Hon'ble
Regulatory Authority are described under Section 38 of the TS RERA Act,
2016. Section 38 reads as follows:
Powers of Authority (1) The Authority shall have powers to impose penalty or
interest, in regard to any contravention of obligations cast upon the promoters, the
allottees and the real estate agents, under this Act or the rules and regulations
made thereunder. (2) The Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural
justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made
thereunder, the Authority shall have powers to regulate its own procedure. (3)
Where an issue is raised relating to agreement, action, omission, practice or
procedure that: (a) has an appreciable prevention, restriction, or distortion of
37 of 87

competition in connection with the development of a real estate project; or (b) has
the effect of market power or monopoly situation being abused for affecting the
interest of allottees adversely, then the Authority may suo motu make reference in
respect of such issue to the Competition Commission of India."
vi.

It is submitted that the powers of this Hon'ble Authority under the TS
RERA Act, 2016 are limited only to impose penalty or interest regarding
any contravention of obligations of the developer/promoter. Further, as per
Section 40 of the RERA Act, 2016, if the promoter, allottee, or a real estate
agent fails to pay the interest or penalty or compensation imposed on him,
then the same can be recovered in such manner as may be prescribed as
arrears of land revenue. Therefore, even as per the RERA Act itself, there is
no procedure prescribed to cancel a Registered Sale Deed and further to
grant a declaratory relief declaring the Registered Sale Deed validly
executed in favor of the answering Respondent as null and void. On this
ground alone, the above complaint is liable to be rejected and dismissed.

vii.

Respondent submits that this Hon'ble Authority, under the provisions of
the RERA Act, 2016, does not have the authority/power to register any
property nor has the authority/power to cancel/declare registered
documents such as registered Sale Deeds as null and void. Further, the
Complainant filed the above complaint seeking reliefs which are beyond
the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Authority, and as such, the said
complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.

viii.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant, by way of crafty and
misleading drafting, has sought to give an impression to this Hon'ble
Authority that the Complainant is the rightful purchaser by virtue of an
Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019 for the purchase of Flat No. 102.
However, the answering Respondent entered into an Agreement of Sale
dated 05.05.2018 to purchase the West side Flat No. 102, 1st Floor, having
a built-up area of 1900 sq.ft with 71 sq.yds of undivided share of land out
of 710.25 sq.yds along with two car parking spaces on the stilt floor, in the
premises "RELIANCE ETERNIS" bearing Municipal House No. 1-10-38/2,
situated at Begumpet, Secunderabad with M/s Reliance Developers,
represented by its Managing Partner, Mr. Somuri Purnachandra Rao, for a
38 of 87

consideration. Thereafter, a valid Registered Sale Deed dated 08.02.2023
bearing Doc. No. 269/2023 was executed in favor of the answering
Respondent. As such, the Complainant, as a forum shopping technique,
has initially filed the above complaint based on clever drafting only to
mislead this Hon'ble Court for obtaining favorable orders.
ix.

It is submitted that the complaint is filed by completely misconstruing,
misrepresenting, and misconceiving the provisions of the RERA Act, 2016.

x.

The Respondent respectfully submits that the institution of the above
complaint seeking reliefs such as to register an immovable property, cancel
a registered sale deed, and declare a registered sale deed as null and void,
and the adjudication of the complaint on mentioned grounds which do not
fall within the purview/ambit/scope and jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Authority, is a clear abuse of process of law. As such, the complaint is
liable to be dismissed in limine.

xi.

It is respectfully submitted that after due deliberations and based upon the
representations of the Respondent No. 1, represented by Respondent No. 2,
the answering Respondent agreed to purchase the West side Flat No. 102
on the 1st Floor, having a built-up area of 1900 sq.ft (inclusive of balconies
and common areas) with 71 sq.yds of undivided share of land out of
710.25 sq.yds along with two car parking spaces on the stilt floor in the
premises "RELIANCE ETERNIS" bearing Municipal House No. 1-10-38/2,
situated at Begumpet, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as the
"Subject Flat") for a valid sale consideration amount.

xii.

Thereafter, the answering Respondent entered into an Agreement of Sale
dated 05.05.2018 to purchase the West side Flat No. 102, 1st Floor, having
a built-up area of 1900 sq.ft with 71 sq.yds of undivided share of land out
of 710.25 sq.yds along with two car parking spaces on the stilt floor, in the
premises "RELIANCE ETERNIS" bearing Municipal House No. 1-10-38/2,
situated at Begumpet, Secunderabad, with M/s Reliance Developers,
represented by its Managing Partner, Mr. Somuri Purnachandra Rao, for a
total sale consideration of Rs.85,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty-Five Lakhs only),
out of which a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs only) was paid
by the answering Respondent as an advance sale consideration, and the
39 of 87

balance amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs only) was to
be paid by the answering Respondent to Respondent No. 1 herein on or
before registration of the Sale Deed. A copy of the Agreement of Sale dated
05.05.2018 is filed herewith as Document No. 1. A copy of the Respondent
No. 7's bank statement evidencing payment of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees
Sixty Lakhs only) as an advance sale consideration is filed herewith as
Document No. 2.
xiii.

It is respectfully submitted that the construction of the Subject Flat was
completed in all respects and as per the terms of the Agreement of Sale
dated 05.05.2018, the possession of the Subject Flat was handed over to
the answering Respondent herein by Respondent No. 1 on 01.06.2022, and
the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees TwentyFive Lakhs only) was also paid to Respondent No. 1 herein.

xiv.

It is respectfully submitted that pursuant to the Agreement of Sale dated
05.05.2018, a valid Registered Sale Deed dated 08.02.2023 bearing Doc.
No. 269/2023 was executed by Respondent No. 1 in favor of the answering
Respondent herein. The Sale Deed was duly signed by both parties and
registered with the Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad. A copy of the Sale Deed
dated 08.02.2023 bearing Doc. No. 269/2023 is filed herewith as
Document No. 3.

xv.

The Respondent submits that the contents of para 1 are denied as false
and incorrect. It is respectfully submitted that the Complainant entered
into an Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019 with Respondent No. 1 for
purchasing the same Subject Flat. However, the Subject Flat was already
sold to the answering Respondent as per the Agreement of Sale dated
05.05.2018. Therefore, the Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019 executed
between

the

Complainant

and

Respondent

No.

1

is

invalid

and

unenforceable as the same property was already sold to the answering
Respondent.
xvi.

The Respondent submits that the contents of para 2 are denied as false
and incorrect. The Respondent denies that the Respondent No. 1
suppressed material facts and misrepresented the status of the property to
the Complainant. It is respectfully submitted that Respondent No. 1
40 of 87

executed the Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019 with the Complainant
knowing full well that the Subject Flat was already sold to the answering
Respondent.
xvii.

The Respondent submits that the contents of para 3 are denied as false
and incorrect. The Respondent denies that the Complainant is the lawful
owner of the Subject Flat. It is respectfully submitted that the answering
Respondent is the lawful owner of the Subject Flat by virtue of the
Agreement of Sale dated 05.05.2018 and the subsequent Registered Sale
Deed dated 08.02.2023 bearing Doc. No. 269/2023.

xviii.

The Respondent submits that the contents of para 4 are denied as false
and incorrect. The Respondent denies that the Respondent No. 1 executed
the Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019 with the Complainant after
obtaining necessary permissions and

clearances.

It is respectfully

submitted that Respondent No. 1 executed the Agreement of Sale dated
29.01.2019 with the Complainant without disclosing the prior Agreement
of Sale dated 05.05.2018 executed with the answering Respondent.
xix.

The Respondent submits that the contents of para 5 are denied as false
and incorrect. The Respondent denies that the Complainant made all
necessary payments to Respondent No. 1 as per the terms of the
Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019. It is respectfully submitted that the
Complainant failed to verify the title and ownership of the Subject Flat
before entering into the Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019 with
Respondent No. 1.

xx.

The Respondent submits that the contents of para 6 are denied as false
and incorrect. The Respondent denies that the Respondent No. 1 delivered
possession of the Subject Flat to the Complainant. It is respectfully
submitted that Respondent No. 1 delivered possession of the Subject Flat
to the answering Respondent as per the terms of the Agreement of Sale
dated 05.05.2018.

xxi.

The Respondent submits that the contents of para 7 are denied as false
and incorrect. The Respondent denies that the Complainant has a valid
and subsisting Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019. It is respectfully
submitted that the Complainant's Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019 is
41 of 87

invalid and unenforceable as the Subject Flat was already sold to the
answering Respondent.
The Respondent submits that the contents of para 8 are denied as false

xxii.

and incorrect. The Respondent denies that the Complainant is entitled to
any reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. It is respectfully submitted that
the Complainant is not entitled to any reliefs as the answering Respondent
is the lawful owner of the Subject Flat by virtue of the Agreement of Sale
dated 05.05.2018 and the subsequent Registered Sale Deed dated
08.02.2023 bearing Doc. No. 269/2023.
In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is respectfully

xxiii.

submitted that the above complaint filed by the Complainant is not
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine.
F. Written Arguments:

26. Pleadings on behalf of the Complainant:
I.

It is submitted that, the Respondents are absolute owners and
possessors of property i.e., West faced residential flat bearing No.102 on
First Floor having a super built up area of 1900 Sq.ft. (inclusive of
Balconies and common areas) with 71 Sq Yards of undivided share of
land out of 710.25 Sq Yards equivalent to 593.8 Sq.Mtrs, along with
Two cars Parking on Stilt floor in the premises 'RELIANCE ETERNIS' in
the

premises

bearing

M.H.No.1-10-38/2.

situated

at

Begumpet,

Hyderabad offered to alienate the same in favour of the Complainant for
a total sale consideration of Rs.1,32,50,000/- (Rupees One crore thirty
two lakhs fifty thousand only) and for that the Complainant had agreed
and accepted to purchase the same. (which is hereinafter referred to as
suit schedule property).
II.

It is submitted that, as per the above said offer and acceptance the
Complainant have paid Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty
Lakhs Only) i.e., 90% out of entire sale consideration and the same was
acknowledged by the Respondent No.4 herein as authorized person on
behalf of Respondent No.1 and 2 and others. 3. It is submitted that, as
42 of 87

a matter of fact Respondent No. 2 to 6 are same family members.
Respondent No.2 and 3 are husband and wife, Respondent No.4 is son
and Respondent No.6 is daughter of Respondent No.2 and 3.
Respondent No.5 is wife of Respondent No.4. All the Respondents doing
business under the name and style of M/s. Reliance Developers,
entered into Development Agreement cum Irrevocable GPA with
Shikaram Ramananda Gupta, Venkatarama Raviphani Kumar Gupta
and Chitra Nag Kanumary with regard to the residential land property
admeasuring 710.25 Square Yards or 593.8 Square Meters, in the
premises bearing M.H.No 1-10-38/2, situated at Begumpet, Hyderabad
in which Suit Schedule Property is situated.
III.

It is submitted that, Respondent No.4 is authorized to act on behalf of
Respondent No.1 for conducting day-to-day business transactions in
Hyderabad, as Respondent No.2 was busy in other projects of
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh states. Respondent No.4 has authority
to execute Sale Agreements and receive the amounts and issue receipts
to that effect in their day to day business transactions. The
authorization was given to Respondent No.4 on 28.11.2018 by
Respondent No.2 as Managing Partner of M/s.Reliance Developers and
Subsequently the Respondent No.4 had entered into Agreement of Sale
with the Complainant on 29.01.2019.

IV.

It is submitted that, the total sale consideration of the Suit Schedules
Property was valued at Rs.1,32,50,000/- (Rupees One crore thirty two
lakhs

fifty

thousand

only)

and

the

Complainant

has

paid

Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Lakhs Only) in total, till
date which is more than 95% of tota sale consideration. The amounts
paid in pursuant to the above said agreemen of sale on various dates
i.e., (1) Rs.29,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty nine lakhs onl paid by way of
RTGS vide UTR No, SBINRS201902200101925 dated 22-01-201- (2)
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) by way of Check No.667626
dated 2 01-2019 of SBI, Chandrayangutta, Kanchanbagh Branch,
Hyderabad ( Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy five lakhs only) by way of
cash. C Subsequently, after the agreement of sale, an amount of
43 of 87

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs on) was paid by way of RTGS vide
UTR

No.

SBINRS2019031100107649

dated

11.03.2019

of

SB1,

Chandrayangutta, Kanchanbagh Branch, Hyderabad and (5) an amount
of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) was paid by way of RTGS vide
UTR No. ORBCH9283051716 dated 10.10.2019 of OBC, Santhosh
Nagar Branch, Hyderabad. It is further submitted that, it was mutually
agreed that the Complainant shall pay the remaining amount of balance
sale consideration after completion of Fifth Floor Slab, Brick Work and
Completion of Plastering at the time of handing over the flat to the
Respondent 5. It is submitted that, while the things stood thus, after
payment of advance sale consideration on the last occasion on
10.10.2019 the Complainant started requesting the Respondents to
receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute the
registered sale deed in her favor, but the Respondents had been
postponing the matter on one pretext or the other for the reasons best
known to them, but they were not ready to perform their part of
contract. Meanwhile, Respondent No.6 gave PUBLIC NOTICE on
09.08.2020 in Eenadu daily News Paper stating that "she as a partner
of M/s Reliance Developers, Hyderabad was compelled to Dissolve the
said firm by way of Legal Notice dated 09.06.2020 and followed it with a
paper publication dated 11.06.2020 to other partners Sri Somuri
Purnachandra Rao, Smt Samuri Lakshmi and Smt Boppana Sarvani.
She filed Arbitration Application and cautioned the general public not to
enter into any agreements or any type of sale deeds, which is against
her interest".
V.

It is submitted that, the Complainant was shocked, astonished and
dismayed to see the Public Notice by Respondent No.6, wife of
Respondent No.4 and daughter-in-law of Respondent No.2, who issued
a Public Notice through P. Rajesh Babu, Advocate on 09.08.2020. The
family disputes among the Respondents are totally against the interests
and rights of Complainant. The Respondents all have committed Breach
of contract and breach of trust against the Complainant as per
Agreement of Sale, though the Complainant paid 95% of Sale
44 of 87

Consideration and is ready to pay the balance Sale consideration of
Rs.12.50,000/-

(Rupees

Twelve

lakhs

fifty

thousand

only)

and

performed her part contract. The Respondents all had agreed to give the
possession of Flat No.102, to the Complainant after 11 months from the
date of Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019, but failed to perform the
said contract also. Respondent No.2 also registered two Flats to other
purchases, being the Managing Partner of the firm, the details are as
under:
1). Vikram Baru, Vijayalakshmi Baru & Anjani Rao, Sale Deed No.
745/2021 dated 15.03.2021 Flat No.401. Aravind Baid, Neeraj Baid,
Sale Deed No. 746/2021 dated 15.03.2021 Flat No.502.
VI.

It is submitted that, the Respondents are not inclined to come forward
to register the Flat No.102 in favour of Complainant with a malafide,
malicious and with fraudulent intentions, defying logic and reasoning in
order to syphon my property and in order to gain unlawfully and to
cause wrongful loss to the Complainant herein. The Respondents are
having financial disputes is their own created, false and fabricated story
and the story is cooked up cock and bull story in order to escape from
their legally enforceable duty to execute Registered Sale Deed in favour
of Complainant and to perform their part of contract, as all have
conspired together to evade and avoid Registration of Flats sold to
purchasers and for completion of the project in time and hand over
possession of flats.

VII.

It is submitted that, Respondents are actively involving in all other
affairs of the firm and taking care of all the business transactions of
receiving advances from buyers and making payments, but only
avoiding the Complainant and not performing their part of contract. It is
pertinent to mention here that, due to increase in land prices and with
a mala-fide intention of cheating the Complainant, to earn more money,
Respondents have been evading and avoiding the Complainant and also
trying to alienate the Flat No.102 to others and breaching and violating
the Agreement of Sale and committed breach of Contract.

45 of 87

VIII.

It is submitted that, it is a clear conspiracy by the Respondents to
cause harassment and to cheat and cause wrongful loss to the
Complainant. Further Respondents are fraudulently, maliciously and
unnecessarily dragging the Complainant in disputes in collusion with
each other and on the other hand, trying to alienate the Suit Schedule
Property in favour of third parties. 10. It is submitted that, the
Respondents colluded and conspired together with a mala-fide and
fraudulent intention to cheat the Complainant and in that process,
initiated COP and Arbitration proceedings and other legal notices and
public notices with an ill-intention, not to transfer and execute any
registered sale deed or conveyance deed to the bonafide purchaser i.e.,
Complainant. The Complainant health has deteriorated drastically and
had hospitalized in the ICU on 23 December 2020. At present the
Complainant is on strict medication schedule due to the stress and
trauma caused by the Respondents as they all have ignored the
Complainant constant pleas to complete the execution of registered sale
deed. The feeling of being a victim of fraud and cheating is constantly
haunting the Complainant and has shaken her trust in future dealings
very badly thereby leaving a perpetual damage to her physical and
psychological well-being.

IX.

It is submitted that, whenever the Complainant along with her husband
Mr.Srinivas Rao visited the Office of Respondents and requested for
registration of Flat, the Respondents had threatened them with dire
consequences and abused in most filthy language and vulgar language,
they also misbehaved with the Complainant saying that they are not
scared of any authority. The Complainant and her husband are senior
citizens and have been suffering from serious old age related ailments.
The

Complainant

health

got

deteriorated

due

to

the

criminal

intimidation and fraudulent acts of the Respondents.
X.

It is submitted that, has lodged a complaint and it is Re-registered as
FIR.No 550/2022 U/S 406, 420 R/w 34 IPC after getting transferred
from Jubliee hills Police station Crime No. 190/2020 dt.30.09.2022 to
panjagutta Police station.
46 of 87

XI.

It is submitted that, there was a agreement between me and M/S
Reliance Developers regarding for the purchase of flat No.102 and as
per the agreement Complainant paid a sum of RS. 1,20,00,000/- to
M/S Reliance Developers and Rajesh Kiran who is the son of
purnachandra Rao and Managing partner who is authorized to make
sale of flats agreements on behalf of M/S Reliance Developers. After
receiving the amounts the Reliance Developers members started
avoiding evading me with malicious malafide and fraudulent intentions
and

all

colluded

together

conspired

and

cheated

me

as

Mr.Purmachander Rao MD M/S Reliance Developers stated and
admitted before the police Panjagutta to pat he has already sold the flat
No.102 to Mr. Kiran Kabalavai S/o Sri Kabalival Keshava Rao, through
vide Document 269/2023 dt. 08.02.2023.
XII.

It is submitted that, as purnachandra rao called for investigation stated
that the flat has been registered to another person and he is not
responsable for anything and vehemently opposed to respond to
Complainant demand. It is further submit that, Respondent No.2
admitted before the police panjagutta that he already sold and
registered the flat to some other person and hence committed cheating
and fraud and in his counter Filed by R-2 Para No. 41

XIII.

It is submitted that, as it came to complainant notice and by R-2 in his
counter Para No. 34 that there are many cases pending on Rajesh kiran
and other members with different cases on different sites playing fraud
and cheating many people with crime number Cr.No 349/2020, Cr.No
397/2020, Cr. No 75/2020, Cr.No. 171/2021 Complaint dated
09.04.2021, and the registered company has been closed and branch
also in somajiguda, Lovely Mansion House got closed admitted by R-2
in his counter and written submissions before the authority.

XIV.

It is submitted that, they are habitual offenders and highly infulential
persons and high chances of tampering of evidence and holding
passports and there is high chance of escaping from this country as
they are actually moving around the world.

47 of 87

XV.

It is submitted that, a legal notice Dt.29.08.2021 has been issued to
respondent No. 1 to 6 and respondent No. 4 and 5 replied on
Dt.12.09.2021 and Respondent No.4 has stated in the para No. 6 of the
reply notice entered into the agreement of sale with the complainant
and paid sale consideration to the Managing partner of the Firm Mr. S.
Purnachandra Rao and also some amount were transfered to the
Respondent firm by way of RTGS And admitted by R-4 in his counter
before the RERA authority.

XVI.

It is submitted that, with respect to para No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 with respect to
the jurisdiction and the petition is maintainable as the complainant is
the aggrieved purchaser/ Agreement of Sale holder signed by the
Authorized signatory Respondent No. 4 i.e, Mr. S. Rajesh Kiran who has
been registered the project Reliance Eternis in the premises bearing No.
Μ. Η πο : 1-10-38/2 situated at Begumpet, Prakash Nagar, Hyderabad,
and obtained the Project Registration No. P02500000185. It is further
Submitted that, the Telangana Real estate Regulatory Authority does
have the Authority/ power to register any property registerted under
them U/S 17 le Transfer of Title "as the competent authority as the case
may be and hand over the physical possession of the apartment or
building if the promoter/developer violates provisions of the RERA ACT
2016 and resorts to fraudulent transfer/mutations denying the rightful
legally entitiled title claim of the homebuyer, and also cancel the
registration of documents by issuing directions/order to the subRegistrar" admitted by R-4 and R-7 in their counter and R-7 in his
written submissions.

XVII.

It is submitted that, with respect to Para No. 7 the RERA can return of
Amount and award compensation with interest as per U/Sec 18 and
also U/Sec 71 power to adjudicate and also U/Sec 72(c & d) the
repetitive nature of default and such other factors which the
adjudicating officer considers necessary to the case in furtherance. It is
further submitted that, the U/Sec 79 No civil court shall have
jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in reply notice entered
into the agreement of sale with the complainant and paid sale
48 of 87

consideration to the Managing partner of the Firm Mr. S. Purnachandra
Rao and also some amount were transferred to the Respondent firm by
way of RTGS And admitted by R-4 in his counter before the RERA
authority. It is further submitted and its aptly clear the R-7 is a
financier and R-2 through his advocated Replied Dt. 04.05.2021 that
the partnership has dissolved at the instance of R-6 and denied R-2, 3,
5 had no role to play in the decision of R-7 purchasing the said flat at
Reliance Eternis and R-7 in OS. No. 43 of 2021 Para No. 19 & 20 that
R-2 Managing Partner of the firm was trying to plead ignorance about
the very execution of Agreement of Sale dt. 05.05.2018. It is further
submitted that the OS No. 43 of 2021 has been withdrawn as not
pressed unilaterally by the R-7 in the 1 ACJ Sec and as such no legally
entitled right accrued by the R-7. It is aptly clear as R-2 has admitted in
his counter that is well within the knowledge of the R-7 with respect to
existence of Agreement of sale Dt. 29.01.2019 but was not made a party
in OS. No. 43 of 2021 is nothing but suppression of facts and obtaining
status Quo and later again with drawing the suit makes it very clear R2, 3, 5 & 6 connived and conspired to deprive the legitimate and entitle
right of complainant.
XVIII.

It is submitted that, with respect to Para No. 8 the Authorized signatory
with the RERA is only empowered to enter/execute the Agreements of
Sale in connection with the sale of flats and recieve the amounts and
issue the receipts of that effect. It is further submitted that, the as per
the clause 5 of the partnership deed dt.27.10.2011 Document bearing
No. 3248 of 2011, "the Managing Partner shall also have the power to
appoint necessary staff to maintain the books of account, to incur
necessary expenditure and to do all acts and things necessary and
incidental to carry on the business of the firm", and Mr. S. Rajesh Kiran
Respondent No.4 designated as CEO has been Authorized by the
Managing Partner of M/S Reliance Developers Mr. S. Purnachandar Rao
to execute the Agreements of Sale in connection with the sale of flats
and receive the amounts and issue the receipts to that effect and this
Document No. 1 is filed herewith and also this Document No.1 filed
49 of 87

with

the

RERA

in

Hyderabad

and

obtained

Registration

No.

P02500000185. It is further submitted that, the Respondent No.2 has
admitted and filed a Letter/Document before the RERA Hyderabad to
with draw the Authorization given to Respondent No. 4 conveniently in
the year 2020 which is very detrimental to the interest of the Home
Buyer/Complainant.
XIX.

It is submitted that, the Respondent No. 4 & 6 has submitted the
amendment deed Dt. 18.09.2014 to partnership deed Dt. 27.10.2011
before the RERA authority Hyderabad. It is further submitted that, the
respondent No.2 has stated and admitted that while he was considering
moving to vijayawada and exploring various opportunities available to
the firm for taking of projects at vijayawada the Respondent No. 4 has
approached the Respondent No.2 and represented that for the purpose
of Income tax compliances and for availing tax benefits, the partners of
the said firm should enter into amendment deed amending the share
holding pattern in the said firm where by the shareholding of the
Respondent No.2, 3, 5 was sought to be reduced considerably and the
same was sought to be transferred to the Respondent No.6, and also
Respondent No.2 believing the representation made by the Respondent
No.4 signed an amendment partnership deed however, he states that
Respondents No.3 & 5 have not signed the said amendment deed and
were not even aware of the same. It is aptly clear that the Respondent
No.2 is stating false as both Respondent No. 2 & 3 are residing under
the same Roof and he signing the document and Respondent No. 3 & 5
not signing the document is prepostorous, concocted, false, fabricated
and enactment of farce colluded, conspired together creating litigations
depriving the legitimate entitle rights of the Home Buyer/Complainant.
(Page No. 11 & 23) (Para No. 21 & 42)

XX.

It is submitted that, the Mr. Purnachandar Rao Respondent No.2
admits that he gained experience from various projects that were
executed for the M/S Reliance Builders and M/S Srinivasa Developers
(Page No.3). It is further submitted that, the Respondent No.2 is a
prudent business man signing on the amendment deeds and giving
50 of 87

permission for opening up of new Bank Accounts by the Respondent
No. 4 & 6 is intentional, pre planned, conspiracy to cheat defraud and
siphon off the amounts paid by the Home Buyers/Complainant.
XXI.

It is submitted that, the Respondent No. 2 has even alleged and stated
that much of the amounts have been transferred to Respondent No. 6
Mother's Account amounting to 8.5cr Approximately. It is further
submitted that, the as per the tabulation of amounts transferred to
Respondent No. 6 Mother's Account is nothing but the amounts paid by
the various home buyers from different projects in Hyderabad managed
by Respondent No. 4 & 6. It is Aptly clear that the Respondent No. 4 is
Authorized Signatory in RERA for the Projects in Hyderabad and
Respondent No. 6 as stated by Respondent No. 2 designated as working
Partner Managing the day to day business affairs of the firm and also
Respondent No.6 permitted as per the Partnership deed Dt. 27.10.2011
and DGPA as Developer are jointly and severely liable to the
complainant for the registration of the flat No. 102, Reliance Eternis,
Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad. It is further submitted that, the
Respondent No. 4 who has acknowledged the receipt of payments of
Rs.1.05 Cr by the complainant in the Agreement of Sale Dt. 29.01.2019
for the Flat No. 102 1st floor Reliance Eternis, Prakash nagar,
Bequmpet, Hyderabad and Rs.10 Lakhs & 5 Lakhs Through RTGS on
11.03.2019 and 10.10.2019 Totally amounting to Rs. 1.20Cr (Rs. 45
Lakhs through Bank and Rs. 75 Lakhs By Cash). It is further submitted
that, the Respondent No. 4 who is the Authorized Signatory for the
project Reliance Eternis Situated at Prakash Nagar, Begumpet,
Hyderabad and Respondent No. 2 is not entitled nor empowered to
enter into Agreements of Sale and receive payments for the sale of flats
in the project Reliance Eternis even as per the clause 5 of the
partnership deed Dt. 27.10.2011 of the firm M/S Reliance Developers.
It is further submitted that, R-4 has admitted the execution of the
Agreement of sale dt. 29.01.2019 execute under the instructions of R-2.
It is further submitted that the R-2, 3, 5 & 6 as partners has the
responsibility and obligation towards the Agreement for sale holder i.e,
51 of 87

complainant "as the principal is liable for the acts and deeds of his
agent and also as per Sec 11 RERA Act". It is further submitted that, as
per the order given by the Hon'ble Justice A. Rajashekar Reddy in AS.
No. 46 of 2020 it is very clear that the both the parties contesting the
case has admitted and agreed that about the dissolution of the firm. It
is further submitted that, as per para No. 15 in AS No. 46 of 2020 there
is no dispute as to the understanding of the parties, that the
partnership firm could be dissolved at will of any of the partners by
following Sec 43 of partnership Act clause 10 of the Partnership deed
Dt. 27.10.2011. It is further Submitted that, as per para No. 33 & 34 of
AS No. 46 of 2020 there is nothing in term of the partnership deed to
indicate either expressly or impliedly any innovation or substitution of
the original Partnership deed Dt. 27.10.2011 expect change of
allocation of share of the partners and amended dt. 18.09.2014"
whether it is compulsorily registrable document need not be examined
as the original partnership deed Dt. 27.10.2011 under the partnership
deed, the subsequent amended deed being consequential document its
registration under registration act is not compulsory so the document is
treated as valid document as Para No. 39, 42, 43 in AS, No. 46 of 2020.
XXII.

It is further submitted that, R-2 admitted in his counter and in his
documents filed before the authority that has signed on the amendment
deed sent by R-4 reposing trust and faith only for the compliance before
the IT authorities and R-3 & 5 has not signed is nothing but enactment
of Farce created for the purpose of prolonged litigations denying and
depriving the home buyers of their advances paid towards sale
consideration (Para No. 52 Page No. 30 Documents filed by R-2).

XXIII.

It is submitted that, the Reliance Eternis Project has been advertised on
Housing.com as the project has been launched on August-2018 for the
sale of flats before the registration of the Project Reliance Eternis
Situated at Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad for Rs. 1.24 Cr for
1900 Sq.ft 3BHK at Rs. 6,500/- per Sq.ft. It is submitted that, the
application for Registration in RERA Hyderabad is Dt. 28.11.2018 for
Reliance Eternis Project and Registration has been awarded on Dt.
52 of 87

21.01.2019 (Document No. 2). It is further submitted that, the
Managing Partner Respondent No. 2 executing into Agreement of Sale
Dt. 05.05.2018 without sale consideration and receiving RS, 60 Lakhs
from Mr. Kiran Kabalvai on 07.05.2018 as per the recitals in the
Agreement of Sale and in the sale deed is false and fabricated and also
violation of Sec 3 of RERA ACT i.e, "No promoter shall advertise,
market, book, sell or offer for sale or inivite to persons to purchase in
any manner any apartment or building without Registering the RERA
Establish under this ACT". It is further submitted that, the Respondent
No. 2 has given the contradictory averment before the sole Arbitrator in
(Page No. 46 Para No. 80) that the flat No. 102, Reliance Eternis has
been executed a sale deed dt. 05.05.2018. it is further submitted that,
the Respondent No. 2 has submitted before sole Arbitrator in AS No. 46
of 2020 that Mr. Kiran Kabalvai has filed OS No. 43 of 2021 before 1
ACJ Secunderabad City Civil Courts for specific performance of
Agreement of Sale Dt. 05.05.2018 but on verification of the above said
fact that the OS No. 43 of 2021 has been withdrawn unilaterally by the
Respondent No. 7 (Page No. 46 Para No. 79). It is further submitted
that, R-6 has admitted as the working partner of the firm and R-3 & 5
are partners of the firm and also admitted in Para No. 19 in her counter
that R-2 has completely violated the Provisions of the RERA Act and
showing the each and every transaction in the bank accounts and has
not even submitted the periodical reports to TS RERA. It is further
submitted that, R-6 has admitted the execution of sale deeds in Para
No. 24 in the name of the benami persons By the R-2 on behalf of the
firm vehemently acting with vengeance against R-6 and her husband R4 and in Para No. 26 about the dissolution of the firm by the way of
legal notice and by the way of paper publication and also disputes that
she has got no right to question of the actions R-2 in executing the sale
deeds as R-2 was committed to execute the same as he cannot act as
the Managing partner of the dissolved Firm M/S Reliance Developers
and that he cannot execute or register any documents on behalf of the
firm as on 09.06.2020, and his statements to execute the documents in
53 of 87

favour of the 3rd parties cannot be appreciated under law as arbitration
is pending before the Hon'ble Justice Mr. Ghoda Raghuram. It is further
submitted that, R-6 has admitted the irregulaties committed by R. 2 is
completely in contravention of the Sec 11 of the RERA Act though R-2
was supposed to act and implement to the true letter and spirit of the
said provision (Para No. 31 of R-6 counter). It is further submitted that,
R-6 admitted and stated in Para No. 32 as per claim in AS No. 46 of
2020 which has been submitted before the authority has prayed the
Hon'ble sole Arbitration Application No. 46 Of 2020 annexed hereto has
prayed the Hon'ble sole Arbitrator to declare the Agreements of sale and
sale deeds executed by the R-2 in favour of the alleged purchasers null
and void in the eye of law and the provisions of RERA Act. It is further
submitted that, R-6 admitted and stated in Para No. 33 that she came
to know about the registration of the sale deed bearing No. 269 of 2023
dt. 08.02.2023 pertaining to the Flat No. 102 in Reliance Eternis at
Begumpet, HYD through the 1st undated letter of the Secretary, TS
RERA, which was registered subsequently to the Dissolution of the firm
and passing of the sale consideration mentioned in the said documents
were not rooted through the RERA accounts and the above said sale
deed registered subsequent to the Dissolution of the firm and that too
after the Judgement given by the Hon'ble High Court Arb.Appl No. 46 of
2020 on 08.06.2021, which shows the audacity on the part of the R-2
in disregarding the Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court which
amounts to disobedience and contempt. It is further submitted that, R6 stated in Para No. 37 that R-2 has filed Income Tax returns for the
year 2021 dt. 15.02.2021 came across Rs. 60 Lakhs paid by Mr. Kiran
Kabalvai under the head unsecured loans at page No's. 001713, 001723
and more specifically at page no. 001855 of Volume -8 annexed
herewith same as Volume -8 as list Document No.22, but not under the
head of Advances from the customers/Purchasers. It is aptly clear that
R-7 is a financer/Benami of R-2 to the projects envisaged by M/S.
Reliance Developers and not a home buyer and his Agreement of sale
dt.05.05.2018 is forged, fabricated and created by R-2 and R-7 to create
54 of 87

a charge on the complaint Petition property violating the provisions of
Sec 11 (4)(h) and maliciously with malafide intentions to create further
litigations to harass the complainant. It is further submitted and
admitted by R-6 that TS RERA has issued Form- C the registration
certificate of project Reliance Eternis under Sec 5 to this Project bearing
registration No. P02500000185 dt. 21.01.2019 (Para No. 44), R-6
admitted that, any transactions/registered documents made by the R-2
as discussed above cannot be treated as lawful transactions and as per
sec 11 of the RERA Act it is the duty of the promoter to do each and
every monetary transaction in the name of the project through RERA
Bank account only. But in the present case, the R-2 completely violated
the same (Para No. 46 & 47). It is further submitted that, R-6 admitted
that as per Sec 17 of the RERA Act the transfer of title shall be made by
the promoter in the name of the allottee within 03 months from the date
of occupancy certificate. But no such occupancy certificate was issued
by the respective authorities over this project Reliance Eternis at
Begumpet, HYD and therefore the sale deed said to have made by the R2 in favour of the so called R-7 is nothing but voidable transaction,
since the R-6 is not admitting or giving her consent for above said
transaction, since any transaction done after dissolution of the firm,
cannot be said to be a genuine or lawful transaction (Para No. 48) 25. It
is submitted that, the Respondent No. 2 claims to be an experienced
person and well with in the knowledge as the Managing Partner that
who averred in the Page No. 28, "Respondent No. 4 & 6 in active
connivance with each other have also entered into Agreement of Sale
Dt. 28.03.2019 with Mr. Siddam Setty Sunil for sale of Residental Flat
on the 3rd floor of the New projcet site at Ashwini Layout near ABN
andhra Jyothi Journlits, jubleehills without sanction of the permit form
the GHMC" and "also stated in line 12 Page No. 28" "the above said
Agreement of Sale has been executed by the Respondent No. 4 even
before the Project got Registered by the RERA" and also has received
amount of Rs. 70 Lakhs by cash which has not been accounted for in
the firm and Rs. 38 Lakhs By way of RTGS under the said Document.
55 of 87

XXIV.

It is submitted that, the Respondent No. 2 as per the averments made
in the Page No. 28 admits getting into prior Agreement of Sale for the
sale of Flats without registering the project in the RERA is a violation
but stating very conveniently that Respondent No. 4 has maliciously
executed an Agreement of Sale Dt. 29.01.2019 with respect to the same
subject property for which a sale deed Dt. 05.05.2018 was already in
favor of Mr. Kiran Kabalvai by signing as the Authorized Signatory of
the firm M/S Reliance Developers is a fraudulent sale and Respondent
No. 2 stating that the subject property has been executed as a sale deed
Dt. 05.05.2018 is itself false and fabricated. It is further submitted and
Aptly clear that Respondent No. 2 has created Fabricated a Document
Dt. 05.05.2018 in connivance with Mr. Kiran Kabalvai Respondent No.
7 to spite, deny, and deprive the Legitimate entitle Rights and claims of
Complainant. It is further submitted that, the Rs. 60 Lakhs part sale
consideration paid by Respondent No. 7 to the developers Account on
Dt. 07.05.2018 through RTGS for which Flat and for which project has
to be ascertained as Reliance Eternis has not been Launched at that
time (i.e, on 05.05.2018) and also has not been Registered with RERA.
It is further submitted and Aptly clear by the recital of the clause 5 of
Partnership deed Dt. 27.10.2011 Respondent No. 2 is not empowered to
enter into Agreement of Sale "Respondent No.2 shall be the Managing
partner of the firm who shall have the power to apply for tenders and
negotiate the terms thereof, to enter into agreement and to receive
payments". It is Aptly clear by the above recital that Respondent No. 2
has been empowered to apply for tenders and negotiate the terms
thereof, to enter into Agreement and to receive payments but not
specifically mentioned and empowered to get into Agreement of Sale of
Flats as per the partnership deed Dt. 27.10.2011. it is also very clear
that the person appointed by the Respondent No. 2 to do all acts and
thinks necessary to carry on the business of the firm M/S. Reliance
Developers that is Authorzied by Respondent No. 2 in Registering the
Project Reliance Eternis with the Authorization letter and other relevant
documents submitted before the RERA for obtaining the registration
56 of 87

number. P02500000185 and in that Authorization letter Dt. 28.11.2018
by the Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 4 clearly mentioned that
the CEO also authorized to execute the Agreements of Sale in
connection with the sale of flats and receive the amounts and issue the
receipts to that effect
XXV.

It is submitted that, the Respondent No. 2 has filed a document No. 8
stating Mr. Kiran Kabalvai has obtained and Ex-parte Ad-interim
injunctio restraining the Respondent No. 2 Represented by its partners
from alienating the petition schedule property i.e, Flat No. 102 in
Reliane Eternis in COS No. 17 of 2021 in I.A No. 57 of 2021 It is further
submitt that, the Ex-parte Ad-interim injunction restraining the
Respondent No Represented by its partners from alienating the petition
schedule prope I.e, Flat No. 102 in Reliance Eternis is not to alienate
the suit schedule property but it is very clear Respondent No. 2 has
alienated the property to Mr. Kiran Kabalvai flouting and subverting the
orders of Hon'ble Court.

XXVI.

It is submitted that, the Respondent No.2 in connivance with the
Respondent No. 7 colluded together obtained Ex-parte Ad-interim
Injunction to spite, deny, deprive the rightful legitimate entitle right of
the complainant.

XXVII.

It is submitted that, the Respondent No.2 by his averment made in the
Page No. 46 to the counter filed before the Arbitrator in AS. No. 46 of
2020. knowing well the agreement of sale Dt.29.01.2019 Was made by
the Authorized signatory to the Reliance Eternis Project i.e, Respondent
No. 4 instead created, fabricated Agreement of Sale Dt. 05.05.2018 in
favor of Mr. Kiran Kabalvai Respondent No. 7 to further complicate legal
proceedings, litigations before the legal forums.

XXVIII.

It is submitted that, the Respondnet No. 2 has stated before the sole
arbitrator in Page No. 26 & 27 that the Respondent No. 4 & 6 have
entered into agreements of sale Dt. 05.11.2019 forging the signatures of
the Respondent No. 2 and subsequently created dubious partnership
firm in the name of M/S Reliance Developers and Infra on Dt.
02.11.2019 with Mr. Arvind Baid and Mr. Dinesh Baid for sale of
57 of 87

residential Flat Bearing No. 201 Admeasuring 3000sq.ft pertaining to
the project Reliance Kameshwari Heights and received Rs. 1.50 Cr by
way of cash.
XXIX.

It is submitted that, the Respondent No. 2 very conveniently has
executed a sale deed Document Bearing No. 746 of 2021 Dt. 15.03.2021
in favor of Mr. Arvind Baid, Neeraj Baid for flat No. 502 in Reliance
Eternis Situated at Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad is itself void,
illegal as Mr. Arvind Baid has booked the flat No. 201 in Reliance
Kameshwari Heights and instead of executing sale deed for the flat no.
201 in Reliance Kameshwari Heights accommodated/alloting him in
Reliance Eternis by the Respondent No. 2 is itself a violation by the
promoter/developer under Sec 17 of the RERA ACT.

XXX.

It is submitted that, with respect to Para No. 9 the Legal notice dt.
29.08.2021 has been sent to the correct addresses as Respondent No. 2
mentioned in his registerd partnership deed Bearing No. 3248 of 2011
as

the

principal

palce

of

business

shall

be

at

H.No:-

8-2-

293/82/Α/239/A/1 Road No. 18 Jubilee hills Hyderabad-500033 and
also to administrative office in Flat No. 401, Lovely Mansion,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082 and also residential address mentioned
in the counter for Respondent No. 5 even to Reliance Avans Court
Apartments, Banjara Hills, Near GVK Mall, Hyderabad, T.S-500034 and
also to Respondent No. 2 & 3 as mentioned in their partnership deed
residing at Villa No. 15, Mokilla Village, R.R Dist, T.S-501203. It is
further submitted that, the Respodent No. 2, 3, 5 chose not to receive
and returned the Legal Notices (Document No. 15 set of Legal Notices
sent to above addresses).
XXXI.

It is submitted that, with respect to Para No. 14, 15 that Respondent
No. 2 has admitted that Respondent No. 4 & 6 are handling the affairs
of the firm from its office in the jubilee hills hyderabad and later shifted
to somajiguda Hyderabad and Respondent No. 2 was looking after the
projects taken up by the firm in Vijayawada.

XXXII.

It is submitted that, with respect to Para No. 16, 17 after enquiry and
investigation by the investigating officer by the jubilee hills p.s and
58 of 87

punjagutta p.s after going through the complaint filed by the
complainant Respondent No. 2 has created a false, fabricated version
to be presented in his submissions before the sole arbitrator and
conspired with Respondent No. 7 subverting the Hon'ble courts orders
in COS No. 17 of 2021 in I.A No. 57 of 2021 executed the fraudulent
transfer of sale deed bearing No. 269 of 2023.
XXXIII.

It is submitted that, with respect to Para No. 18, 19 that the
Respondent. No. 2 has admitted with respect to W.P No. 7516 of 2021
before the High court of A.P and CP No. 24 of 2021, there are conflicts
among the Respondent No. 2 to 6 and the Hon'ble AP RERA at
Vijayawada has given the order keeping in the paramount interests of
Home buyers and Land owners for the construction of Projects in its
Jurisdiction. It is further submitted that, U/Sec 31 of RERA ACT "Any
aggrieved person may file a complaint with authority or with
adjudicating officer as the case may be for any violation or the
contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations
made thereunder against any promoter allottee or real estate agent, as
the case may be" and the petition made by the complainant is
maintainable.

XXXIV.

It is submitted that, with respect to Para No. 18, 19 with respect to
conflict of opening of accounts and praying for freezing of accounts
before the A.P RERA authority and submission of book of accounts and
the prayer before the Hon'ble High court of A.P with respect to
dissolution of the firm the "Hon'ble authority is of the opinion that the
partnership between the partners ceases to exists but the firm cease to
exists until the entire liabilities are clear and the necessary obligations
are performed and hence the promoter firm is entitled and also duty
bounded to continue the project in the capacity of promoter in order to
avoid any further and further complaints and litigations" it is Aptly
clear that the Respondent No. 2, 4, 5 & 6 has conspired, colluded,
together created further litigations by alienating the flat No. 102
Reliance Eternis Situated at Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad to
and along with Mr. Kiran Kabalvai Respondent No. 7 by creating false
59 of 87

and fabricated Agreement of Sale Dt. 05.05.2018. It is Aptly clear by the
averment made by Respondent No. 2 before the sole Arbitrator Page No.
46 & 47 Para No. 80 that a sale deed Dt. 05.05.2018 was already in
favor of Mr. Kiran Kabalvai.
XXXV.

It is submitted that, the Respondent No. 2 to 6 have wrongfully cheated
the public at large by siphoning the deposits of Home Buyers and it is
Aptly clear that the Respondent No. 2 admitted in Page No. 30 & 40
Para No. 52 & 69 has signed on the papers sent by Respondent No. 4 &
6 for the purpose of opening of Bank Accounts and also has suppressed
information with respect to amendment deed of Regd. partnership deed
Bearing No. 3248 of 2011 Dt. 27.10.2011 obtained Bank Loans and
now conveniently blaming each other and stating that the amendment
deed has not been submitted before the Bank authorities by
Respondent No. 4 & 6 alleging that the Loan Agreements/Documents
were prepared by Respondent No. 4 duly attested by Respondent No. 6
and also Respondent No. 6 has participated in the said Loan
Transactions and willfully come down to the Registration office for
executing required documents for the grant of the loan and registration
of the mortgage as such the amendment deed did not came into
existence is preposterous as when the Respondent No.2 as signatory to
the amendment deed should have brought to the notice of Bank
authorites in fairness.

XXXVI.

It is submitted that, the RERA ACT 2016 has to be read with Sec 88
Says i.e," the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation to the law
for the time being in force". Sec 89 Says i.e, provides for a non-obstante
clause in Sec 89 as a result of the same RERA becomes applicable over
Registration ACT 1908 and also it is very clear that the RERA ACT
should prevail over Registration ACT 1908, It is further submitted as
per the Sec 7 of the RERA Act "the Authority may receive a complaint or
suo motu in this behalf or on the recommendation of the competent
authority, revoke the registration granted under Sec 5 for Unfair Trade
Practice". It is further submitted that, the Sec 89 RERA ACT states that
this Act have overriding effect "The provisions of this Act shall have
60 of 87

effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other
law for the time being in force." Therewith
XXXVII.

It is submitted that, with respect to para No. 29 the Respondent No. 4
in OS No. 3008 of 2020 in I.A No. 245 of 2021 Document No. 7 Page No.
71A as stated by the Respondent No. 2 that Respondent No. 4 had time
and time again pleaded before numerous courts that he is not the
partner of the firm and that he is a mere employee of the firm, When
Respondent No.4 is specifically admitting before the court of law that
his role at best is that of an employee and that he is not authorized to
enter into any Agreement much less receive amounts on behalf of the
firm, is itself false and fabricated misleading the Hon'ble authority as
Respondent No. 4 has filed the affidavit before the Vth JR. CIVIL
JUDGE at CCC Hyd "stating that he is an employee of the partnership
firm and the Respondent No. 2 is the Managing partner who has been
looking the day to day affairs of the firm and acted as per the
instructions and directions of the Respondent No. 2", it is Aptly clear
Respondent No. 2 & 4 are in connivance and conspired to cheat and
siphon off the deposits of home buyers. PRAYER: There fore, it is prayed
that the Honourable Authority may give order to the builder, profester,
developer M/S. Reliance Developers Rep. By S. Pumardar dra 20 and
Mr. Rajesh Kiran Authorized Signatory to register Flat No. 102
M.H.Nodro 38/2, Flat No.102 Reliance Eternis, Begumpet, Hyderabad,
T.S in Favour of Complainant and in view of the facts mentioned above,
the

complainant

prays

for

cancellation

and

declaration

of

Dt.

08.02.2023 sale deed No. 269/2023 as void egal and Revoke, Blacklist
Developer, Builder, promoter M/S. Reliance Developers on ongoing
projects of the M/s. Reliance Developers Rep. by its Managing Partner
Purnachandra Rao and Mr. Rajesh Kiran Authorized signatory and
other Respondents and also award compensation with interest or direct
the M/S Reliance Developers to Register the Flat No. 202 or 301 in
Reliance Eternis which is still vacant and unsold for the fair resolving of
the complaint in good faith, in the interest of Justice.
27. Written Arguments on behalf of Respondent 1, 2, 3, & 5
61 of 87

i.

The Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, in addition to the pleadings and
documents filed before this Hon'ble Authority and -the oral arguments
advanced on behalf of the Respondents, crave the leave to submit the
following the Written Arguments for the kind consideration of this
Hon'ble Authority.

ii.

The Complaint is not an allotee as defined under RERA Act for the
purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Authority. The
Complainant is making a claim on the basis of a false, fabricated and
created Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019. The said Agreement of
Sale is seriously disputed by the majority of the partners as the same
was purportedly executed by the Respondent No. 4 claiming to be an
authorized signatory of the Firm. It is pertinent to note that the
Respondent No. 4 is neither a partner of the Firm nor was he ever
authorized to represent the Firm for the purpose of execution of
Agreements of Sale or any documents on behalf of the Firm. As such
the Agreement of Sale purportedly executed by Respondent No. 4 is
non-est in law and is not valid for any purposes. 2. Even assuming the
purported Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019 to be validly executed by
Mr. Rajesh Kiran i.e.. Respondent No. 4, it is pertinent to note that the
existence of the sand document can be seriously doubted for the fact
that there are no witnesses to the said document and that the
document records receipt of monies of INR 75,00,000/- in cash which
were in fact paid by the Complainant only in the months of February
and March 2019 as per the documents filed by them. As such the said
documents cannot be looked into any manner unless the authenticity
and validity of the same is proven in a Civil Court. Further, it is
pertinent to note that the said cash component of Rs. 75 lakhs is an
invalid and illegal transfer which is specifically prohibited by the
Reserve Bank of India. However, the Complainant seeks to rely on such
alleged cash which she claims to have handed over to Respondent No. 4
who is not authorised to receive any cash much less the cash of Rs. 75
lakhs on behalf of the Firm for the purpose of claiming valid payment of
sale consideration. The same is required to established in an
62 of 87

appropriate civil court and the Complainant is also called upon to
furnish her income tax returns to establish the source of such huge
cash for the purpose of allegedly paying the Respondent No. 4. The
Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 specifically deny receipt of such cash
component from the complainant in any manner.
iii.

As such the Complainant cannot identify herself as an allottee for the
purpose of maintaining the present complaint. The authenticity and
validity of the purported Agreement of Sale dated 29.01.2019 will have
to be adjudicated and determined in appropriate Civil Court by
considering material evidence which will have to be proved by the
parties before such Civil Court. Unless such purported Agreement of
Sale dated 29.01.2019 is established in an appropriate Civil Court and
the chains and rights of the Complainant are determined under the
Specific Relief Act, the Complainant cannot be permitted to identify
herself as an allottee of the Respondent No. 1 in Reliance Eternis.

iv.

It is submitted the serious disputed questions of title are involved
including the valid and substantive rights of Respondent No. 7 herein
which cannot be adjudicated by this Hon'ble Authority under the
provisions of RERA Act or the Rules framed thereunder. The provisions
of RERA Act and the Rules framed thereunder only contemplate actions
that can be taken as against the promoter with regards to the delay in
handing over possession or completion of the project. However, there is
no such whisper about the alleged delay in handing over possession or
completion of the project and instead the Complainant is seeking reliefs
of cancellation of a registered document validly executed in favour of
Respondent No. 7 which is not permissible.

v.

The

Complainant

has

also

completely

mis-construed

and

mis-

represented the provisions of RERA Act more specifically the provisions
under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act with regards to registration of project
and cancellation of project registration to be that this Hon'ble Authority
is entitled to cancel the registration of sale deed validly executed by the
Promoter in favour of a person.

63 of 87

vi.

It is submitted that the Complainant has filed the present Complaint
seeking cancellation of the registered Sale Deed bearing Doc. No.
269/2023 dated 08.02.2023 executed in favour of Respondent No. 7
and consequent execution of registered Sale Deed in her favour.
Without prejudice to the argument that such reliefs cannot be granted,
the Complainant is now wrongfully seeking an additional alternate
prayer of allotment of an alternate flat in the said project without any
basis. Such alternate prayer sought for in the Rejoinder cannot be
granted and the same is liable to be dismissed.

vii.

In any event, the Respondent No. I had already executed a Mortgage
Deed in favour of GHMC and thereafter, executed Agreement of Sale
dated 27.02.2019 for Flat No. 202 in favor of M/s. K.L. Technical
Services, represented by its Managing Partner Sridhar Babu subject to
the existing mortgage. It is submitted that on 15.05.2023, the
Agreement of Sale dated 27.02.2019 in favour of M/s. K.L Technical
Services was cancelled and the sale consideration of INR 25 Lakhs was
returned to M/s. K.L. Technical Services and subsequently, on the
same date ie, 15.05.2023 another Agreement of Sale for Flat No. 202 in
favor of Mr. Jayesh Appabhai Patel and Mrs. Sangitha Jayesh Patel. A
copy of the Agreement of Sale dated 27.02.2019 for Flat No. 202 in favor
of M/s. K.L. Technical Services is herewith being attached as Document
No. 1. A copy of the Agreement of Sale dated 15.05.2023 for Flat No.
202 in favor of Mr. Jayesh Appabhai Patel and Mrs. Sangitha Jayesh
Patel is herewith being attached as Document No. 2.

viii.

Such execution of sale documents is not per se illegal and the same are
subject to the mortgage being released. As such the said Flat No. 202
cannot be allotted to or registered in favour of the Complainant.

ix.

It is submitted that pursuant to the receipt of an amount of INR 50
Lakhs towards advance sale consideration for Flat No. 202, the
Respondent No. I had paid the GST towards the amount of INR 50
Lakhs received towards sale consideration. A copy of the GST Tax
Payment receipts is herewith being attached as Document No. 3. 8.
Further, the Agreement of Sale Holders i.e., the Vendees of Flat No. 202
64 of 87

of the project have engaged third party engineers/architects for the
purposes of preparation of the interiors of the said flat and also
commenced preparation of interiors in the said flat and is now at the
fag end of the project. The photographs showing the completion of
interiors in Flat No. 202 is herewith being filed as Document No. 4.
x.

In any event, when the Complainant has only paid Rs. 45 lakhs which
is received by the Respondent No. 1 Firm for a flat which is worth INR
1,32,50,000/- even according to the Complainant, the Complainant
cannot be permitted to seek for specific performance for registration of
the said flat in her favour.

xi.

In furtherance to the above, it is pertinent to note that the Respondent
No. 1 Firm has been dissolved and arbitration proceedings are being
adjudicated by the Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator. It is submitted that Hon'ble
Arbitral Tribunal had deemed fit that a forensic audit be conducted and
accordingly ordered for Forensic Audit. It is submitted that the Forensic
Audit has concluded and the auditors are in the process of finalizing the
report. As such, unless and until an Award is passed by the Hon'ble
Arbitral Tribunal, no relief can be granted by this Hon'ble Authority for
payment of any monies and affixing any liability on the Respondent
Nos. 2, 3 and 5 herein.

xii.

It is submitted that the Respondent No. 2 representing the Respondent
No. 1 Firm has executed a valid Agreement of Sale dated 05.05.2018 in
favour of Respondent No. 7 herein and has also received major part of
sale consideration. 14. However, after coming to know about the illegal
dissolution of the Respondent No. 1 Firm by the Respondent No. 6
herein, the Respondent No. 7 here addressed Legal Notices and filed a
Civil Suit vide OS No. 43 of 2021 before the Hon'ble 1 Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Courts at Secunderabad and the Hon'ble Court vide its
Orders dated 19.05.2021 in L.A. No. 57 of 2021 was pleased to direct
the parties to maintain Status - Quo and the said Interim Order was
extended from time to time.

xiii.

While so, at the advent of elders and well-wishers, the Respondent No. 7
had settled the disputes with Respondent No. I and accordingly by
65 of 87

transferring balance sale consideration got a registered Sale Deed
bearing document No. 269/2023 dated 08.02.2023 executed in his
favour. However, such execution of a registered Sale Deed in favour of
Respondent No. 7 is not in violation of any interim orders of the Hon'ble
Court as the subject matter of dispute in the said suit stood settled
pursuant to such execution of valid registered Sale Deed.
xiv.

It is pertinent to note that the Respondent No. 7 has in fact claimed
rights over the subject property much prior to any action being taken by
the Complainant including by filing of a Police Complaint vide FIR No.
190/2022 dated 30.09.2022 before the Jubilee Hills Police Station and
the same got transferred to Punjagutta Police Station for want of
jurisdiction

and

got

renumbered

as

FIR

No.

550/2022

dated

18.10.2022. As such it cannot be said that the Respondent No. 7 is
acting in connivance with other Respondents in any manner.
xv.

It is submitted that neither the Respondent No. 2 nor the Respondent
No. 3 and herein have ever authorized the Respondent No. 4 to execute
Agreements of Sale or accept monies on behalf of the Firm. It is
submitted that the Respondent No. 4 was never appointed as CEO of
Respondent No. 1 either by the Respondent No. 2 who is the Managing
Partner of the Respondent No. 1 nor by the Respondents 3 and 5. The
Complainant has failed to provide any evidence apart from the
fabricated

authorization

dated

28.11.2018

to

evince

that

the

Respondent No. 4 was at any point in time authorized by any of the
Partners to be the CEO of the Respondent No. I Firm.
xvi.

It is submitted that as the Respondent No. 2 who is Managing Partner
of the Respondent No. I was actively involved in project at Vijayawada,
the Respondent No. 6 herein was entrusted with works for Hyderabad
projects. However, the Respondent No. 4 and 6 in connivance with each
other appear to have inserted the name of the Respondent No. 4 as the
authorised signatory of the Firm before this Hon'ble Authority.

xvii.

While so, upon coming to know about the alleged illegal entry of the
name of Respondent No. 4 as the authorized signatory of Respondent
No. 1, the Respondent No. 2 has addressed letters dated 04.09.2020
66 of 87

and 21.09.2020 to this Hon'ble Authority informing about the fraud
being played by the Respondents 4 and 6 herein, and requested this
Hon'ble Authority to delete the name of Respondent No. 4 as the
authorized signatory and insert the name of Respondent No. 2 who is
Managing Partner of the Firm. A copy of the letters addressed to
TSRERA dated 04.09.2020 and 21.09.2020 are herewith collectively
being attached as Document No. 5 (Colly).
xviii.

It is pertinent to note that all of such action were taken by the
Respondent No. 2 and other partners as against the Respondent No. 4
and 6 much prior to them even coming to know about the alleged
fraudulent Agreement of Sale in favour of the Complainant herein.

xix.

The alleged authorization

letter dated 28.11.2018 filed by the

Complainant along with the Rejoinder before this Hon'ble Authority is a
fraudulent document which was created by forging the signature of the
Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 2 reserves his right to
initiate appropriate criminal action as against the Respondent No. 4.
However, it is pertinent to note that the Complainant has also failed to
establish the chain of custody of such document to the Complainant
and is called upon to establish the validity of the same.
xx.

Admittedly, the Respondent No. 2 is the Managing Partner of the
Respondent No. 1 Firm and as per clause 5 he is entitled to enter into
all Agreements for the sale of flats. The Respondent No. 2 is only
entitled to appoint persons for the purpose of maintaining accounts and
doing all acts which are incidental for carrying on the business of the
Firm. However, such sub-delegation of the powers to alienate the
properties of the Firm are contemplated under such Clause 5. It is
submitted that unless and until the Partnership Deed provides for it or
by agreement of all partners. such delegation of powers to alienate or
creating interests over the properties belonging to the Firm cannot be
exercised by any person other than the Managing Partner of the Firm.

xxi.

Further, the argument that the Respondent No. 2 who is the manging
partner of the Firm is not entitled to enter into any Agreement of Sale is

67 of 87

preposterous and incorrect interpretation of the partnership deed of
Respondent No.1.
xxii.

The reference made to the alleged Amendment Deed which is being
vehemently opposed and contested by the Respondent No. 2, 3 and 5
herein before the Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal is not tenable and valid. The
Complainant has no basis for the purpose of relying on the said
document which only contemplates alleged transfer of shares inter-se
between the parties and the reference being made by the Complainant
to such illegal and forged document would only establish the
connivance of the Complainant and the Respondent No. 4 and 6 herein
who have got this Complaint filed as against the other Respondents for
the purpose of gaining unlawfully.

xxiii.

In reference to the Agreement of Sale executed in favor of Mr.
Siddamshetty Sunil it is submitted that the purported Agreement of
Sale was not executed by the Managing Partner i.e., Respondent No. 2
herein and was executed by the Respondent No. 4 in active connivance
with Respondent No. 6. It is submitted that Rajesh Kiran i.e.,
Respondent No. 4 herein entered into an agreement of sale with
Siddamshetty Sunil and wrongfully collected INR 90 Lakhs out of which
INR 70 Lakhs by way of cash and remaining amount of INR 20 Lakhs by
way of RTGS out of a total sale consideration of INR 3 Crore 80 Lakhs.
It is submitted that the Respondent No. 6 to gain unlawfully and
illegally did not cooperate to open RERA Account for the said project
and as such the said project could not be commenced. However, the
Respondent No. 4 despite being aware of the same in active connivance
with Respondent No. 6 had entered into the purported Agreement of
Sale dated 28.03.2019 in order to unlawfully and illegally enrich himself
at the cost of the Firm and Respondents 2, 3 and 5 herein.

xxiv.

It is pertinent to note that for the illegal actions of the Respondent No. 4
in executing the purported Agreement of Sale when he is neither the
Partner nor authorized to execute any document much less receive
amounts towards sale of properties, Respondent No. 4 knowingly and
deliberately cheated the Firm and the third parties by executing the
68 of 87

purported Agreement of Sale dated 28.03.2019 as the authorized
signatory of the Respondent No. 1, wherein he was never authorized by
any of the Partners of the Respondent No. 1 Firm and wrongfully
collected huge amounts from them and accordingly, the Respondent No.
2 has lodged complaint against the Respondent No. 4 vide FIR No.
349/2020 dated 28.06.2020.
xxv.

In reference to the averments made in respect of Sale Deed bearing Doc.
No 746/2021 dated 15.03.2021 in favor of Mr. Arvind Baid and Mr.
Neeraj Baid towards Flat No. 502 in the said Project and purported
Agreement of Sale dated 05.11.2019 towards Reliance Kameshwari
Heights are completely misconceived and false. It is submitted that both
the documents i.e., Sale Deed bearing Doc. No. 746 of 2021 dated
15.03.2021 and purported Agreement of Sale dated 05.11.2019 are
independent of each other and have no bearing on each other.

xxvi.

It is submitted that the Respondent No. 2 had entered into an
Agreement of Sale with Mr. Arvind Baid and Mr. Neeraj Baid towards
Flat No. 502 and the same was stolen by the Respondents 4 and 6 when
the office of the Respondent No. 1 Firm was situated at the house of the
parents of the Respondent No. 6. Subsequent to entering into
Agreement of Sale towards Flat No. 502, the Respondent No. 2 has
rightfully and lawfully executed a registered Sale Deed bearing Doc. No.
746/2021 dated 15.03.2021 in favor of Mr. Arvind Baid and Mr. Neeraj
Baid by receiving valid sale consideration.

xxvii.

In reference to the purported Agreement of Sale dated 05.11.2019
towards the project by the name Reliance Kameshwari Heights, it is
submitted that the purported Agreement of Sale was not executed by
the Managing Partner ie.. Respondent No. 2 herein nor was it executed
by any of the partners of the Respondent No. 1 Firm. The purported
Agreement of Sale dated 05.11.2019 was executed by Respondent No. 4
in active connivance with Respondent No. 6 and the Respondents 4 and
6 have entered into the purported Agreement of Sale with Mr. Arvind
Baid and Mr. Dinesh Surana towards sale of Flat No. 201 by forging the
signature of Respondent No. 2 herein and wrongfully collected an
69 of 87

amount of INR 2 Crores 13 Lakhs from Aravind Baid and Dinesh
Surana out of which an amount of INR 1 Crore 50 Lakhs was through
cash and remaining balance amount of INR 63 Lakhs was by way of
cheques. In fact, after getting to know about the execution of the
purported Agreement of Sale dated 05.11.2019 in favor of Aravind Baid
and Dinesh Surana by the Respondent No. 4 herein wherein the
signatures of the Respondent No. 2 were forged by the Respondent No.
4, the Respondent No. 2 has sent the purported Agreement of Sale
dated 05.11.2019 to Truth Labs and accordingly, Truth Labs conducted
a detailed forensic analysis of the said forged signatures and the report
of Truth Labs evinces that the signatures of Respondent No. 2 were
forged. A copy of the Truth Labs report dated 20.02.2021 is berewith
being attached as Document No. 6.
xxviii.

It is pertinent to note that for the illegal actions of the Respondent No. 4
in executing the purported Agreement of Sale when he is neither the
Partner nor authorized to execute any document much less receive
amounts towards sale of properties, Respondent No. 4 knowingly and
deliberately cheated the Firm and the third parties by forging the
signatures of the Respondent No. 2 and wrongfully collected huge
amounts from them and accordingly, the Respondent No. 2 has lodged
complaint against the Respondent No. 4 vide FIR No. 397/2020 dated
28.06.2020. It is submitted that the said FIR No. 397/2020 was closed
by the concerned PS and the Respondent No. 2 herein had preferred a
Protest Petition vide Crl. M.P. No. 348 of 2021 against the said closure
and the Hon'ble III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Hyderabad vide its Order dated 28.04.2023 was pleased to allow the
said Petition.

xxix.

It is submitted that the Respondent No. 6 has forged the signatures of
the Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 on the account opening forms of Axis
Bank so as to siphon off money from the Firm's accounts. It is
submitted that the Respondents 2. 3 and 5 were unaware of the bank
accounts and were opened without the consent of Respondents 3 and 5.
In fact, the Respondents No. 3 and 5 have sent the opening forms of the
70 of 87

Axis Bank were in their signatures were forged to Truth Labs and
accordingly, Truth Labs conducted a detailed forensic analysis of the
said forged signatures and the report of Truth Labs evinces that the
signatures of Respondents 3 and 5 were forged. It is submited that all
the transactions in the said account were without the knowledge of the
remaining partners of the Firm and Respondent No. 6 alone had the
authorization to handle the said accounts. A copy of the Truth Lates
report dated 20.02.2021 is herewith being attached as Document No. 7.
xxx.

It is submitted that when the remaining partners got to know about the
opening of the alleged accounts, the Respondents 3 and 5 have lodged a
police complaint vide FIR No. 549 of 2021 dated 07.08.2021 before the
Banjara Hills Police Station Further, upon getting to know about the
said bank accounts opened by the Respondent No. 6 herein, the
Respondent No. 2 had approached the concerned bank officials and
sought for statements of the said accounts and it is only then that the
Respondent No. 2 got to know about the transfer of INR 45 Lakhs.
However, neither the Respondent No. 2 nor the Respondents 3 and 5
were aware of any of the transactions of the said accounts and as such
the Respondent No. 2 was constrained to show the amounts that were
received into the said accounts as unsecured loans for the purposes of
filing ITRs.

xxxi.

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Authority may be pleased to
dismiss the complaint as grave injustice would be caused to the
Respondents 1,2, 3 and 5 if any of the reliefs as sought for by the
Complainant are granted and pass such other order or orders as this
Hon'ble Authority may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

28. Filed by Respondent 4

i.

The Respondent no. 2 has acknowledged the Registration Number P02500000185 for the Project - Reliance Eternis, Begumpet, Hyderabad,
issued by this Hon'ble Authority at gis line of para no. 1 in page no. 9 of
the list document no. 1, at 9th line of para no. 1 in page no. 47 of the list
document no. 2 and at 9th line of para no. 1 in page no. 81 of the list
71 of 87

document no. 3. The Respondent no. 2 even after openly confirming and
declaring the TS RERA sanction/permit number in all the three sale deeds
executed by Respondent no. 2 in the capacity of the Managing Partner of
the dissolved firm M/s. Reliance Developers, but bluntly argues about the
authorization given to Respondent no. 4. Though Respondent no. 2
contends about the authorization given to Respondent no. 4, the sale
deeds itself confirms the authorization to Respondent no. 4 by Respondent
no. 1 dissolved firm by acknowledging the TS RERA sanction/permit
numbers in the respective sale deeds. The above actions of Respondent no.
2 itself proves that Respondent no. 4 acted as an Agent of the Principal
M/s. Reliance Developers (Dissolved Firm) as per the Section 182 of The
Indian Contract Act, 1872.
ii.

For ready reference the Section 182 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 is
extracted below:

"182. "Agent" and "principal" defined. An "agent" is a person employed to do any
act for another, or to represent another in dealings with third persons. The person
for whom such act is done, or who is so represented, is called the "principal"".

iii.

It is further submitted that the High Court of Telangana in the judgement
pertaining to the Arbitration Application no. 46 of 2020 annexed to the
detailed reply dt. 19-10-2023 filed by the Respondent no. 4, has
categorically mentioned that Respondent no. 4 is an employee at starting
from 7th line of page no. 71 of the list document of the detailed reply dt.
19-10-2023 filed by the Respondent no. 4, which is also extracted here
below for ready reference:

iv.

Likewise, it was pleaded by the respondents that the husband of the
applicant was the key person and he is the alter-ego of the applicant. But,
admittedly the husband of the applicant is the employee of the firm and he
cannot be related to claims made in the arbitration. Moreover he is neither
a partner nor a party to the arbitration agreement and till date he did not
make any claim against the firm or the partners. Therefore, he is no way
72 of 87

concerned with the affairs.of the firm except in the capacity of an
employee"
v.

Henceforth, the Respondent no. 4 acted as an Agent of the Principal M/s
Reliance Developers (Dissolved Firm) upon the instructions and the
authorization of Respondent no. 2 who was the then Managing Partner of
the Respondent no. 1.

vi.

It is further submitted that the Principal M/s. Reliance Developers
(Dissolved Firm) i.e., Respondent no. 1 as stood dissolved all the four
partners of the dissolved firm M/s. Reliance Developers i.e., Respondents
no. 2, 3, 5 and 6 are jointly and severally responsible to the Complainant
as per the Section 226 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872. For ready
reference the Section 226 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 is extracted
below:
"226. Enforcement and consequences of agent's contracts. Contracts
entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done
by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the
same legal consequences, as if the contracts had been entered into and
the acts done by the principal in person".

vii.

It is further submitted that the Respondent no. 4 cannot personally enforce
and is not bound by the contracts executed on behalf of the Principal i.e.,
the Respondent no. 4 cannot enforce and is not bound by the Agreement of
Sale dt. 29-01-2019 executed as an Agent of the Principal M/s. Reliance
Developers (Dissolved Firm) as per Section 230 of The Indian Contract Act,
1872.

viii.

State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Kanchanmala Vijasinci Shirke And Ors
on 22 August, 1995 by Supreme Court annexed herewith as list document
no. Poongottil Prasad vs Melattur Grama Panchayat And Ors on 07-072023 by Kerala High Court annexed herewith as list document no 7 The
relevant paras of the Judgement "State Of Rajasthan vs Smt. Shekhu And
Ors. on 22 July, 2004 by Rajasthan High Court" are extracted below for
ready reference:

73 of 87

"8. Before proceedings further and examining the findings on issue No.
3, position of law in respect of vicarious liability and sovereign liability
has to be seen".
ix.

"Vicarious liability" means that one person takes or supplies the place of
another so far as liability is concerned. This phrase means the liability of a
person for the tort of another in which he had no part. A master is jointly
and severally liable for any tort committed by his servant which acting in
the course of his employment".

x.

It is settled and undisputed principle of the law of Torts that master is
answerable for every such wrong of his servant as is committed in the
course of his service, though no express command or privity of the master
be proved and the wrongful act may not be for the master's benefit. In fact,
there is a catena of authority even for the proposition that although the
particular act which gives the cause of action may not be authorised, still,
if the act is done in course of employment which is authorised, the master
is liable. This doctrine of liability of the master for the acts of his servant is
based on the maxim respondent superior, which means "let the principal
be liable and it puts the master in the same position as if he had done the
act himself. It also derives validity from the maxim qui facit per alium facit
per se, which means 'ho who does an act through another is deemed in law
to do it himself."

xi.

Even when the owner of the motor vehicle is involved in an accident is not
'directly negligent, still he becomes liable to pay the compensation to the
claimants if they show that the accident has been caused due to the
negligence of the driver or some other servant of the owner. Such liability
is called vicarious liability where under common law the master becomes
liable for the negligent actions of his servants carried out in the course of
their normal duties".

xii.

The point as to how far the State was liable In tort first directly arose
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidyawati,
AIR 1962 SC 933. In that case, the claim for damages was made by the
dependants of a person who died in an accident caused by the negligence

74 of 87

of the driver of a jeep maintained by the Government for official use of the
Collector of Udaipur while it was being brought back from the workshop
after repairs. The Rajasthan High Court took the view-that the State was
liable, for the State is in no better position in so far as it supplies cars and
keeps drivers for its Civil Service. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Mst.
Vidyawati (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"Act done in the course of employment but not in connection with
sovereign powers of the Stale, State like any other employer is vicariously
liable."
xiii.

Thus, it can be said that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the position
clear that there was no justification, in principle or in public interest, that
the State should not be held liable vicariously for the tortious act of its
servant". "28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra v. Kanchan-mala Vijay Singh Shirke, AIR 1995 (SC) 2499,
has observed that if the vehicle was used in connection with the affairs of
the State and for official purpose, the State cannot escape its vicarious
liability to pay compensation to the heirs of the victim on the ground that it
had never authorised the clerk to drive the vehicle".

xiv.

The relevant paras of the Judgement "Mumthas C vs Tahsildar on 11
February, 2021 by Kerala High Court" are extracted below for ready
reference:
"21. The late Rahmathulla is admittedly an Agent of KSFE and was
working for the 2nd respondent. If the said Rahmathulla has committed
any manipulations or fraud during the course of his engagement as
Agent of KSFE, the KSFE has vicarious liability"..

xv.

In Principal-Agent relationship, a responsibility is imposed on the Principal
on the acts of Agent. The responsibility is based on common law principle
"respondeat superior" ("let the master answer"). Employers are vicariously
liable for acts and omissions of their employees. The imposition of liability
is based on three reasons. Firstly, the Principal selects the Agent; secondly,
the Principal has delegated performance of certain acts to the Agent and
when the Principal enjoys the benefits of the acts of his Agent, he should
75 of 87

bear the risk also; and thirdly, the Principal has given the Agent general
authority to act".
xvi.

The allegation of the petitioners is that late Rahmathulla was an Agent of
the 2nd respondent-KSFE. They have asserted the same in Exts.P2 to P4
complaints. The 6th respondent, who is the wife of late Rahmathulla, has
stated in her affidavit as well as in Ext.R6(a) complaint filed before the
Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri that the Rahmathulla was
an Agent of the KSFE. The 2nd respondent has not denied the fact that
late Rahmathulla was an Agent of KSFE. The 2nd respondent has also not
disputed the material allegations made by the petitioners as regards the
conduct of Rahmathulla. Therefore, the 2nd respondent cannot be heard to
contend that these are disputed questions of fact. The 2nd respondent is
vicariously liable to the misconduct or fraudulent conduct of their Agent.
In the circumstances of the case, it would be a travesty of justice if the 2nd
respondent is permitted to recover the amount defrauded by their Agent
from the salary of the petitioners".

The last two paras of the Judgement "State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs
Kanchanmala Vijasinci Shirke And Ors on 22 August, 1995 by Supreme
Court" are extracted below for ready reference:
The crucial test is whether the initial act of the employee was expressly
authorised and lawful. The employer, as in the present case the State
Government, shall nevertheless be responsible for the manner in which
the employee, that is, the driver and the respondent executed the
authority. This is necessary to ensure so that the injuries caused to
third parties who are not directly involved or concerned with the nature
of authority vested by the master to his servant are not deprived from
getting compensation. If the dispute revolves around the mode or
manner of execution of the authority of the master by the servant, the
master cannot escape the liability so far third parties are concerned on
the ground that he had not actually authorised the particular manner
in which the act was done. In the present case, it has been established
beyond doubt that the driver of the vehicles had been fully authorised

76 of 87

to drive the jeep for a purpose connected with the affair of the state and
the dispute is only in respect of the manner and the mode in which the
said driver performed his duties by allowing another employee of the
State Government, who was also going on an official duty, to drive the
jeep, when the accident took place. Once it is established that negligent
act of the driver and respondent was in the course of employment' the
appellant State shall be liable for the same". "We are of the view that the
appellant Stale cannot escape its vicarious liability to pay compensation
to the heirs of the victim. The appeal is accordingly dismissed there
shall be no orders as to cost".
xvii.

The relevant paras of the Judgement "Poongottil Prasad vs Melattur Grama
Panchayat And Ors on 07-07-2023 by Kerala High Court" are extracted
below for ready reference:
"13. In State of Maharashtra v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke [1995 (5)
SCC 659], the Apex Court held that it is the rule that an employer
though guilty of no fault himself, is liable for the damage done by the
fault or negligence of his servant acting in the course of his
employment. In some cases, it can be found that an employee was doing
an authorised act in an unauthorised, but, not prohibited way. The
employer shall be liable for such act, because the employee was acting
within the scope of his employment and, in so acting, did something
negligent or wrongful. A master is liable even for acts he has not
authorised, provided they are so connected with the acts which he has
been so authorised. On the other hand, if the act of the servant is not
even remotely connected within the scope of employment and is an
independent act, the master shall not be responsible because the
Servant is not acting in the course of his employment but has gone
outside".

xviii.

In the case on hand, it cannot be said that the Upper Division Clerk was
not acting in the course of his employment. Acceptance of Security Deposit
from the petitioner by the Upper Division Clerk cannot be treated as an
independent act".
77 of 87

xix.

The fact that UD Clerk of the respondent-Panchayat has accepted amounts
from the petitioner is, in fact, admitted. The contention of the respondents
is that since the said UD Clerk has not deposited the said amounts into
the accounts of the Panchayat and has not made entry in the register, the
respondents liable to refund". are not

xx.

In view of the law on Vicarious Liability as discussed above, if any UDC
employed by the respondent-Panchayat accepts money and issue the
receipts in the course of his employment, the respondents are liable to
refund that amount, if the amount accepted is refundable. The fact that a
vigilance case is pending and action has been taken against the fraudulent
activities of the UDC cannot be an excuse to deny the amounts duly
deposited by the petitioner on the basis of the receipts issued on behalf of
the Panchayat. The Panchayat is vicariously liable".

xxi.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to refund the amount due to the petitioner within a period of one
month.

xxii.

It is further humbly submitted that as per the above submissions of the
Respondent no. 4, it is crystal clearly established that Respondents no. 2,
3, 5 and 6 are jointly and severally responsible for the enforcement of the
Agreement of Sale dt. 29-01-2019 to the Complainant or in any other
financial means and respondent no. 4 is no way concerned with the affairs
of the dissolved firm M/s. Reliance Developers (Respondent no.1).

G. Points framed for consideration:
28. Now, the points that arise for consideration, based on the pleadings
submitted by both parties, are as follows:
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Authority?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief of cancellation of the
sale deed executed in favor of Respondent No. 7 and a direction to the
Respondents to execute a sale deed in favor of the Complainant?
3. Whether the Complainant has paid the sale consideration amount
towards Unit No. 102 in the concerned project?

78 of 87

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to a refund of the amount paid? If so,
at what rate of interest?
29(1).

Point 1: Whether the complaint is maintainable before this

Authority?
1. The Respondents 1,2,3,5 & 7 have raised a preliminary objection
regarding the maintainability of the complaint. They argue that the
Complainant does not qualify as an "allottee" under the RE(R&D) Act
and therefore lacks the standing to file the present complaint. The
Respondents further contest the validity of the Agreement of Sale
executed between the Complainant and Respondent No. 4, alleging that
the agreement is deficient, primarily due to the absence of witnesses
and the mention of a substantial cash payment of INR 75,00,000/-.
They also argue that the authority of Respondent No. 4 to enter into
such an agreement and collect payments on behalf of the firm is
questionable, and the same is required to establish in appropriate civil
court.
2. The Complainant, on the other hand, asserts that the complaint is
squarely within the jurisdiction of this Authority. The Complainant
submits that Respondent No. 4, Mr. S. Rajesh Kiran, was the
authorized signatory of the registered project under RERA vide
Registration No. P02500000185. The Complainant argues that TG
RERA has the authority under Sections 17 and 18 of the RE(R&D) Act
to enforce the return of amounts paid along with compensation and
interest, and that this Authority has the jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint.
3. Upon reviewing the submissions, this Authority finds that the
Respondents' challenge to the maintainability of the complaint is
premised on the argument that Respondent No. 4 lacked the authority
to enter into the Agreement of Sale or to collect payments. However, the
records available on the RERA website indicate that Respondent No. 4
was indeed listed as the authorized signatory for Respondent No. 2 at
the relevant time. This designation, being documented in the RERA
79 of 87

records, indicates that Respondent No. 4 acted within the scope of his
authority as recognized by Respondents No. 1 and 2 on the RERA
website.
4. Further, the Complainant's payment towards the unit, as per the
Agreement of Sale, and the subsequent actions of Respondent No. 4,
who admitted to entering into the agreement and receiving payments,
reinforce the Complainant's status as an "allottee" under Section 2(d) of
the RE(R&D) Act. The Complainant's rights as an allottee are thus
protected under the RE(R&D) Act, which is designed to safeguard the
interests of consumers in the real estate sector.
5. In view of the above, this Authority holds that the complaint is
maintainable before the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
The Complainant qualifies as an "allottee" under the RE(R&D) Act, and
the matter falls within the jurisdiction of this Authority.
29(2).

Point 2: Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief of

cancellation of the sale deed executed in favor of Respondent No. 7 and a
direction to the Respondents to execute a sale deed in favor of the
Complainant?
1. The Complainant has sought the cancellation of the sale deed executed
in favor of Respondent No. 7 and a direction to the Respondents to
execute a sale deed in favor of the Complainant. The Complainant
argues that the sale deed executed in favor of Respondent No. 7 is
illegal and should be annulled.
2. Upon a thorough examination of the documents and submissions
presented, it is evident that Respondent No. 1 entered into an
Agreement of Sale with Respondent No. 7 on 5th May 2018.
Subsequently,

Respondent

No.

7

instituted

a

suit

for

specific

performance; vide O.S. No. 43 of 2021, which culminated in the
execution of a sale deed in favor of Respondent No. 7. The said sale
deed has been duly registered and acknowledged by the Respondents,
thereby conferring transfer of ownership of the subject property to
Respondent No. 7.
80 of 87

3. It is pertinent to note that the Complainant entered into an Agreement
of Sale on 29th January 2019, which is nearly a year subsequent to the
Agreement of Sale executed with Respondent No. 7.
4. The Authority recognizes that under the principles of law, the first
buyer in whose favor the sale deed is duly registered is deemed the
rightful owner, provided the transaction is conducted in compliance
with the law. In this case, the sale deed in favor of Respondent No. 7
has been registered, and Respondent No. 7 has been in possession of
the unit for over a year.
5. It is well-settled that once a sale deed is executed and registered, the
seller's ownership rights are extinguished, and the ownership of the
property vests in the allottee. Any subsequent sale by the seller of the
already sold property amounts to fraud and deceit.
6. The Authority further notes that it does not have the jurisdiction to
cancel a duly registered sale deed. The RE(R&D) Act does not confer
upon this Authority the powers of a civil court in matters of sale deed
cancellation. Such relief must be sought before a competent civil court.
7. In light of the above observations, the Authority concludes that the
Complainant is not entitled to the relief of cancellation of the sale deed
executed in favor of Respondent No. 7. However, the Complainant may
approach the civil court for the desired relief.
8. Furthermore, the Complainant has sought a direction from this
Authority to compel Respondent No. 1 to register Flat No. 202 or 301 in
the subject project, asserting that these units are vacant and unsold.
However, upon conducting due diligence, the Authority has determined
that no flats remain vacant as per the Encumbrance Certificate of said
project at present. It is further noted that Respondent No. 1 has
obtained the Occupancy Certificate for the project in question.
29(3).

Point

3:

Whether

the

Complainant

has

paid

the

sale

consideration amount towards Unit No. 102 in the concerned project?
1. The Complainant contends that a total amount of Rs. 1,20,00,000/(Rupees One Crore Twenty Lakhs only) has been paid towards the
81 of 87

purchase of Unit No. 102, out of a total consideration of Rs.
1,32,50,000/-. The Complainant has submitted documentary evidence
of payments made on various dates, including RTGS transfers and
cheque payments. The payments are as follows:
(1) Rs. 29,00,000/- by RTGS on 22.01.2019
(2) Rs. 1,00,000/- by Cheque on 21.01.2019
(3) Rs. 75,00,000/- in cash during February and March 2019
(4) Rs. 10,00,000/- by RTGS on 11.03.2019
(5) Rs. 5,00,000/- by RTGS on 10.10.2019

2. Respondent No. 2 denies that these payments were made as
consideration for the sale of Unit No. 102. Respondent No. 2 asserts
that only Rs. 45,00,000/- was credited into the firm's account, which
was categorized as an unsecured loan, and that the payment of Rs.
75,00,000/- in cash was neither authorized nor acknowledged by the
firm.
3. Conversely, Respondent No. 4 has admitted to receiving the total
amount of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- from the Complainant towards Unit No.
102. He submits that these payments were made under the instructions
of Respondent No. 2 and were duly transferred to the firm’s account. He
further claims to have acted solely upon the instructions of Respondent
No. 2, in his capacity as an employee.
4. This Authority notes that Respondent No. 4 is listed as the authorized
signatory for the project on the RERA website. The Authority and
allottees are entitled to rely on the accuracy of information provided on
the RERA website, presuming it to reflect the proper authorization of
individuals associated with the project. Therefore, the submissions by
Respondents No. 1, 2, 3, and 5, asserting ignorance of Respondent No.
4’s actions or authorization, are devoid of merit and cannot be accepted.
5. Furthermore, Respondent No. 2 cannot evade responsibility for the
actions of Respondent No. 4, as he was employed by and acted on
behalf of the Respondents. The Complainant, relying on the information
available on the RERA website, made payments in good faith towards
the purchase of the unit. The Respondents are collectively responsible
82 of 87

for ensuring that their internal management and authorization
processes are in accordance with legal and regulatory requirements.
Any attempt to disclaim liability based on internal mismanagement or
procedural lapses is legally untenable.
6. Based on the evidence and submissions, the Authority concludes that
the Complainant has indeed paid the amount of Rs. 1,20,00,000/towards Unit No. 102 of the concerned project. The point is therefore
answered in the affirmative.
5. 29(4). Point 4: Whether the complainant is entitled to a refund of
the amount paid? If so, at what rate of interest?
1. The Complainant, during the hearing, sought relief under Section 18 of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, requesting a
refund of the amount paid along with interest, should Respondent 1 fail
to register the concerned flat, as this is her last resort. The Authority
has carefully considered the Preamble of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, noting
that while the preamble introduces the statute and outlines its primary
aims and objectives, emphasizes the protection of the interests of
"consumers" within the real estate sector. Upon thorough examination,
it is evident that the Complainant made payments to the Respondents
in good faith, with the expectation of acquiring the unit. However, due
to the Respondents' acts, the Complainant's interests have been
jeopardized. This Authority holds that it is paramount to protect the
rights and interests of the allottee, who has been aggrieved by the
Promoters’ actions. Therefore, in fulfilling its duty to safeguard the
interests of allottees, the Authority grants the relief sought by the
Complainant under Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act.
2. After considering the submissions and the evidence presented, the
Authority finds that the Respondents—Respondent 1 (the company),
Respondent

2

(the

Managing

Partner),

Respondent

3

(Partner),

Respondent 4 (Authorized Signatory), and Respondents 5 and 6
(Partners)—are jointly liable for the refund to the Complainant.

83 of 87

3. Under Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act, the promoter is obligated to
return the amount received from the allottee if possession is not
delivered as per the agreement. In this case, Respondent 1, as the
principal entity responsible for the project, failed to hand over
possession by the agreed-upon date. Respondents 2, 3, 5, and 6, in
their capacities as Managing Director and Partners, respectively, had
direct control and management responsibilities over the project, making
them accountable for the default. Furthermore, Respondent 4, as the
Authorized Signatory, executed agreements on behalf of the company,
further binding them to the obligations under the RE(R&D) Act.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers
Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine 1044, has
clarified that the right of the allottee to seek a refund under Section 18
is absolute and unconditional. This right extends to the refund of the
entire amount paid, along with interest, regardless of any internal
disputes or unforeseen events that may have prevented the delivery of
possession.
5. In light of the aforementioned observations, it is clear that the
Respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are jointly and severally liable for
their collective failure to handover the possession to the allottee, selling
the flat to the complainant which is already sold to Respondent 7 and
adhere

to

the

provisions

of

the

Real

Estate

(Regulation

and

Development) Act, 2016.
6. The Authority finds that Respondent 1 engaged in malafide practice and
fraudulent conduct by collecting payment from the Complainant and
entered into agreement of sale for a unit that had already been
promised to another allottee

through agreement of sale

dated

05.05.2018. Under Section 11 of the RE(R&D) Act, the promoter is
responsible for fulfilling all obligations, responsibilities, and functions
as per the Act and the agreement of sale. Respondent 1's failure to
adhere to these obligations constitutes a violation of Section 11 of the
RE(R&D) Act, as the responsibility to ensure compliance with the
Agreement of Sale and to hand over possession rests squarely with the
84 of 87

promoter. Entering into multiple agreements for the same unit with
different purchasers by Respondent 1 is an act with a criminal intent
that this Authority considers to be a violation of the statutory
obligations under the RE(R&D) Act.
7. The liability of Respondent No. 1, M/s Reliance Developers, is
particularly pronounced, as it was the entity to whom the sale
consideration amount was paid by the Complainant. The payment of
Rs. 1,20,00,000/- was made in good faith by the Complainant, based
on the representations and authorizations visible on the RERA platform.
The receipt of this amount, despite the prior sale of the same unit to
Respondent 7 and without adherence to the Act's mandatory provisions,
necessitates the return of the sale consideration to the Complainant, as
a corrective measure.
8. Respondents No. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, being part of the entity's
management or having direct involvement in the transactions, are
equally culpable for their non-compliance with the Act. Their joint and
several liability arises from their collective actions, omissions, and
failure to ensure that the possession promised to the allottee is handed
over.
9. The interest at 2% above the State Bank of India’s highest marginal cost
lending rate, which as of 15.08.2024 is 8.85%, totaling 10.85% per
annum, shall be payable from the date of receipt of each payment until
the date of repayment.
10.

In view of the above, this Authority directs Respondent No. 1, M/s

Reliance Developers, to refund the sale consideration amount of Rs.
1,20,00,000/-

(Rupees

One

Crore

Twenty

Lakhs

only)

to

the

Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order. The refund
shall include interest at the rate of 10.85% per annum, calculated from
the date of receipt of each payment until the date of repayment.
30. The Authority observes that Respondent No. 1 entered into an Agreement
of Sale with Respondent No. 7 on 05.05.2018, which predates the RERA
registration obtained by Respondent No. 1 on 21.09.2019, under TG RERA
85 of 87

Registration No. P0250000185. It is, therefore, evident that Respondent No. 1
offered to sell or market units within the concerned project before obtaining or
even applying for RERA registration.
Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016,
stipulates as follows:
'Prior registration of real estate project with Real Estate Regulatory
Authority.—(1) No promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell, or offer for
sale, or invite persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment, or
building, as the case may be, in any real estate project or part of it, in
any planning area, without registering the real estate project with the
Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under this Act.'
31.

A plain reading of the aforementioned section makes it unequivocally

clear that no promoter is permitted to promote a real estate project before
obtaining RERA registration. As Respondent No. 1, without the requisite
RERA registration, collected advance payments for the concerned unit and
entered into an Agreement of Sale, such actions constitute a violation of
Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
H. Directions of the Authority:
32.

In light of the findings of the Authority as recorded above, the following

directions under section 37 of the RE(R&D) Act to ensure compliance with
obligations imposed upon the under the RE(R&D) Act are issued:
1. The Respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are jointly and severally liable
for their failure to adhere to the provisions of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Respondent No. 1, M/s
Reliance Developers, to whom the amount was paid, is hereby directed
to refund the sale consideration of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore
Twenty Lakhs only) received from the Complainant within 45 days from
the date of this order. The refund shall be made along with interest at

86 of 87

the rate of 10.85% per annum, calculated from the date of receipt of
each payment until the date of repayment.
2. For contravening section 3 & 11 of the RE(R&D) Act, this Authority,
exercising its powers under section 59 of RE(R&D) Act, imposes a
penalty on Respondent 1 of Rs.20,02,762/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Two
Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty-Two Only). The amount is payable
in favour of TGRERA FUND through a Demand Draft or online payment
to A/c No.50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036,
within 30 days of the receipt of this Order by the Respondent/Promoter.
3. The Respondents are hereby informed that failure to comply with this
Order shall attract Section 63 of the Act.
4. In the result, the complaint stands disposed of. The parties shall bear
their own costs.
33.

If aggrieved by this Order, the parties may approach the Telangana Real

Estate Appellate as per Section 44 of the Act, 2016.

Sd/Sri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERAs

Sd/Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

87 of 87