Telangana High Court
Smt. Bandaru Pushpalatha vs M/S. Legend Estates Private Ltd on 27 April, 2026
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2797 OF 2023
Dated: 27.04.2026
Between:
Smt. Bandaru Pushpalatha
... Petitioner - Respondent No.1 - Plaintiff
And
1.M/s.Legend Estates Private Limited,
Office at:6-3-1238, Sixth Floor,
Legand Apartment, Renuka Enclave,
Lane Opp. Necklace Road Railway Station,
Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda Hyderabad - 500 082
Represented by its Managing Director
B.Nageshwar Rao S/o. B.Chennaiah
Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business.
... Respondent No.1-Petitioner-Defendant No.1
2.Vinod Patangey and 5 others
... Respondents Nos.2 to 7 - respondent Nos.2 to 7 -
Defendant Nos.2 to 7
ORDER
1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order passed by the
learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy
2/17
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2797 of 2023
District, L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.1394 of 2019 in O.S.No.817 of 2019 dated
21.06.2023.
2.1 Petitioner is the respondent No.1 – plaintiff, respondent No.1 is the
petitioner – defendant No.1 and respondent Nos.2 to 7 are the
respondent Nos.2 to 7 – defendant Nos.2 to 7 in I.A.No.1394 of 2019 in
O.S.No.817 of 2019.
2.2 For the sake of convenience the parties will be hereinafter referred
to as petitioner – respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 – petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner – respondent No.1 submits that
the learned Trial Court without appreciating the case has allowed the
application filed by the respondent No.1 – petitioner and driven them to
appear before the Arbitrator to adjudicate the lis in terms of the alleged
development agreement dated 10.07.2016 and supplementary
agreement dated Nil.07.2016. The learned Trial Court failed to observe
that the respondent No.1 – petitioner took different stands in the later
suit vide O.S.No.269 of 2021 by stating that there was no necessity for
appointment of Arbitrator as contemplated in the registered
development agreement and ought to have dismissed the application on
the ground that the documents dated 10.07.2016 and 11.07.2016 are
antidated and brought into existence. The learned Trial Court without
taking pain in deciding the matter simply allowed the application by
3/17
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2797 of 2023
directing the parties to approach the arbitrator, wrongly came to a
conclusion that the dispute entails voluminous and extensive evidence,
complicated issue can be decided in arbitration and having proclivity of
criminal facet and there it shall not be proper preferment at the
instance case. Apparently on the face of the alleged documents dated
10.07.2016 and 11.07.2016 are antidated and fabricated which was
clearly observed by the learned Trial Court as there is no genuinity in
the said documents and they are not valid documents even if they were
registered, referring the matter to the arbitrator is nothing but causing
some sought of litigation which ought to have decided by the Civil Court
but not the arbitrator. The learned Trial Court failed to observe the
conduct of the respondent No.1 – petitioner who has created those
documents for wrongful gain and the said documents cannot be
accepted for any purpose even for referring the matter to the arbitrator.
Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in
the cases of (i) Jagdish Chander Vs. Ramesh Chander 1 (ii) Karnataka
Power Transmission Corporation Limited and another Vs. M/s.Deepak
Cables (india) Limited 2 (iii) Foomill Private Limited Vs. Affle (India)
Limited 3 (iv) Blue Star Limited Vs. Rahul Saraf 4 and prayed to allow the
CRP.
1
AIR OnLine 2007 SC 107
2
AIR 2014 SC 1626 = (2014) 11 SCC 148
3
(2022) 2 High Court Cases (Del) 98
4
AIR 2003 (NOC) 601 (CAL)
4/17
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2797 of 2023
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 – petitioner submits that the
learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case by
taking into consideration the arbitration clause in the documents dated
10.07.2016 and -.07.2016. In support of his contentions has relied on
the decisions in the cases of (i) Vidya Drolia and others Vs. Durga
Trading Corporation 5 (ii) Pravin Electricals Private Limited Vs. Galaxy
Infra and Engineering Private Limited 6 and (iii) The Managing Director
Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Limited and Others Vs.
Sanjay Kumar 7 and prayed to dismiss the CRP.
5. Counsels on record have filed their written submissions.
6.1 Petitioner – respondent No.1 has filed suit in O.S.No.817 of 2019
against the respondents – defendants seeking relief of declaration to
declare sale deed document Nos.2626/2015, 600/2016, 2142/2016,
5062/2015, 6255/2016 and 6256/2016 of different dates as null and
void and also sought for consequential relief of perpetual injunction
against the respondents – defendants restraining their men from
interfering and thereby constructing any structure over the suit
schedule property.
5
(2021) 2 SCC 1
6
(2021) 5 SCC 671
7
MANU/SC/1015/2025
5/17
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2797 of 2023
6.2. Plaint ‘A’ schedule property is agricultural land in survey No.200/A
admeasuring Ac.00-09 guntas situated at Hyderguda village,
Rajendranagar Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District.
6.3 Plaint ‘B’ Schedule property is Flat No.202 on second floor
admeasuring 1818 sq.ft; Plaint ‘C’ schedule property is Flat No.105 on
first floor admeasuring 1837 sq.ft; Plaint ‘D’ Schedule property is flat
No.208 on second floor admeasuring 2044 sq.ft; Plaint ‘E’ Schedule
property is flat No.507 on fifth floor admeasuring 1985 sq.ft; Plaint ‘F’
Schedule property is flat No.409 on fourth floor admeasuring 1964
sq.ft; Plaint ‘G’ Schedule property is flat No.411 on fourth floor in
LEGEND HORIZON in Survey Nos.191, 192, 199, 200/A, 201 in
Hyderguda village and in Survey Nos.443, 444 and 445/A1 at Attapur
village under Rajendra Nagar Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy
District.
6.4 It is stated in the plaint that the petitioner-respondent No.1
(plaintiff) is the absolute owner and in possession of the land
admeasuring Ac.0-09 gts in Survey.No.200/A of Hyderguda village
having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated
06.01.2003 vide Doc.No.88 of 2003 from the pattedar Dappu Awaiah
which is ‘A’ Schedule Property. Respondent No.1 – petitioner (D1)
entered into development agreement – cum – GPA vide Doc.No. 4380 of
2012 dated 09.07.2012 with different persons in Survey No.191, 192,
6/17
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2797 of 2023
199, 201 total admeasuring 4203.75 sq.yds situated at Hyderguda
village. The above said land is abutting ‘A’ schedule property. Petitioner
– respondent No.1 (plaintiff) has neither entered development agreement
nor given authorization to the respondent No.1 – petitioner (D1) for
construction of apartments in ‘A’ Schedule Property. On 24.05.2019
when the petitioner – respondent No.1 (plaintiff) visited ‘A’ schedule
property she found some structures were raised for the purpose of
construction of apartment by respondent No.1 – petitioner (D1).
6.5 Petitioner – respondent No.1 (plaintiff) is the absolute owner and
possessor of Land admeasuring Ac.1-07 gts in Sy.No.443 and land
admeasuring Ac.1-08 gts in Survey No.444, her son – B.Rajeev Kumar
is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0-10 gts in
Survey No. 444 situated at Attapur (v), Rajendra Nagar (M), R.R.
District. After due deliberations and deliberations and discussions, the
petitioner – respondent No.1 (plaintiff) along with her son – B.Rajeev
Kumar entered into registered development agreement vide
Doc.No.3679 of 2013 dated 18.02.2013 in respect of land to an extent
of Ac.2-25 gts in Survey Nos.443 and 444 of Attapur village.
6.6 respondent No.1 – petitioner (D1) has no right or title to raise
construction over ‘A’ schedule property and he cannot execute
registered sale deeds in favour of third parties.
7/17
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2797 of 2023
7. Respondent No.1 – petitioner has filed I.A.No.1394 of 2019 under
Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with a prayer to
dismiss the suit and refer the subject matter to arbitration. The affidavit
filed by the respondent No.1 – petitioner goes to show that petitioner –
respondent No.1 has entered into development agreement – cum –
General Power of Attorney dated 10.07.2016 in respect of land
admeasuring Ac.00-09 guntas in Survey No.200/A and supplementary
agreement is also executed on Nil.07.2016 by the petitioner –
respondent No.1 and Ch.Bhoji Reddy and 9 others. Petitioner –
respondent No.1 is shown at serial No.11 in the supplementary
agreement dated Nil.07.2016.
8. Petitioner – respondent No.1 has filed her counter and contended
that development agreement – cum – GPA dated 10.07.2016 and
supplementary development dated Nil.07.2016 are fabricated
documents and on the face of it they are antidated as the stamp papers
were purchased on 15.07.2016.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner – respondent No.1 has drawn
the attention of this Court to Section 7 of Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 which reads as under:
7. Arbitration Agreement:-
1) In this part, “arbitration agreement” means an agreement by
the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes
which have arisen or which may arise between them in
8/17BRMR,J
CRP.No.2797 of 2023respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or
not.
2) An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration
clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement.
3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.
4) An arbitration agreement is in writing if it is contained in-
a) a document signed by the parties;
b) an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means
of telecommunication which provide a record of the
agreement; or
c) an exchange of statements of claim and defence in
which the existence of the agreement is alleged by one
party and not denied by the other.
5) The reference in a contract to a document containing an
arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement if the
contract is in writing and the reference is such as to make
that arbitration clause part of the contract.
10.1 It is apt to refer Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, which reads as under:
“8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an
arbitration agreement.-
(1) A judicial authority before which an action is brought
in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration
agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when
submitting his first statement on the substance of the
dispute, refer the parties to arbitration.
(2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not
be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original
arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.
(3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made
under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending
9/17BRMR,J
CRP.No.2797 of 2023before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be
commenced or continued and an arbitral award made”
11.1. On perusal of the first page of the development agreement –
cum -GPA dated 10.07.2016, which goes to show that stamp paper is
purchased vide Sl.No. 4240 dated 15.07.2016 by one D.Balu
S/o.Ramulu for M/s. Legend Estates Private Limited. Supplementary
agreement dated Nil.07.2016 is purchased on 15.07.2016 vide
Sl.No.4241 by the very same person for the same company.
11.2 Development agreement – cum – GPA dated 10.07.2016 is in
respect of ‘A’ schedule property.
11.3 Supplementary agreement dated – July 2016 is in respect of
property admeasuring 4203.75 sq.yds in survey No.191, 192, 199 &
201 of Hyderguda (V) and in respect of ‘A’ schedule property executed
by Ch.Bhoji Reddy and 10 others in favour of respondent No.1 –
petitioner.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 – petitioner contend that the
terms and conditions between the parties were negotiated and
crystallized prior in a routine practice on 10.07.2016 itself and they
executed a written deed on 15.07.2016. Similar is the case in the
supplementary agreement. The submissions made by the learned
counsel for respondent No.1 – petitioner appears to be bona fide.
10/17
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2797 of 2023
13.1. It is apt to refer clause 32 of development agreement – cum –
GPA dated 10.07.2016 which reads as under:
“32. In case of any disputes arising between the parties hereto
touching these presents the matter shall be referred to a sole
arbitrator appointed mutually by both the Parties and the award
shall be final and binding on both the parties and the relevant
provisions of the Arbitration & Reconciliation Act shall apply, Law of
evidence will not be applicable to the proceedings. The arbitration
proceedings shall be held at Hyderabad and in English Language.”
13.2. Clause 5 of supplementary agreement dated Nil.07.2016 reads
as under:
“In case of any disputes arising between the parties hereto
touching these presents the matter shall be referred to a sole
arbitrator, appointed mutually by both the Parties and the award
shall be final and binding on both the parties and the relevant
provisions of the Arbitration & Reconciliation Act shall apply. The
arbitration proceedings shall be held at Hyderabad and in English
Language.”
14. There is no dispute with regard to entering development agreement
dated 18.02.2013 vide document No.3679/2013 by the petitioner-
respondent No.1 and her son – B.Rajeev Kumar with the respondent
No.1 – petitioner for Ac.2-25 guntas in Survey Nos.443 and 444 of
Attapur village.
15. It is stated in the written arguments filed by the petitioner –
respondent No.1 that the petitioner – respondent No.1 has opposed the
11/17
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2797 of 2023
application as there was no consensus between the parties to refer the
dispute to the arbitrator.
16.1 It is mentioned in the development agreement – cum – general
power of attorney dated 10.07.2016 at internal page No.2 that the first
party [petitioner herein] has given land admeasuring 1089 sq.yds or
Ac.00-09 guntas in Survey No.200/A situated at Hyderguda village,
Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District jointly for development of
villas along with Survey Nos.443 and 444 situated at Attapur village,
Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which is covered under
registered development agreement dated 18.02.2013 bearing document
No.3679/2013.
16.2 Supplementary agreement dated –.07.2016 is executed by
Ch.Bhoji Reddy and 10 others in favour of the respondent No.1 –
petitioner. Petitioner – respondent No.1 is shown at serial No.11 and
she was entitled for flat No.104 first floor admeasuring 1837 sq.fts, flat
No.303 third floor admeasuring 2044 sq.fts, flat No.307 third floor
admeasuring 1985 sq.fts. and flat No.506 fifth floor admeasuring 1837
sq.fts. Total 7703 sq.fts in the residential complex.
17. Petitioner – respondent No.1 has stated in her written arguments
in paragraph No.20 with regard to filing of O.S.No.269 of 2021 and
issuing of legal notice on 22.09.2020 to the respondent No.1 –
12/17
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2797 of 2023
petitioner. The said submissions do not find place in the counter filed
by the petitioner – respondent No.1, hence there is no point in
discussing the same.
18.1 In Jagdish Chander1 Supreme Court has set out the principles
in regard to what constitutes an arbitration agreement in paragraph
No.8(4), which reads as under:
“But mere use of the word ‘arbitration’ or ‘arbitrator’ in a
clause will not make it an arbitration agreement, if it requires or
contemplates a further or fresh consent of the parties for reference to
arbitration. For example, use of words such as “parties can, if they
so desire, refer their disputes to arbitration” or “in the event of any
dispute, the parties may also agree to refer the same to arbitration”
or “if any disputes arise between the parties, they should consider
settlement by arbitration” in a clause relating to settlement of
disputes, indicate that the clause is not intended to be an arbitration
agreement. Similarly, a clause which states that “if the parties so
decide, the disputes shall be referred to arbitration” or “any disputes
between parties, if they so agree, shall be referred to arbitration” is
not an arbitration agreement. Such clauses merely indicate a desire
or hope to have the disputes settled by arbitration, or a tentative
arrangement to explore arbitration as a mode of settlement if and
when a dispute arises. Such clauses require the parties to arrive at a
further agreement to go to arbitration, as and when the disputes
arise. Any agreement or clause in an agreement requiring or
contemplating a further consent or consensus before a reference to
arbitration, is not an arbitration agreement, but an agreement to
enter into an arbitration agreement in future.”
18.2 In Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited2,
Supreme Court laid down the following principles:
13/17
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2797 of 2023
i) There must be a clear, mutual intention between the parties to
refer disputes to a private Tribunal for adjudication. The mere
use of certain key words like ‘dispute’ is not enough if the overall
intent does not align with arbitration procedure.
ii) The intension of the parties must be gathered by reading the
contract as a whole.’18.3 In Foomill Private Limited3, High Court of Delhi observed at
paragraph No.6 which reads as under:
“6. —-, it is clear that mere use of the word “arbitration” in the
heading in the Clause 11 of the agreement between the parties in the
present proceedings would not lead to the inference that there exists
an agreement between the parties seeking resolution of disputes
through arbitration.”
18.4 In Blue Star Limited4, Calcutta High Court observed at
paragraph No.12 which reads as under:
“12. It appears that Clause 7 makes a reference to ‘Arbitration
Proceedings’ and Clause 13 clarifies what the arbitrator shall not do.
On an examination of Clause 7, no intention or understanding
between the parties can be gleaned which specifically and
mandatorily requires a reference of future disputes to arbitration.
While there is a mention of such ‘Arbitration Proceedings’, merely
such mentioning does not sanctify the clause with the status of an
arbitration agreement. Clause 7 indicates that the second party shall
continue to provide services during the period of any litigation or
arbitration proceedings. The plausible understanding is that a
possibility of there being a reference to arbitration is left open, if the
parties, in the future, opt for it. As seen in the law discussed before,
such a possibility is not enough to consolidate an arbitration
agreement.”
14/17
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2797 of 2023
19. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 – petitioner contends that the
allegation of fraud made therein are simplicitor in nature which is not a
ground to nullify the arbitration agreement. Counsel has given the
dates of earlier development agreements with Ch.Bhoji Reddy in Survey
Nos.191, 192, 199 and 201, they are not the subject matter of the suit
and there is no point in discussing the same in the present CRP. The
present CRP is relating to Ac.00-09 guntas of land in Survey No.200/A
i.e., ‘A’ schedule property.
20.1 In Vidya Drolia5 (Three Judge Bench) the Supreme Court has
laid down the following principles:
“The scope of the court to examine the prima facie validity of an
arbitration agreement includes only the determination of the
following:
237.1. Whether the arbitration agreement was in writing? or
237.2. Whether the arbitration agreement was contained in
exchange of letters, telecommunication, etc.?
237.3. Whether the core contractual ingredients qua the
arbitration agreement were fulfilled?
237.4. On rare occasions, whether the subject – matter of
dispute is arbitrable?
20.2 In Pravin Electricals Private Limited6 (Three Judge Bench)
Supreme Court observed at paragraph No.29, which reads as under:
“that a deeper consideration of whether an arbitration
agreement exists between the parties must be left to an arbitrator
who is to examine the documentary evidence produced before him in
detail after witnesses are cross-examined on the same.”
15/17
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2797 of 2023
20.3 In Sanjay Kumar7 Supreme Court observed at paragraph
Nos.21 (VII), (VIII) and (X) which reads as under:
VII. Disputes involving allegations of serious fraud need more
clarity so that there is certainty about the availability of the remedy.
At least one instance of serious fraud will be where disputes
involving allegations having criminal law implications transcend inter
se disputes between the contracting parties and attain public
implications, where the ramifications could directly or indirectly
affect non- parties and impact, integrity in governance,
accountability in public service, distribution of essential
commodities, safety and security of the nation for example.
Consideration of such disputes have public law implications and
shall ‘not be submitted to arbitration’. See: A.Ayyasamy v.
A.Paramasivam and Others – [ MANU/SC/1179/2016].
VIII. Arbitral Tribunal will be within its jurisdiction to consider
allegations of fraud even with respect to the specific terms or clauses
in the contract as an arbitration agreement stands independent of
the contract and continue to bind and govern the parties even if the
contract is terminated or challenged and this question is no more res
integra. There is however an exception, the following is its
articulation. See:Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements;
MANU/SC/1325/2023.
X. The burden of proof is on the party who raises the plea.
21. Petitioner – respondent No.1 is disputing the development
agreement – cum – GPA dated 10.07.2026 and supplementary
agreement dated -.07.2016, it shifts the dispute from simple breach of
contract to a challenge against the very existence of the legal
relationship. The arbitrator has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction
whether the development agreement itself is valid or if the signatures
are forged.
16/17
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2797 of 2023
22. Section 11(3) to Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 provides for appointment of arbitrators for resolution of
disputes in the event the parties are not arrived at a consent for
reference of dispute to arbitration.
23. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner –
respondent No.1 are distinguishable from the facts of the present case
and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply in the present case.
24. Though the learned Trial Court at paragraph No.9 of its order
arrived at a conclusion that there is apparently irreconcilable
inconsistency in both the documents but by virtue of Section 8 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arrived at a just conclusion that
the suit has to be referred to the arbitrator in terms of the arbitration
agreement.
25. The decisions cited by respondent No.1 – petitioner are applicable
to the facts of the case.
26. Power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on
the face of record or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner
(See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan 8).
8
2025 SCC OnLine SC 985
17/17
BRMR,J
CRP.No.2797 of 2023
27. Petitioner – respondent No.1 has not made out any case to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Court. In view of the
reasons above there is no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by
the learned Trial Court, hence CRP deserves no consideration and the
same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
28. CRP.No.2797 of 2023 is dismissed without costs.
Interims orders if any stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous
petitions if any shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
27.04.2026
Dua
