Bangalore District Court
Icon Infra Shelters Ndia Pvt Ltd vs Gm Property Developers Pvt Ltd on 31 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. (CCH-90)
Present: Sri.K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR., LLM, M.Phil,
LXXXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JANUARY 2026
Com.O.S.No.468/2024
PLAINTIFF : M/s.Icon Infra Shelters India
Pvt., Ltd.,
Office at No.47/9,
Jai Symphony Plaza,
Sector-6, HSR Layout,
Bengaluru-560 102,
Represented by its
Managing Director,
G.Rajashekar.
(By Sri.A.Devaraja, Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS : 01. M/s.GM Property Developers
Pvt., Ltd.,
Office at No.158, 8th Cross,
Malleswaram,
Bengaluru-560 003,
Represented by its
Managing Director,
Sri.T.G.Mruthyunjaya,
02. Sri.T.G.,Mruthyunjaya,
Office at No.158, 8th Cross,
/2/
Com.O.S.No.468/2019
Malleswaram,
Bengaluru-560 003.
(By Sri.C.G.Gopalaswamy,
Advocate)
Date of Institution of suit : 10.01.2019
Nature of suit : Money Suit
(suit on pronote, suit for
declaration and possession
suit for injunction, etc.,)
Date of commencement of : 21.09.2019
recording of evidence
Date of judgment : 31.01.2026
Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
07 00 21
(K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR)
LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU. (CCH-90)
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants praying the Court to pass a judgment and decree directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum of ₹.26,25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) along with interest thereon @ 15% p.a. from the date of suit till the payment thereof and for costs and /3/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 for such other reliefs in the interest of justice and equity.
The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under:
02. That, the plaintiff is engaged in the business of developing immovable properties into full fledged layouts, residential and commercial apartment complex, group housing clusters and the like and it is on the look-out for suitable properties for development jointly with the owners thereof.
03. That, the defendants are the owners of the non agricultural property bearing Sy No.72/13, (converted in terms of the OM No.BDS/ALN/SR(N)/12/1990-91) Arisinakunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk Bangalore Rural District, measuring 02 Acres 11 Guntas and bounded on: East by: Krishnappa's Property, West by:
Path Way, North by: Hanumantaiah's Property, and South by: Ganjoji Rao and Earappa's Property in Sy No.72/13, Sy No.72/14 and Sy No.72/16.
04. That, the defendant has not been able to take up development of the said above property because of logistic reasons and it is on the look-out for a schedule entity to undertake and execute the works relating to the development of the said above land.
/4/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019
05. That the plaintiff company and defendants had entered the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 26-10-2016 for jointly developing the above said Property into a Value for money and affordable' apartment with terms and conditions.
06. That the defendants and plaintiff company Managing Director and Directors having known each other of developing property business and after negotiations, have expressed the defendants reciprocal interest and earnestness in associating with each other to jointly develop the said above Property into a Value for money and affordable' apartment.
07. That the plaintiff company has paid the advance amount of ₹.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) to the defendants by way of cheque bearing No.670907, dated 24-08-2016, drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd, HSR layout, Bangalore and said cheque has honored.
08. That as per the MOU dated 26-10-2016 the defendants have agreed that the defendants will co-operate in clarifying and perfecting the title to the said above property to the satisfaction of the plaintiff company.
/5/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019
09. That the defendants have provided the available copies of documents to the plaintiff company in respect of the said above property. The plaintiff company Directors and officers had approached their Advocate and handed over the documents provided by the defendants. The plaintiff Advocate has verified the documents and directed the plaintiff company directors and officers to produce the following documents:
A.Survey Sketch of the said above property. B.Tippany.
c.Screen shot of CDP plan.
10. That the plaintiff company directors and officers had requested the defendants to collect the above said documents from the concerned authorities. The survey sketch was conducted by the survey officers in presence of the plaintiff company directors and officers and 2 nd defendant with Mr.Dayanand.
11. That after collecting the survey sketch, and after verifying the survey sketch, tippany and CDP plan, the plaintiff company directors and officers have found that the survey sketch and the tippany are not matching with the CDP plan. Immediately the plaintiff company directors and /6/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 officers had approached the defendants personally and intimated the defendants that the survey sketch and the tippany are not matching with the CDP plan, but the defendants had not clarified to the plaintiff company directors and officers about their doubts regarding the same.
12. That the plaintiff company directors and officers again intimated to the defendants on 04-01-2017 through e-mail that the defendants should clarify about survey sketch, tippany and CDP plan and requested the defendants to send survey sketch duly attested by the Tahasildar to the plaintiff company, but the defendants had not clarified the doubts about the survey sketch, tippany and CDP plan and not provided survey sketch, which is duly attested by the Tahasildar to the plaintiff company.
13. That again on 19-01-2017 the plaintiff company directors and officers had requested the defendants through e-mail to provide the survey sketch and Affidavit pertaining of partnership (M/s.Ashraya Developers). But the defendants had not provided any documents to the /7/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 plaintiff company of their repeated demands and remainders.
14. That after 19-01-2017 also plaintiff company directors and officers have called 2nd defendant and their officers over the phone on several times, the defendants had not picked up and responded of the plaintiff company directors and officers calls and to provide and submit the documents to the plaintiff company directors and officers in respect of the said above property and clarify their doubts, but till today the defendants have not provided the plaintiff company directors and officers seeking documents and clarify their doubts.
15. That the plaintiff company directors and officers had not completely satisfied with the legal title of the documents in respect of the above said property. Therefore, the plaintiff company had cancelled the Memorandum of Under Standing (MOU) dated on 26-10-2016 by their legal notice dated 04-09-2018 to the defendants as per clause 15 of the Memorandum of Under Standing (MOU). The said notices have been duly served to the defendants. Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the advance amount of ₹.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) paid by /8/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 the plaintiff company by way of cheque bearing No.670907, dated 24-08-2016, drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd, HSR layout, Bangalore. After cancellation of the Memorandum of Under Standing (MOU) dated on 26-10-2016, the plaintiff company got issued a legal notice through their Advocate dated on 12-10-2018 demanding the advance amount of ₹.25,00,000/-. The said notices are duly served to the defendants.
16. That the transaction between the plaintiff and defendants are commercial transaction. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to an interest of 15% on the Cheque amount. Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the cheque amount along with interest thereon at 15% per annum.
17. The defendants owe a sum of ₹.26,25,000/- i.e., Advance Cheque Amount of ₹.25,00,000/- along with interest amount of ₹.1,25,000/- (from 04-09-2018 to 04- 01-2019 at 15% per annum). By contending so, the plaintiff prays to allow the suit.
18. The defendants have filed written statement contending that on September 21, 2019, the plaintiff filed this suit in the Court of LXXXIII Addl. City Civil and /9/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 Sessions Judge, (CCH84), Bangalore, specially constituted Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking judgment and decree directing the defendants to pay jointly and severally to it the sum of ₹.26,25,000-00 along with interest thereon at 15% per annum from the date of the suit till payment, among other reliefs, ostensibly as a suit involving a commercial dispute. Later the suit has been transferred to this Court, which is a also a specially constituted Court under CC Act. The proceedings is misconceived and the plaint is required to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
19. Without prejudice to the averments in paragraph 2 supra, the suit, both when instituted and after transfer to this Court, is not maintainable as a commercial suit and is liable to be dismissed inasmuch as -
(a) except at one place where it has claimed interest, nowhere in the plaint has the plaintiff averred that the alleged transaction between it and the defendants is a commercial transaction or that the alleged controversy is of the nature of a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the CC Act, /10/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019
(b) assuming, but not admitting, that deficiency pointed in (a) above is not a lacuna, the alleged controversy arising out of the alleged memorandum of understanding, is not a commercial dispute since the proposed joint development was not in respect of a property exclusively meant for commercial purposes; merely because the plaintiff and the first defendant are business entities, the suit does not acquire the characteristic of a commercial suit; the array of the second defendant, who is neither a proper nor a necessary party, further negates the claim to the suit being a commercial one.
20. Assuming, but not admitting, that the plaintiff instituted the suit as a commercial suit, the plaint is liable to be rejected for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 12-A of the CC Act; the plaintiff did not go through the process of pre-institution mediation stipulated in the said provisions; besides, the plaintiff ought to have verified the plaint with an affidavit of truth in the prescribed format as stipulated in section 15-A of the CC Act.
21. That, the very recitals in the MOU dated 26.10.2016 make it patent that there was no offer, no /11/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 acceptance of such offer and no communication of acceptance, which alone bring into existence an "agreement" within the meaning of the Contract Act, 1872. In other words, there is no agreement, much less an agreement enforceable in law, that has come into existence between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The suit founded on the MOU is pre-eminently not maintainable.
22. At best, the plaintiff might have asked for refund of the sum of ₹.25,00,000-00 it allegedly paid on August 22, 2016, as not gratuitous payment, but a claim on that score was barred on the date of institution of the suit, however, this averment is without it being any admission of liability and is without prejudice to the stand of the defendants that they are not liable to pay any sum of money to the plaintiff.
23. That, the first defendant completed all the tasks stipulated in the MOU. The plaintiff needlessly raised a bogey of the survey sketch being allegedly at variance with the comprehensive development plan and cancelled the "understanding". The first defendant did not commit any default.
/12/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019
24. The claim of the plaintiff for interest has no support of the MOU or of the law. The "understanding" was merely exploratory in nature and was not a transaction, much less a commercial transaction. The defendants are not liable to pay interest at 15% or at any rate. They are not liable to refund the alleged sum of ₹.25,00,000-00. There is no cause of action for the suit. The plaintiff and the first defendant did not enter into any legal relationship when they reached the "understanding" or when the MOU came into being. The plaintiff has referred to certain purchase orders that have nothing to do with the "understanding" or the MOU. By contending so, the defendants pray to dismiss the suit.
25. On the basis of the rival contentions, pleadings, material proposition of fact and law and the documents this Court has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of ₹.26,25,000/- in respect of the transaction covered under MOU dated 26.10.2016?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay interest at 15% p.a. /13/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 on ₹.25,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realisation?
3. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is barred by limitation?
4. Whether the defendants prove that the suit filed by the plaintiff before this Court is not maintainable as the suit does not involve a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for suit reliefs?
6. What Order/decree?
26. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, Sri.Rajashekar Gowrineni, the Managing Director of the plaintiff Company got examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On the other hand the defendant No.2 being the Managing Director of defendant No.1 has got examined as DW.1.
27. Heard on both sides.
28. My answer to the above framed issues are as follows:
ISSUE No.1 : In the AFFIRMATIVE
ISSUE No.2 : In the AFFIRMATIVE
/14/
Com.O.S.No.468/2019
ISSUE No.3 : In the NEGATIVE
ISSUE No.4 : In the NEGATIVE
ISSUE No.5 : In the AFFIRMATIVE
ISSUE No.6 : As per final Order
for the following
REASONS
29. ISSUE No.1, 2 and 5: For the purpose of brevity and convenience I would like to answer above three issues in common.
30. It is pertinent here to mention that as I have already narrated the facts of the case in detail at the inception, I will not repeat the facts once gain at length, but I will confine myself to the material facts.
31. It is the specific case of the plaintiff herein that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of developing immovable properties into full fledged layouts, residential and commercial apartment complex, group housing clusters and the like and it is on the look-out for suitable properties for development jointly with the owners thereof.
32. That, the defendants are the owners of the non agricultural property bearing Sy.No.72/13, Arisinakunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk Bangalore.
/15/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019
33. That, the defendant has not been able to take up development of the said above property because of logistic reasons and it is on the look-out for a schedule entity to undertake and execute the works relating to the development of the said above land.
34. That the plaintiff company and defendants had entered the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 26-10-2016 for jointly developing the above said Property into a Value for money and affordable' apartment with terms and conditions.
35. That the plaintiff company has paid the advance amount of ₹.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) to the defendants by way of cheque and the said cheque has honored.
36. That as per the MOU dated 26-10-2016 the defendants have agreed that the defendants will co-operate in clarifying and perfecting the title to the said above property to the satisfaction of the plaintiff company.
37. That the defendants have provided the available copies of documents to the plaintiff company in respect of the said above property and on verifying the said /16/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 documents the plaintiff directed the defendants to produce the following documents:
A.Survey Sketch of the said above property. B.Tippany.
c.Screen shot of CDP plan.
38. That the plaintiff company directors and officers had requested the defendants to collect the above said documents from the concerned authorities. The survey sketch was conducted by the survey officers in presence of the plaintiff company directors and officers and 2 nd defendant with Mr.Dayanand.
39. That after collecting the survey sketch, and after verifying the survey sketch, tippany and CDP plan, the plaintiff company directors and officers have found that the survey sketch and the tippany are not matching with the CDP plan. Immediately the plaintiff company directors and officers had approached the defendants personally and intimated the defendants that the survey sketch and the tippany are not matching with the CDP plan, but the defendants had not clarified to the plaintiff company directors and officers about their doubts regarding the same.
/17/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019
40. That the plaintiff company directors and officers again intimated to the defendants on 04-01-2017 through e-mail that the defendants should clarify about survey sketch, tippany and CDP plan and requested the defendants to send survey sketch duly attested by the Tahasildar to the plaintiff company, but the defendants had not clarified the doubts about the survey sketch, tippany and CDP plan and not provided survey sketch, which is duly attested by the Tahasildar to the plaintiff company.
41. That again on 19-01-2017 the plaintiff company directors and officers had requested the defendants through e-mail to provide the survey sketch and Affidavit pertaining of partnership (M/s.Ashraya Developers). But the defendants had not provided any documents to the plaintiff company of their repeated demands and remainders.
42. That after 19-01-2017 also plaintiff company directors and officers have called 2 nd defendant and their officers over the phone on several times, the defendants had not picked up and responded of the plaintiff company directors and officers calls and to provide and submit the /18/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 documents to the plaintiff company directors and officers in respect of the said above property and clarify their doubts, but the defendants have not provided the plaintiff company directors and officers seeking documents and clarify their doubts.
43. That the plaintiff company directors and officers had not completely satisfied with the legal title of the documents in respect of the above said property. Therefore, the plaintiff company had cancelled the Memorandum of Under Standing (MOU) dated on 26-10-2016 by their legal notice dated 04-09-2018 to the defendants as per Clause 15 of the Memorandum of Under Standing (MOU). The said notices have been duly served to the defendants. Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the advance amount of ₹.25,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff company by way of cheque.
44. After cancellation of the Memorandum of Under Standing (MOU) dated on 26-10-2016, the plaintiff company got issued a legal notice through their Advocate dated on 12-10-2018 demanding the advance amount of ₹.25,00,000/-. The said notices are duly served to the defendants.
/19/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019
45. That the transaction between the plaintiff and defendants are commercial transaction. Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the cheque amount along with interest thereon at 15% per annum i.e., to ₹.26,25,000/- (interest from 04-09-2018 to 04-01-2019 at 15% per annum ₹.1,25,000/-). Hence, plaintiff was constrained to file this suit.
46. On the other hand the defendant has denied the entire case of the plaintiff and prays to dismiss the suit.
47. Having regard to the rival contention of both the parties I would like to bestow my attention to the evidence adduced by both the parties.
48. In order to support the case of the plaintiff company, the Managing Director has himself filed affidavit evidence in lieu of his examination in chief reiterating the entire plaint averments. Apart from , the PW1 got produced the Ex.P1 certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.09.2005 through which it appears the defendants have purchased the suit property from its previous owner. The fact that the defendants are the absolute owner is not at all in dispute. The Ex.P2 is the RTC extract pertaining to the suit /20/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 schedule property bearing survey number 72/13 for the year 2017 and 18.
49. As per the case of the plaintiff the defendants being the absolute owner of the suit schedule property have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.10.2016/ Ex.P16 through which the plaintiff agreed to develop the suit schedule property for which ₹.25,00,000/- has been paid by the plaintiff vide cheque number 670937 dated 22.08.2016 to the defendant as advance amount. I have bestowed my attention to Clause 15 of the said MOU where in appears there is a recital that if the present plaintiff being the Second party is not completely satisfied with the legal title scrutiny and verification or if the plaintiff herein finds issue relating to the title or ownership or related documentation which is not resolved/ explained to the satisfaction of the present plaintiff, then the plaintiff shall be entitled to cancel the Memorandum of Understanding and defendant being the first party of the Memorandum of Understanding shall refund the token advance amount of ₹25,00,000/- within 3 days of the cancellation.
/21/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019
50. In order to prove the fact that the plaintiff has paid an advance token amount of ₹.25,00,000/- to the defendant the PW1 has got produced the Ex.P3/Statement of account pertaining to the plaintiffs account wherein it appears on 24.08.2016 an amount of ₹.25,00,000/- has been debited from the account of the plaintiff and has been credited to the defendants account.
51. The PW.1 further produced the Ex.P4 which is the copy of Hissa survey tippani pertaining to the suit schedule property. The Ex.P5 is the extract copy of revision settlement and in my opinion both the documents are not at all in dispute.
52. The Ex.P6 is the office copy of legal notice dated 04.09.2018. The Ex.P7 and P8 are the 2 postal receipts. The Ex.P9 and P10 are the postal acknowledgments. As per Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8 the plaintiff issued legal notice through his counsel to the defendants where in the plaintiff has cancelled the memorandum of understanding dated 26.10.2016 for the reason that the plaintiff have not completely satisfied with the legal title of the documents with respect to the suit schedule property and acting as per /22/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 clause 15 of the Memorandum of Understanding the plaintiff has cancelled the said Memorandum of Understanding.
53. The Ex.P11 is the office copy another legal notice dated 12.10.2018 which is issued by the plaintiff to the defendants calling upon them to repay the advance amount of ₹25,00,000 on the strength that the MOU got cancelled. The Ex.P12 and 13 are the postal receipts. The Ex.P 14 and 15 are the postal acknowledgments and they are not in dispute.
54. In order to disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendant counsel has cross examined the PW1 at length wherein nothing is elicited from the mouth of the witness which goes against to the case of the plaintiff and in turn supports the case of the defendant. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant has cross examined PW1 wherein the PW.1 has admitted that the plaintiff company is in the habit of entering into agreements without verifying the documents. PW1 also admits that Plaintiff company has a legal team to verify the documents and that the second defendant has got no personal transaction with the plaintiff and that except MOU there is no other document /23/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 to show the offer and acceptance of plaintiff and defendant No.1 in writing.
55. The PW1 admitted that only on 5/12/2018 their legal team has obtained the certified copy of Ex.P1 and that Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 were obtained by the plaintiff only in the year 2018 and that they have not verified the document of defendant No.1 and no survey was conducted and that there is no clause in MOU to levy penalty or interest and that he do not remember whether he has produced document before the court to show that the survey sketch and Tippani are not matching with CDP.
56. It is pertinent to note that the counsel appearing for the defendant has suggested the PW1 that no amount of ₹25,00,000/- as mentioned in the plaint and the affidavit evidence of PW1 has been transferred to the defendant No.1, to this suggestion DW1 voluntarily deposed that the plaintiff company has transferred an amount of ₹25,00,000/- vide cheque dated 24.08.2016.
57. On careful reading of the entire cross examination of PW1 in my opinion there is nothing on record which falsifies the case of the plaintiff regarding the fact that the /24/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 plaintiff making payment of ₹.25,00,000/- by entering into Memorandum of Understanding and the Clause 15 of the Memorandum of Understanding which entitles the plaintiff to cancel the Memorandum of Understanding if once he is not satisfied with the title documents. The entire Cross- examination in any manner do not supports the case of the defendant.
58. Having failed in his attempt to elicit truth from the mouth of PW1, the defendant once again has made his attempt to prove his defense by examining the second defendant i.,e, the Managing Director of the first defendant has filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief as DW 1 reiterating almost all the contents of Written Statement.
59. In order to support the case of the defendant no documents have been filed before the court. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has cross examined DW1, where in DW1 has categorically admitted that the address which is forthcoming in the cause title is that of the defendant No.1 and that all notices issued to the said address will be served to defendant No.1. The DW1 also admits that the defendant No.1 is the owner of property /25/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 bearing survey number 72/13 measuring 2 acre 11 guntas situated at Arisina kunte village Nelamangala taluk.
60. It is further admitted by DW1 that as per MOU, it was agreed that all the relevant documents pertaining to the suit property should be provided by the defendants to the plaintiff. The DW1 also admits that as per the said MOU plaintiff company has paid ₹.25,00,000/- through cheque in favour of defendant and that the defendant No.1 has encashed the said amount of ₹.25,00,000/-.
61. The DW1 also admits that plaintiff has called upon the defendants to furnish the survey sketch, tippani, CDP plan and other related documents pertaining to the suit property, to this suggestion the witness has voluntarily deposed that as per the say of the plaintiff they have furnished all the relevant documents to them.
62. Keeping in mind the said admission, I verified the records, wherein no documentary proof is produced by the defendants along with the written statement to show that they have furnished all the required and the related documents pertaining to the suit property to the plaintiff.
/26/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 Had the defendants have provided all the relevant documents then they could have obtained an acknowledgment from the plaintiffs.
63. The DW1 categorically admits that as per Clause 15 of the MOU if in case the plaintiff did not satisfy with all the relevant title documents pertaining to the suit property then the defendants were liable to return the said amount of ₹25,00,000/-. In my opinion the said admission itself is sufficient to hold that as the plaintiff did not satisfy with all the relevant title documents pertaining to the suit property the defendants as per Clause 15 of MOU are liable to return the amount of ₹25,00,000/-.
64. The DW1 identified his signature upon Ex.P16 and the said signature is marked at Ex.P16 (a).
65. On careful reading of the terms of MOU and other documents produced by the plaintiff and on marshaling the evidence of PW1 it is crystal clear that the plaintiff has successfully proved that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs 26,25,000/- in respect of transaction under MOU dated 26.10.2016 along with interest at 15% from the date of suit till its realization. Hence, I answer issue No.1, 2 and 5 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
/27/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019
66. Issue No.3: It is the specific case of the defendant that the suit filed by the plaintiff is hit by law of limitation, hence, the suit is not maintainable.
67. Keeping in mind the said defense I have once again bestowed my attention to the plaint averments, wherein the entire case of the plaintiff rests upon the MOU dated 26.10.2016. If the date on which MOU has been entered in between the plaintiff and the defendant is taken as the first date of cause of action then admittedly, the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit within 25.10.2019.
68. Keeping in mind the said facts, I have verified the ordersheet and the plaint wherein it appears the plaintiff has filed the suit on 10.01.2019 itself, which is well within the period of limitation. Hence, the defendant has failed to prove the Issue No.3. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 in the NEGATIVE.
69. Issue No.4: It is the specific case of the defendant that the present dispute is not a commercial dispute and it do not fall under Section 2(1)(c) of Commercial Courts Act.
/28/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019
70. Keeping in mind the said submission of the defendant counsel, I have once again bestowed my attention to the plaint averments wherein the plaintiff has pleaded that the plaintiff has agreed to jointly develop the suit property into a "Value for money and Affordable" Apartment as per MOU dated 26.10.2016 with terms and conditions.
71. On careful reading of the entire terms of MOU it is crystal clear that both the parties have agreed to develop the suit property into an apartment to gain monitory benefit respectively.
72. The entire averments of the plaint goes to show that after initial understanding in between the parties, both of them would enter into a full fledged Joint Development Agreement. Hence, I am of the view that the dispute pertaining to the MOU dated 26.10.2016 necessarily fall within the ambit of Section 2(1)(c) of Commercial Courts Act. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.4 in the NEGATIVE.
/29/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019
73. Issue No.6: In view of my findings on Issue No:1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit filed by plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost.
The defendants are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of ₹.26,25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only) along with interest at 15% p.a. from the date of suit till its realization within 60 days from the date of this Order.
The pending IAs if any are disposed off accordingly.
Draw decree accordingly.
The office is hereby directed to send a copy of the judgment to the plaintiff and the defendants through e-mail as per Order XX /30/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 Rule 1 of CPC as amended by Section 16 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
(Directly dictated to the Stenographer on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of January 2026).
(K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR) LXXXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-90) ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 SRI.RAJASEKHAR GOWRINENI List of documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff: Sl.No. Particulars of documents Ex.P.
1. The certified copy of the sale deed Ex.P.1 dated 12.09.2005
2. The RTC extract pertaining to the Ex.P.2 suit schedule property bearing survey number 72/13 for the year 2017 and 2018.
3. The Statement of account Ex.P.3
4. The copy of Hissa survey tippani Ex.P.4 pertaining to the suit schedule property
5. The extract copy of revision Ex.P.5 /31/ Com.O.S.No.468/2019 settlement
6. The office copy of legal notice dated Ex.P.6 04.09.2018
7. 2 postal receipts. Ex.P.7 & Ex.P.8
8. The 2 postal acknowledgments. Ex.P.9 & Ex.P.10
9. The office copy another legal notice Ex.P.11 dated 12.10.2018
10. The postal receipts. Ex.P.12 & Ex.P.13
11. The postal acknowledgments Ex.P.14 & Ex.P.15
12. The Signature of DW.1 Ex.P.16 & Ex.P.16(a) List of witnesses examined for the defendant/s:
P.W.1 SRI.T.G.MRUTHUNJAYA List of documents marked for the defendant/s:
NIL (K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR) LXXXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-90) ****