Bangalore District Court
Sri Narendra Kumar vs M/S. Rajesh Exports Limited on 27 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.No.25).
Dated: This the 27th day of September 2018
Present: Sri.Ron Vasudev, B.Com. LL.B, (Spl),
III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No:915, 916, 917, 918 OF 2012
Parties in O.S.915/2012
Plaintiff Sri Narendra Kumar,
S/o. late Sri Bhawarlal,
Aged about 52 years,
Proprietor, M/s.Sha Mithalal
Narendra Kumar and Co.,
A Proprietary Concern
carrying on business at
Shop No.314, A.M.Lane,
Chickpet Cross,
Bengaluru-560053.
(By Sri Paras Jain, Advocate)
V/S
Defendant M/s. Rajesh Exports Limited,
A Public Limited Company
incorporated under the provisions
of the Companies Act having its
registered office at:
No.4, Batavia Chambers,
Kumara Krupa Road-East,
Bengaluru-560001.
- represented by its Director
Sri Rajesh.J.Mehta
(By Sri P.Raju, Advocate)
2 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
Parties in O.S.916/2012
Plaintiff Smt. Bhawari Bai,
W/o.late Sri Dungarmalji,
Aged about 76 years,
Proprietor, M/s.Arvind Syndicate,
A Proprietary Concern carrying
on business at:
Shop No.797, Mohan Building,
A.M.Lane, Chickpet Cross,
Bengaluru-560053.
(By Sri Paras Jain, Advocate)
V/S
Defendant M/s. Rajesh Exports Limited,
A Public Limited Company
incorporated under the provisions
of the Companies Act having its
registered office at:
No.4, Batavia Chambers,
Kumara Krupa Road-East,
Bengaluru-560001.
- represented by its Director
Sri Rajesh.J.Mehta
(By Sri P.Raju, Advocate)
Parties in O.S.917/2012
Plaintiff Smt. Bhawari Bai,
W/o.late Sri Dungarmalji,
Aged about 76 years,
Proprietor, M/s.Arvind Syndicate,
A Proprietary Concern carrying
on business at: Shop No.797,
3 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
Mohan Building, A.M.Lane,
Chickpet Cross,
Bengaluru-560053.
(By Sri Paras Jain, Advocate)
V/S
Defendant M/s. Rajesh Exports Limited,
A Public Limited Company
incorporated under the provisions
of the Companies Act having its
registered office at:
No.4, Batavia Chambers,
Kumara Krupa Road-East,
Bengaluru-560001.
- represented by its Director
Sri Rajesh.J.Mehta
(By Sri P.Raju, Advocate)
Parties in O.S.918/2012
Plaintiff Sri Bhawarlal,
S/o.late Sri Mohanlalji,
Aged about 52 years,
Proprietor, M/s.M.B.Silk Centre,
A Proprietary Concern carrying
on business at: Shop No.313,
A.M.Lane, Chickpet Cross,
Bengaluru-560053.
(By Sri Paras Jain, Advocate)
V/S
Defendant M/s. Rajesh Exports Limited,
A Public Limited Company
incorporated under the provisions
4 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
of the Companies Act having its
registered office at:
No.4, Batavia Chambers,
Kumara Krupa Road-East,
Bengaluru-560001.
- represented by its Director
Sri Rajesh.J.Mehta
(By Sri P.Raju, Advocate)
In O.S.915, 916, 917 and 918 of 2012
Date of Institution : 31.01.2012
Nature of Suit : Suit for specific performance
Date of Commencement of : 05.02.2015
evidence
Date of pronouncement of : 27.09.2018
Judgment
Total Duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
06 07 27
(Ron Vasudev)
III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
5 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT
All these suits are filed for specific performance and
allied reliefs.
2. In all these cases shops bearing No.313, 314, 797
and 797 of Mohan Building, bearing Municipal Corporation
No.775 to 809, situating at O.T.C Road, Chickpet, Bengaluru
are the schedule premises.
3. The summary of the plaints, which have been
identically drafted, is as under;
that Vidyavathi Kapur Trust was the owner of the said Mohan
Building and the said building housed 43 tenants, who have
occupied different dimensions of shops in the ground floor
and first floor and it also consisted of Chickpet Police Station
and a restaurant named as "Bombay Anand Bhavan", runned
by the Mohan Building Tenants' Association. These plaintiffs
are the tenants of the shops aforementioned of the said
building and were paying rent regularly to the said Vidyavathi
Kapur Trust and are carrying on their business in their
respective shops for more than five decades. That the said
6 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
Vidyavathi Kapur Trust entered into an agreement of sale in
order to sell the said building to M/s.Rajath Trust, Avenue
Road, Bengaluru. The said Rajath Trust as per the Income
Tax Rules then prevailing applied for NOC to the I.T
Department, the said Department held enquiry and when it
felt that sale consideration shown in the agreement is less as
compared to the market value, it acquired the said building
under Section 269UD(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and it
became the absolute owner of the said building. Thereafter
the said I.T Department determined tenancy of all the 43
tenants by issuing termination notices to them on
12.03.1991. Thus from March 1991 these plaintiffs are in
possession of their respective shops as unauthorized
occupants or tenants at sufferance. However even after more
than 20 years of terminating their tenancy no further action
was taken by the I.T Department except selling that building
to the defendant under public auction and by executing the
sale deed on 09.02.2005. Questioning the said auction the
Mohan Building Tenants' Association filed Writ Petition at
W.P.12450/2004 and was dismissed on 02.09.2005 on its
merits. Against the said findings the said Association filed
7 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
Writ Appeal at W.A.3494/2005 and during the pendency of
the said Writ Appeal negotiations took place between the
tenants of the said building and the defendant and in order to
buy peace an amicable settlement was arrived after several
rounds of talks. It was decided that all those tenants have to
quit, vacate and hand over vacant possession of their
respective shops to the defendant to enable it to demolish the
said building and to construct a new commercial complex
there and the said tenants would be provided shops at a price
to be fixed by mutual negotiation. By passing resolution on
16.03.2006 the defendant authorized its Chairman-Rajesh
Mehta to enter into MOU with the Association, to enter into
sale agreements and to execute sale deeds in favour of the
tenants. In terms of the settlement arrived a MOU was
entered into on 20.05.2006, the pith and substance of it is as
under;
(a) for rehabilitation of the tenants who are in occupation
since decades, it was agreed that the existing building
shall be demolished and after demolition new shopping
complex will be constructed by M/s.Rajesh Exports
Limited, the defendant herein;
8 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
(b) W.A No.3494/2005 pending before the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, shall be withdrawn
by the tenants;
(c) each tenant will be allotted a shop in the new building
to be constructed, on ownership basis;
(d) in respect of shops whose total area is less than 150
square feet, such tenant will be entitled for a shop of
same dimension without any reduction in the extent;
(e) in respect of the tenants, whose shops are more than
150 square feet and if such shops are in the ground
floor, they will be allotted 75% of the extent held by
them;
(f) in respect of the tenants, whose shops are more than
150 square feet and if such shops are in the first floor,
such tenants will be entitled to 85% of the area held by
them;
(g) the height of the shops allotted in the ground floor shall
be 16 feet from the ground level;
(h) the shops located in the ground floor shall have free
ingress and egress to the main road viz OTC Road,
Chickpet;
(i) M/s.Mohan Building Tenants' Association, which was
in occupation of 8675 square feet in the first floor and
9 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
running lodge under the name "Bombay Anand
Bhavan", will be allotted 2000 square feet of area at
free of cost in the first floor for its lodging business;
(j) in respect of shops located in the ground floor the
square feet price was fixed at Rs.13,111/-;
(k) in respect of the shops located in the first floor per
square feet price shall be fixed at Rs.5,555/-;
(l) an advance of Rs.25,101/- shall be paid by each tenant
to the defendant;
(m) on completion of the building and on receipt of balance
sale consideration sale deed shall have to be executed
in favour of each tenant;
(n) the tenants and M/s.Mohan Building Tenants'
Association shall withdraw the W.A No.3494/2005
pending on the file of Hon'ble High Court.
The said MOU was entered into by the defendant and
M/s.Mohan Building Tenants' Association. The tenants of the
said Association also consented for the execution of MOU and
by reporting the settlement of dispute to the Hon'ble High
Court W.A No.3494/2005 was withdrawn. Further in terms
of the said MOU all these plaintiffs paid advance sum of
10 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
Rs.25,101/- by way of cheques to the defendant and it has
encashed them. Thus the jural relationship of tenants and
landlord came to an end between the plaintiffs and the
defendant and in turn a new relationship of prospective
purchasers and vendor was created. The possession of the
shops by these plaintiffs became that of a prospective vendee.
Along with the said MOU a chart and sketch was also
prepared by the defendant showing the proposed construction
and location of the shops of these plaintiffs and other tenants.
The said documents were counter signed by the tenants of
Mohan Building. These plaintiffs were assured of providing
shops in the ground floor as per the terms of MOU depending
upon the extent of shops held by them. But instead of
developing the property as agreed by it, with a oblique motive,
the defendant filed ejectment suits against all these plaintiffs
at O.S No.17387, 17424, 17425 and 17469 of 2006 seeking
their eviction. In the said suits these plaintiffs entered
appearance, produced the MOU copy and contested them.
However the said suits were ended in decree on 13.07.2010
directing these plaintiffs to quit, vacate and hand over vacant
possession of their respective shops. Against the said
11 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
findings the plaintiffs herein filed RFAs 1478, 1480, 1484 and
1485 of 2010 on the file of Hon'ble High Court and
unfortunately there also they could not succeed. The SLPs
filed by them at SLP No.31656, 31657 of 2011 were also came
to be disposed off by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
12.12.2011 with the following observation;
"Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
Needless to say that the petitioners shall
be at liberty to enforce their rights, if any,
pursuant to the Memorandum of
Understanding dated 20.05.2006."
Once the said SLPs were dismissed taking undue advantage
of the situation the defendant proceeded to take steps to
execute the decree passed in ejectment suits totally ignoring
the observation made in the said SLPs. That these plaintiffs
submit that the decree, which the defendant obtained in
those ejectment suits, cannot be executed as plaintiffs are not
in possession of the said shops as tenants, but as prospective
vendees, from whom the defendant has received part sale
consideration. That plaintiffs are prepared to deliver
possession of their respective shops for the purpose of
demolition of the existing building and for construction of new
12 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
shopping complex in terms of the MOU within a stipulated
period subject to undertaking to be given by it that it would
demolish the building and construct new one and
accommodate the plaintiffs and other tenants within a time
frame. Unless such an undertaking is given by the defendant
these plaintiffs cannot be compelled to vacate their respective
shops. It is true that unless the vacant possession of the
shops is handed over to the defendant it will not be in a
position to demolish the existing structure and construct new
one, but because of the peculiar conduct of the defendant,
who retracted from its terms, the plaintiffs are not sure about
the conduct of the defendant. The actions and deeds of the
defendant would reveal that it is not honest and fair in its
approach. Only with an intention to evict these plaintiffs and
other tenants of the building they were induced to enter into
agreement having no intention to perform its duties. That the
plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of the
MOU by paying the balance sale consideration once the
defendant constructs a new building and hands over the
shops to the plaintiffs by executing a registered sale deed.
That the cause of action for the suits arose on 20.05.2006,
13 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
the day on which MOU was entered into, subsequently it
arose on 08.12.2006 when the defendant filed the said
ejectment suits and it further arose on 18.06.2008 when the
said suits were decreed and it continued to arise when RFAs
and SLPs were came to be dismissed. Wherefore the plaintiffs
pray for Judgment and Decree to direct the defendant to
construct new shopping complex on the property known and
called as "Mohan Building" bearing Municipal Corporation
No.775 to 809 at OTC Road, Chickpet, Bengaluru; interalia
directing the defendant to sell the shops in view of the terms
of MOU; to equip the said shops with electricity, water and
sanitation amenities and shall complete the shops within a
time limit to be fixed by this court; to take possession of the
shops in occupation of the plaintiffs and also shops of other
tenants of Mohan Building in order to develop the said
property; to demolish the existing old building for the purpose
of development and construct the new shopping complex; to
deliver shops earmarked for these plaintiffs as shown in the
MOU and sketch; to direct the defendant that extent of the
shops to be allotted to these plaintiffs shall not vary except in
terms of the MOU; to simultaneously execute absolute sale
14 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
deed in respect of those shops; to receive the balance sale
consideration in the office of Sub-Registrar while executing
the sale deed; to deliver photocopies of the documents of title
and other relevant records pertaining to the schedule
property, which are duly attested by the Chairman of the
defendant-company along with the power meter number
assigned to each shop; to restrain the defendant from taking
possession of the shops of these plaintiffs existing in the old
building until possession of all other tenants is taken; to
intimate the plaintiffs as to within which time the defendant
would take possession and then develop the property by
giving 30 days notice so as to enable these plaintiffs to
arrange for alternative shops; to direct the defendant to give
an undertaking that it would construct the new complex over
the said property and to intimate the commencement of
construction by demolishing the old one and when it is going
to complete the construction and for such other reliefs.
4. Like the plaintiffs the defendant, who is a
company, in all these cases has filed a stereo type written
15 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
statement and in nut shell the contents of the same are as
under;
the suits as brought herein are not maintainable and these
plaintiffs are not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for by
remaining in possession of their respective shops, much
against the eviction order passed by a competent court, which
has attained the finality with the dismissal of SLPs. That the
plaintiffs themselves have contravened not only the said
decree, even the terms of MOU. It is denied that these
plaintiffs were tenants at sufferance and after execution of
MOU their possession is that of prospective vendees. It is
true that this defendant had filed eviction suits and they
came to be decreed and against the said decrees when the
plaintiffs preferred RFAs they came to be dismissed on
14.06.2011 and against which when these plaintiffs filed
SLPs, they were also came to be dismissed on 12.12.2011.
The very fact that the SLPs filed by these plaintiffs were came
to be dismissed, disentitles them to continue in possession of
their respective shops. It is also true that this defendant
purchased the said building under public auction and filed
by Mohan Building Tenants' Association and the tenants of
16 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
that building came to be dismissed and against that they
preferred W.A and in that Writ Appeal a MOU was entered
into. But as said earlier since these plaintiffs and other
tenants did not vacate their shops, the defendant had no
other option but to file the said ejectment suits. Therefore all
other contrary plaint averments are denied as false and
frivolous. That it is the plaintiffs and other tenants who have
not adhered to the terms of MOU, but unnecessarily they are
blaming this defendant. Since the plaintiffs and other
tenants refused to hand over vacant possession of their shops
it was quite impossible for the defendant to construct new
shopping complex there, therefore the claims of these
plaintiffs are imaginary and are not maintainable. In addition
to that these plaintiffs and other tenants have not handed
over possession of their shops as directed in the ejectment
suits, so they have no right to seek for construction of the
new complex and allotment of shops to them. There is no
cause of action for the suits and alleged one is false and
frivolous and more so it is barred by time. Hence on these
grounds and other grounds the defendant prays to dismiss
the suits with costs.
17 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
5. Based on the said pleadings my predecessor in
office has framed issues in each case as under;
In O.S.915/2012
1) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged
existed relationship of his tenancy right
on the suit property?
2) Whether the defendant proves the
termination of tenancy right with effect
from 31.10.2005?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is
entitled to get the commercial premises
of the same measurement in the
proposed new building of the defendant
after demolition, within the stipulated
period with undertaking and title
documents by the defendant?
4) Whether all the suit reliefs are barred by
law in view of the orders in WP & WA and
Appeal to Hon'ble Supreme Court,
preferred by the plaintiff?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit
reliefs?
6) To what order or decree?
18 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
In O.S.916/2012
1) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged
existed relationship of her tenancy right
on the suit property?
2) Whether the defendant proves the
termination of tenancy right with effect
from 31.10.2005?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is
entitled to get the commercial premises
of the same measurement in the
proposed new building of the defendant
after demolition, within the stipulated
period with undertaking and title
documents by the defendant?
4) Whether all the suit reliefs are barred by
law in view of the orders in WP & WA and
Appeal to Hon'ble Supreme Court,
preferred by the plaintiff?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit
reliefs?
6) To what order or decree?
In O.S.917/2012
1) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged
existed relationship of her tenancy right
on the suit property?
19 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
2) Whether the defendant proves the
termination of tenancy right with effect
from 31.10.2005?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is
entitled to get the commercial premises
of the same measurement in the
proposed new building of the defendant
after demolition, within the stipulated
period with undertaking and title
documents by the defendant?
4) Whether all the suit reliefs are barred by
law in view of the orders in WP & WA and
Appeal to Hon'ble Supreme Court,
preferred by the plaintiff?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit
reliefs?
6) To what order or decree?
In O.S.918/2012
1) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged
existed relationship of his tenancy right
on the suit property?
2) Whether the defendant proves the
termination of tenancy right with effect
from 31.10.2005?
20 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is
entitled to get the commercial premises
of the same measurement in the
proposed new building of the defendant
after demolition, within the stipulated
period with undertaking and title
documents by the defendant?
4) Whether all the suit reliefs are barred by
law in view of the orders in WP & WA and
Appeal to Hon'ble Supreme Court,
preferred by the plaintiff?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit
reliefs?
6) To what order or decree?
6. Though these cases were tried separately, since in
all these cases the defendant is one and the same and the
plaintiffs alone are different, added to that in all these cases
plaintiffs are seeking the very same reliefs against the said
common defendant, by producing the very same documents
and addressed common arguments, I have taken all these
matters for disposal by way of this common Judgment.
21 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
7. In support of their respective cases the plaintiffs
and their GPA Holders adduced their evidence and produced
the very same documents. The plaintiff and GPA Holder in
one case is examined as witness in other case. For example
Narendra Kumar, who is the plaintiff in O.S.915/2012,
examined himself as PW.1 and he adduced his evidence as
PW.3 in other three suits. Likewise Ashok Kumar, who is the
GPA Holder of plaintiffs in O.S No.916 and 917 of 2012,
wherein he examined himself as PW.1, in O.S.915/2012 he
was examined as PW.2. Similarly Bhawarlal, who is
examined as PW.1 in his suit at O.S No.918/2012, in O.S
No.915/2012 he adduced his evidence as PW.3. Lastly
Gowtham Chand Jain, who is examined as PW.4 in O.S
No.915/2012, was examined as PW.2 in other three cases. In
O.S.915/2012 nine documents are marked, in O.S.916/2012
eleven documents are exhibited, in O.S.917/2012 twelve
documents are marked and in O.S.918/2012 eleven
documents are marked by the plaintiffs of that respective
cases. On the other hand the defendant examined its legal
Officer as DW.1 in all these cases and nine documents are
marked in all the cases. I have heard the arguments of Sri
22 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
Paras Jain Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri.P.R Advocate for
the defendant. The defendant has also submitted his written
arguments with citations. Plaintiffs also furnished memo
with two citations. I have gone through the pleadings,
evidence and the decisions relied by both sides.
8. My findings on the above issues in the said suits
are as under:-
Issue No.1 and 2 Struck down
Issue No.3 In the negative
Issue No.4 and 5 In the negative
Issue No.6 As per final order below,
for the following:
REASONS
9. ISSUES No.1 AND 2 OF ALL THE SUITS: On
going through these two issues and the dispute involved in
these matters I am really surprised why these issues were
framed when there is no dispute with respect to the said
aspects and also the silence of plaintiffs as well as the
defendant in allowing such issues on record. Even at the
23 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
stage of arguments nothing as such was canvassed by either
party attacking the framing of these issues, nor explained
how these two issues have any relevancy in these matters.
For the sake of convenience I would extract the undisputed
facts from the pleadings and evidence of the parties.
10. It is not in dispute that originally Mohan Building,
situating in Municipal Corporation properties No.775 to 809,
consisting of ground floor and first floor with 43 tenaments in
it, excluding the Chickpet Police Station and Bombay Anand
Bhavan runned by the said tenants, was belonged to
Smt.Vidyavathi Kapur Trust. The said Vidyavathi Kapur
Trust entered into an agreement of sale on 28.11.1990 with
M/s.Rajath Trust, Avenue Road, Bengaluru to sell the said
building for Rs.1,55,00,000/-. Since in those days obtaining
of NOC from I.T.Department was mandatory the said
M/s.Rajath Trust moved the I.T.Department for it, but after
enquiry the said I.T.Department felt that sale consideration
shown in the agreement is comparatively low as per the
market value then prevailing, so exercising its power of pre-
emptive purchase under Section 269UD(1) of I.T.Act, it
24 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
purchased the said property on 24.01.1991. Thus the Union
of India viz the I.T.Department became its absolute owner and
it issued notice of termination of tenancy to all the tenants.
However it did not proceed further to evict the tenants, except
holding a public auction on 08.03.2004 to sell that building,
wherein the defendant was the highest bidder for
Rs.8,75,00,000/-. It is not in dispute that Mohan Building
Tenants' Association also participated in the said auction and
dissatisfied with the mode of conduct of auction it preferred
No.12450/2004 seeking to set aside the said auction. The
said W.P was dismissed on merit on 02.09.2005, but in the
meanwhile the I.T.Department executed sale deed in favour of
the defendant on 09.02.2005 and conferred absolute
ownership to it. Having lost their battle before the Single
Bench, the said Mohan Building Tenants' Association and the
tenants, who constituted it, filed Writ Appeal at
No.3494/2005 and fought for their alleged grievance. In that
Writ Appeal several rounds of negotiations were held between
the Association, its members/tenants and the defendant,
finally they resolved to settle the dispute and by filing joint
memo on 16.06.2006, they reported that a settlement has
25 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
been arrived between them outside the court in the form of
MOU and accordingly the Writ Appeal was withdrawn. The
alleged MOU dated 20.05.2006 is the bone of contention in
this case. The plaintiffs have produced the certified copy of
the Writ Appeal at Ex.P.9 and copy of the said MOU as Ex.P.3
in O.S No.915/2012. In other cases also the said documents
are produced and are marked. Since for the sake of
discussion referring to Ex.P.3 and P.9 is enough I am not so
particular in reproducing the serial number of the said
exhibits in other suits. So throughout this Judgment I would
refer the certified copy of the Writ Appeal in 3494/2005 as
Ex.P.9 and the contentious MOU as Ex.P.3.
11. It is also not in dispute that under the said MOU
the said Tenants' Association and defendant agreed to
demolish the existing Mohan Building and to construct a new
commercial complex there at the cost of the defendant and
after construction of the new building all the 43 tenaments as
well as Bombay Anand Bhavan would get certain portions as
per the understanding arrived. In respect of the payments,
the tenants were expected to pay a price per square feet
26 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
depend upon the floor in which they held their shops. Per
square feet price of the ground floor was fixed comparatively
higher than the first floor price. Whereas M/s.Bombay Anand
Bhavan was to get 2000 square feet at free of cost against
8000 plus square feet it held. However before the said MOU
was put into action alleging that these plaintiffs did not
vacate their respective shops viz shop No.313, 314, 797 and
797 the defendant filed ejectment suits at O.S No.17387,
17424, 17425 and 17469 of 2006 seeking their ejectment and
for damages. The said suits were hotly contested by these
plaintiffs taking various defences and ultimately all those
suits came to be decreed vide Judgment dated 13.07.2010.
Questioning the findings rendered in those suits the plaintiffs
herein filed RFAs 1478, 1480, 1484 and 1485 of 2010 on the
file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and on merit they
were dismissed vide Judgment dated 14.06.2011.
Dissatisfied with the said findings the plaintiffs filed SLPs
31656 and 31657 of 2011 on the file of Hon'ble Supreme
Court and there also they were unsuccessful. While
dismissing the said SLPs as the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that these plaintiffs are at liberty to enforce their
27 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
right, if any, pursuant to the Ex.P.3, they have come up with
these four suits seeking the various reliefs as mentioned
above.
12. It is their precise case that they have filed these
suits for specific performance to enforce the MOU dated
20.05.2006 and to repossess their shops after construction of
new building there. That being the case, overlooking the real
controversy involved in these cases, these issue No.1 and 2
were framed calling upon the plaintiffs and defendant to
prove the alleged existence of jural relationship of tenants and
landlord and the termination of tenancy by the defendant.
According to me it is not the case of plaintiffs that still they
are tenants of the shops held by them much less it is the
contention of the defendant that it has terminated their
tenancy and it is fighting these litigations. Since the dispute
of tenancy and its termination having been set at rest in the
said ejectment suits, RFAs and SLPs, no longer those issues
need to be tried again by this court. Wherefore without any
hesitation I hold that these two issues are totally
28 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
unwarranted, as such by exercising the power vested in this
court under Order XIV Rule 5 of C.P.C I strike down them.
13. ISSUE No.3 OF ALL THESE SUITS: While
making discussion on the Issues No.1 and 2 I have already
hinted what exactly is the grievance of the plaintiffs in filing
these suits. They are before this court in order to enforce the
Ex.P.3 on the pretext that they are ready and willing to hand
over possession of their respective shops and they allege that
there is no clear make up of mind by the defendant in taking
possession of their shops and to construct new commercial
complex there as undertook by it in the Writ Appeal at Ex.P.9.
During his arguments Sri Paras Jain Advocate vehemently
canvassed that the defendant being a party to the Ex.P.3,
having induced the plaintiffs to enter into the said MOU and
made them to withdraw the Writ Appeal, now it has turned
around and by disputing the very MOU as a worthless paper
and that it is tampered, materially altered etc, is resigning
from its commitment. It was his submission that as per the
MOU when each of these plaintiffs paid Rs.25,101/- through
account payee cheques and having encashed the said
29 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
cheques now nothing remains on the part of the plaintiffs to
discharge their part of the duty, instead it is for the defendant
to construct the commercial complex by fixing a date to take
possession from all the tenants and by completing the
construction of that building in a stipulated time, it has to
call upon the plaintiffs and other tenants to pay the balance
sale consideration, as per the rate agreed under MOU itself,
and to execute the sale deeds in their favour and put them in
possession of their shops as per the sketch annexed to the
said MOU. He canvassed that the defendant has no regard to
the commitment made in the court and it is trying to
hoodwink the plaintiffs and other tenants by disputing the
MOU. Then by referring to the decisions reported at
2012(12) SCC 133 (V.Chandrashekharan and another /vs/
Administrative Officer and others) and 2010(2) SCC 114
(Dalip Singh /vs/ State of Uttar Pradesh and others) he
canvassed that because of the action, deed and conduct of
the defendant these plaintiffs have suffered, so now it is not
open to the defendant to back out from its words and in law it
is estopped from disputing either the MOU or its undertaking
given before the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court. He
30 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
argued that now a days litigants like defendant are in rise and
they have no regard to the truth. Therefore citing the ratio
laid down in Dalip Singh's case, he argued that such litigant
cannot to be entertained by any court.
14. On the other hand Sri P.R Advocate canvassed
that first of all MOU referred to by the plaintiffs is not a
registered document and as it can be seen from the Ex.P.3/
MOU several terms and conditions contained in it have been
materially altered without being countersigned by the parties.
He further canvassed that when these plaintiffs themselves
broken the terms of MOU and breached its terms by
squatting over their respective shops, now they cannot make
hue and cry that they have been wronged. It was his
submission that there is no iota of evidence to prove the
payment of advance consideration of Rs.25,101/- as
contended by them and can it be believed that they made
those payments on 11.05.2006 as pleaded in para 8 of their
plaints when the MOU (Ex.P.3) itself was entered into on
20.05.2006. He also canvassed that first of all the said MOU
is not a contract so as to enforce the same and as per the
31 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
contents of the said Ex.P.3/MOU, when several other
supplementary agreements were to be entered by the
plaintiffs and the defendant and when such separate
agreements were not entered there is no question of this
defendant in backing out from it. He also argued that in a
suit for specific performance the plaintiff has to plead and
prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his
part of contract and he has done whatever due on his part.
He submitted that these plaintiffs have not obeyed the
ejectment order which has been affirmed upto the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, so they cannot contend that they having
done whatever due from their part and no part of their
performance is left out, particularly when they themselves
seek to protect their possession till the date is to be fixed by
this court to hand over their said possessions. He also
argued that no notice as such was issued by the plaintiffs
before approaching this court expressing their readiness and
willingness to perform their part of the contract and calling
upon this defendant to perform its duty. Thus he prayed to
dismiss all these suits holding that the plaintiffs themselves
have forfeited their right of repossession because of their own
32 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
faults. In support of his arguments he referred to the
decisions reported at AIR 2006 DELHI 292 (Cogent Silver
Fibre Pte.Ltd /vs/ Noble Fibre Technologies Inc. and
others), AIR 2009 MADRAS 159 (M.Raja Appar and others
/vs/ M.Gnanasambandam dead by L.Rs), 2016(1) KCCR
716 (Chandranath Padmaraj Padesoor /vs/ Smt.Basavva
and others) and 2011(3) SCC (Civil) 339 (Atmaram
Builders P.Ltd. /vs/ A.K.Tuli and others). In his written
arguments he also canvassed on the point of limitation, non
joinder of the necessary parties, want of cause of action and
such other things. Having deeply applied my mind to the
rival submissions of the parties I find that there is some
substance in the submission of Sri P.R Advocate for
defendant.
15. The first and foremost point which I would like to
lay emphasis is, the observation made in the Writ Appeal. It
may be noted that while disposing of the said Writ Appeal
3494/2005, which was filed by M/s.Mohan Building Tenants'
Association and its tenants questioning the dismissal of their
W.P No.12450/2004 wherein they had challenged the public
33 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
auction conducted by I.T.Department and confirming of the
sale of Mohan Building in favour of the defendant, based on
the joint memo filed by the said Association and the
defendant, stating that they have settled the matter outside
the court, through its order dated 16.06.2006 at para-2 the
Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court held as under:-
"2. A memo dated 18.05.2006 duly signed by the
appellants-tenants, respondent No.3-owner and
their respective advocates is filed stating that the
3rd respondent owner has agreed to construct a
building on the property in question and sell the
same in favour of the appellants-tenants.
Therefore, the parties have entered into
agreements and settled matter between them out
of the court. Hence, they seek permission of the
court to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a
fresh appeal in case of need.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.3 M/s.Rajesh Exports Ltd., has no
objection to permit the appellant to withdraw the
appeal. The 2nd respondent-61/ .... Galley & Co.,
Auctioneers unrepresented in the Writ Petition.
This matter is at the stage of admission.
Permission to withdraw the appeal is granted.
Memo is allowed. But, the liberty sought for is
rejected.
34 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
4. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(emphasis is supplied by me)"
According to me each and every word of the said paras 2 to 4
of Ex.P.9 is relevant for the discussion in these cases. It is
material to note that the so called MOU/Ex.P.3 was not
placed before the Hon'ble High Court making it part of the
record of that Writ Appeal. Naturally the Hon'ble High Court
had no occasion to go through the legality and nicety of the
terms involved in it. Having arrived the settlement outside
the court, the Tenants' Association as well as the defendant
herein merely reported that settlement and withdrew the said
Writ Appeal. It is further material to note that while
entertaining the said memo, Hon'ble High Court did not
permit the Association to reserve its liberty to approach the
court in case there arises a need. So one thing is crystal clear
that the Ex.P.3 do not form the part of Writ Appeal and the
auction conducted by I.T.Department and execution of sale
deed by it in favour of the defendant stood affirmed.
35 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
16. The moot point that needs to be considered is,
whether the Mohan Building Tenants' Association had
entered into the said MOU/Ex.P.3 with the defendant,
whether as a Registered Association or otherwise. It is not
forthcoming from the pleadings of these plaintiffs whether
their alleged Association is a registered body or not. If it is an
unregistered Association, the next question that would fall for
consideration would be, could it have entered into such MOU
with the defendant, which is a company incorporated under
the provisions of the Companies Act having its existence as
per the certificate of incorporation produced at Ex.D.1. It can
hardly be expected from such "juristic person" to enter into
an MOU with an Association, which has no existence in the
eye of law. Even it is not forthcoming from the plaints
whether the said Association is still in existence or it is
already dissolved. In the cross exam of the plaintiffs and
their witnesses it was also one of the ground of the defendant
that as there was no mutual co-operation amongst the 43
tenants the said Association has been dissolved and it has
lost its existence. According to me there appears to be some
substance in the said contention of the defendant. If at all
36 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
the said Association was very much in existence, as on the
date of filing of these suits, admittedly these plaintiffs not
being the signatories to the Ex.P.3, they could have
approached the court through that Association.
17. The one more fundamental question that shakes
the very foundation of these cases is, whether these plaintiffs,
not being the signatories to the Ex.P.3, could have enforced
the said MOU in their individual capacity. Here one cannot
lose sight that according to the plaintiffs themselves the
defendant was expected to demolish the existing Mohan
Building and construct a new commercial complex and to
accommodate them by providing their respective shops, the
dimension of which have been shown in the sketch annexed
to the MOU. In other words these plaintiffs cannot enforce
the MOU in their individual capacity leaving the other 39
tenants. Be that as it may, it is very interesting that,
according to these plaintiffs each of them paid Rs.25,101/- as
an advance to the defendant by way of cheques on
11.05.2006 as pleaded in para-8 of their respective plaints.
However Ex.P.3 was allegedly entered into on 20.05.2006 i.e
37 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
nine days after the said alleged payments. First of all to prove
the said payments, which have been denied by the defendant
in para-4 of its written statement, the plaintiffs have not
produced any iota of evidence. In the absence of such
documentary evidence can it be believed that they paid those
sums to the defendant as per the terms of the MOU? In order
to explain the contents of Ex.P.3 further and to record my
finding on the above question I would refer to the relevant
terms of it one by one, to explain how it is difficult to believe
the versions of these plaintiffs. It may be noted that as per
condition No.9 of the Ex.P.3 the agreed consideration payable
towards ground floor shops was Rs.13,111/- per square feet
and in respect of first floor it was fixed at Rs.5,555/- per
square feet. It means depending upon the floor in which the
tenants would get their shops and the extent of their shops
they were expected to pay once the new building comes up.
Then as per condition No.10 of Ex.P.3 "separate agreements"
will be entered into with "each of the tenants". According to
me this is the most crucial portion of the Ex.P.3 which raises
a huge question mark on the maintainability of these suits. It
is not the case of these plaintiffs that they entered into
38 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
separate agreement with the defendant, because as per
condition No.12 an advance of Rs.25,101/- was to be paid by
each tenant on "signing of the said agreements". In other
words unless the separate agreements were prepared, entered
into and signed by the plaintiffs as well as each tenants they
were not required to pay Rs.25,101/-. Therefore it is too
much for the plaintiffs to submit that they have paid the said
sums through account payee cheques, that too without
placing any corroborative documentary evidence for the same.
18. Apart from that as per condition No.17 of Ex.P.3
the withdrawal of the appeal and "agreement for the
rehabilitation" shall run "concurrent" to each other. It means
the plaintiffs ought to have entered into rehabilitation
agreement with the defendant to know which shop they would
get after completion of new complex and what would be the
dimension of their respective new shops. Even in this regard
it is not pleaded by them stating that infact they entered into
such rehabilitation agreement before the Writ Appeal was
withdrawn.
39 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
19. The one more shocking and surprising condition
of Ex.P.3 is the condition No.18. As per the said condition in
the event of any dispute or delay, the "second party" shall
have right to seek such legal remedy at the cost of first party.
As per the said Ex.P.3, the first party is the defendant and the
second party is M/s.Mohan Building Tenants' Association.
Therefore in the event of any dispute, delay or breach of terms
of the said MOU, it is the said Association, which was vested
with power to seek the remedy at the cost of the defendant. It
is obvious that as none of the plaintiff herein was party to the
Ex.P.3. Thus the very Ex.P.3, on which these plaintiffs rush
to the court, speaks in volume against them.
20. There is no whisper from these plaintiffs as to why
the other tenants did not join their hands in filing similar
suits to enforce the MOU at Ex.P.3. Even ignoring the said
requirement if one were to look at the said MOU in the
context of the very pleadings set out by these plaintiffs, who
seek to protect their possession by praying that they should
be intimated well in advance atleast 30 days time to make
alternate arrangements to hand over possession of their
40 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
respective shops to the defendant (prayer (l)) and when they
themselves plead that even as on the date of presentation of
their respective plaints they were in possession of their
respective shops and are seeking another prayer i.e not to
demand possession of their shops located in the existing old
building, which are in their occupation until possession from
all other tenants is received for the purpose of demolition of
the existing building (prayer (k)), can they contend that they
are always ready and willing to perform their part of the
contract and they have did whatever due from their part. So
it is proved in unmistakable words that they were not
prepared to hand over possession till other tenants hand over
possession of their shops to the defendant. Here I want to
remind that plaintiffs seek such prayers to protect their
possession that too having suffered a decree of ejectment and
were unsuccessful even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Their said conduct and action would sufficiently demonstrate
that they themselves did not deliver possession to the
defendant as agreed under Ex.P.3 through their alleged
Association in a time frame, so they cannot submit that the
defendant failed to discharge its duty in terms of the MOU.
41 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
21. I am not convinced with the argument of the
defendant that the said MOU is tampered, materially altered
and it is not countersigned by the parties concerned. If at all
the defendant felt that the said alteration or tampering of the
said document has been done by the plaintiffs, nothing
prevented it to produce the copy of it, which it was expected
to have. The defendant being a company, one cannot imagine
that it entered into such instrument without having its copy
or without retaining its copy. Therefore I again hold that the
in so far as objection of the defendant to the Ex.P.3 that it is
tampered, materially altered and they are not countersigned
by the parties etc cannot be accepted.
22. Even the further submission of the defendant that
suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the said
Tenants' Association is not made as a party to the suits,
cannot be entertained at the stage of arguments. It is well
settled that the defence of the non-joinder of necessary party
shall have to be taken at the earliest stage. Wherefore even
the said submission is not entertainable. Regarding another
contention taken by the defendant that suit is barred by
42 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
limitation as impugned MOU is dated 20.05.2006 and these
suits were filed in the year 2012, I would say that since the
plaintiffs were fighting to protect their possession in
ejectment suits, by setting up the very MOU, but in the wrong
forum, it cannot be said that suits are barred by limitation.
Moreover in view of the liberty given to them by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the SLPs, one cannot say that their prayers are
barred by time.
23. While deciding a case court has to go by the facts
made available and the law applicable. What I mean to say is
that a lis cannot be decided emotionally and that too bereft of
the facts and law. Therefore the ratio laid down in
Chandrashekaran's case and Dalip Singh's case, relied by
Sri.Paras Jain Advocate have no application to the facts and
circumstances of this case.
24. On the other hand as held in the Chandranath
Padmaraj Padesoor's case by referring to the provisions of
Section 36 of the Karnataka Rent Act, which is indisputably
has no application to the facts of this case, our Hon'ble High
43 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
Court held that if the tenant fails to adhere to Section 36(1),
he cannot seek benefit under Section 36(2) of the said Act. In
other words a party, who approaches the court accusing his
opponent, must show that he was right in all his deeds and
acts and had treaded the right path, yet he suffered. Then
only he can seek remedy for the wrong done to him. In the
cases in hand these plaintiffs having wantonly disobeyed the
order of eviction and having squatted over the schedule
shops, seeks to enforce the incomplete and inconclusive MOU
entered with the defendant by their alleged Association.
Therefore they cannot seek the relief of repossession without
discharging their duty. In so far as the ratio laid down in
Atmaram Builders' case is concerned, it is least to say that for
its failure to execute the decrees, the defendant cannot blame
others.
25. By referring to the oral evidence of Narendra
Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Bhawarlal, Gowtham Chand Jain, who
have been examined in these cases, and the evidence of DW.1
it was canvassed by both parties that evidence of their
adversary helps them. In this context I would like to say one
44 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
thing that when the facts of a case is dominated by
documents and documentary evidence, the oral evidence
takes to the back seat. These suits are examples of such
dispute. The discussion made by me supra shows that
plaintiffs fail on the basis of their own pleadings and
documents, such being the case it is bit redundant to refer to
the oral evidence led in by the parties. At any rate since it is
available on record I have gone through the same.
26. In his cross examination in O.S.915/2012,
Narendra Kumar, who is the plaintiff in that case, when he
was confronted with suggestion that they were expected to
vacate the schedule property in the year 2006 itself once the
MOU was entered into, by denying that suggestion he gave an
indication that they themselves had no intention to see that
new building should come up at an earliest. When it was
further suggested to him that even now he is carrying on
business in his shop, he replied that four years back only he
has vacated it. However he did not clarify when he vacated it,
i.e whether before filing of his suit or subsequent to it. If at
all he had vacated it before filing of the suit, himself and
45 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
other plaintiffs could not have prayed to protect their
possession till all other tenants are vacated nor they have
prayed to issue notices to them with 30 days time to vacate.
If he had vacated during the pendency of the suit, then he
ought to have come out with the mode of vacation as his suit
was very much pending. Looking to the various prayers he
has made as well as the other plaintiffs it is not possible to
imagine that before filing their respective suits these plaintiffs
handed over the vacant possession of their shops to the
defendant. In contrast to the Narendra Kumar's claim that he
vacated the shop four years back, Ashok Kumar, Bhawarlal
and Gowtham Chand Jain stated that still he is doing
business there. Likewise Ashok Kumar deposed that he is
doing business in the schedule shop and he so deposed as
GPA Holder of plaintiffs in O.S No.916 and 917 of 2012.
Particularly on page No.6 of his cross exam in O.S
No.915/2012 the said Ashok Kumar stated that out of the
total number of tenants there still 37 to 38 persons are
running their businesses in that building. According to me
the Gowtham Chand Jain has spoiled the case of all these
plaintiffs to a great extent by stating that he has seen
46 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
Narendra Kumar doing business in the Mohan Building by
deposing in O.S No.915/2012, whereas in other cases viz in
O.S 916, 917 and 918 of 2012 he categorically stated that he
does not know anything about the cases and the dispute
involved. Lastly another witness Bhawarlal deposed that he
is also doing business in the Mohan Building and he
reiterated it in O.S No.918/2012. Therefore the efforts of the
plaintiffs to prove their innocence have ended in futile with
their own evidence and evidences of their witnesses.
27. Whereas the DW.1, who stepped into the witness
box as a legal officer having no legal qualifications, fairly
conceded that as he joined the defendant-company in the
year 2009, he do not know what transpired in that company
before he joined there. In his cross exam the plaintiffs elicited
that till this day the defendant has not moved the BBMP to
obtain building plan and license to construct the new
shopping complex there. According to me non obtaining of
building plan by the defendant has no consequence to point
against the defendant that it was not prepared to construct a
new commercial complex and rehabilitate these plaintiffs. It
47 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
is well known that whenever a building license is obtained it
would be in force for a period of two years. When these
plaintiffs and other tenants did not show any inclination to
vacate their respective shops and hand over the vacant
possession of that entire building, the defendant cannot be
expected to take license and wait for an indefinite period and
to get it renewed at the end of every two years. Therefore
holding that nothing as such was brought out in the cross
examination of DW.1 which would help the plaintiffs, I again
say that oral evidence in the cases in hand has no such
significant role.
28. Thus summing up my discussion I conclude that
plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that they are entitled
to get shops in lieu of the present shops in the new
commercial complex, to be constructed by the defendant at
its cost. Accordingly I answer issue No.3 of all these cases in
the negative.
29. ISSUES No.4 AND 5 OF ALL THESE SUITS:
Since these two issues deal with the numerous reliefs the
plaintiffs have prayed in their respective plaints and they are
48 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
more or less similar, in order to avoid possible overlapping of
discussion and also in the light of findings on prime issue
No.3, I have taken both these issues simultaneously.
30. On the close reading of the prayer portion of
plaints unhesitatingly it can be stated that the reliefs prayed
in prayer paras (e) to (g) are reiteration of prayers made in
paras (a) and (b). I really doubt the wisdom of these plaintiffs
in seeking the prayer in para (d) when they have been already
ordered to hand over possession of their respective shops in
the ejectment suits filed against them, the findings of which
attained finality. In so far as prayers made in para (h) and (i)
are concerned they are totally redundant. So far as prayer
made in para (j) it is least to say that in the event if they
succeed in getting the decree and taking the sale deed after
construction of new building, the law expects that vendor is
bound to deliver all those documents of title to the vendee. In
respect of prayers made in para (k) and (l) are concerned I
have already discussed while recording my findings on issue
No.3. Lastly in respect of prayer made in para (m) I really
wonder whether such direction can be given to the defendant
49 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
when court can enforce its decree if a party fails to comply it.
The prayer made in para (n) is a general prayer and it has no
such significance.
31. Before I part up with my findings on the issues in
hand I would like to refer to Section 14(d) of S.R.Act. As per
the said Section a court cannot enforce a contract where the
performance of which involves the performance of a
continuous duty which the court cannot supervise. Likewise
as per Section 29 of the Contract Act, when an agreement is
uncertain or not certain or capable of being made certain, is
void. The various terms of Ex.P.3 to which I have explained
while discussing on issue No.3 would indicate that many
things are uncertain and they were dependant on execution of
further agreements with the respective tenants after receipt of
the advance consideration from them. Admittedly no such
further agreements have been entered into nor the
rehabilitation agreement. Therefore it is too remote to
imagine the granting of reliefs based on the facts that are
made available by the plaintiffs. This very ratio was laid
down in the decisions of Cogent Silver Fibre Private Limited
50 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
and M.Raja Appar's case. In the said cases referring to
Section 14 of the S.R.Act and Section 29 of the Contract Act
and also the MOUs involved in those cases the Hon'ble High
Courts of Delhi and Madras held that such MOUs cannot be
enforced. So I am once again convinced that, viewed from
any angle these plaintiffs have no case, consequently I have
no other option, but to answer both these issues in the
negative.
32. ISSUE No.6 OF ALL THESE SUITS: In view of
the findings on the above issues and the conclusion arrived I
proceed to make the following:
ORDER
All these suits are dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Office to keep this Judgment in O.S.915/2012 and copy of the same shall be made available in O.S.916/2012, 917/2012 and 918/2012.
Draw decrees accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcription computerized, then corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 27th day of September 2018).
(Ron Vasudev) III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
51 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012 ANNEXURE In O.S.915/2012 List of witnesses examined on plaintiff's side:
PW.1 Narendra Kumar PW.2 Ashok Kumar PW.3 Bhawarlal PW.4 Gowtham Chand Jain
List of documents exhibited on plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Copy of Board Resolution dt.16.03.2006 Ex.P.2 Area statement along with sketch Ex.P.3 MOU dt.20.05.2006 Ex.P.4 Certified copy of written statement in O.S.17425/2006 Ex.P.5 Certified copy of Judgment in RFA No. 1478/2010 Ex.P.6 Certified copy of order in SLP No. 31656-31657 of 2011 Ex.P.7 Certified copy of plaint in O.S.5468/2006 Ex.P.8 Certified copy of deposition of M.K.Narang in O.S.17449/2006 dt.31.05.2010 Ex.P.9 Certified copy of order in W.P.3494/2005 List of witnesses examined on defendant's side:
DW.1 Mallikarjuna List of documents exhibited on defendant's side:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of certificate of incorporation Ex.D.2 Certified copy of sale deed dt. 09.02.2005
52 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012 Ex.D.3 Certified copy of BBMP Khata Certificate Ex.D.4 Certified copy of Tax paid receipt Ex.D.5 Certified copy of office copy of legal notice Ex.D.6 Certified copy of postal acknowledgement Ex.D.7 Certified copy of Judgment in RFA No. 1478/2010 c/w 1480, 1484 and 1485/2010 Ex.D.8 Certified copy of order in SLP No. 31656- 31657 of 2011 c/w 20806-20807 of 2011 Ex.D.9 Board Resolution extract In O.S.916/2012 List of witnesses examined on plaintiff's side:
PW.1 Ashok Kumar PW.2 Gowtham Chand Jain PW.3 Narendra Kumar
List of documents exhibited on plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of Board Resolution dt.16.03.2006 Ex.P.2 Certified copy of Area statement of ground floor along with plan of ground floor Ex.P.3 Certified copy of MOU Ex.P.4 Certified copy of written statement in O.S.17425/2006 Ex.P.5 Certified copy of common Judgment in RFA No. 1478 c/w 1480, 1484 and 1485 of 2010
53 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012 Ex.P.6 Certified copy of order in SLP No. 31656-31657 of 2011 Ex.P.7 Certified copy of plaint in O.S.5468/2006 Ex.P.8 Certified copy of evidence of PW.1 in O.S.5468/2006 Ex.P.9 GPA executed by plaintiff in favour of PW.1 Ex.P.10 Certified copy of deposition in O.S.915/2012 Ex.P.11 Certified copy of Judgment in W.P No. 3494/2005 List of witnesses examined on defendant's side:
DW.1 Mallikarjuna List of documents exhibited on defendant's side:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of certificate of incorporation Ex.D.2 Certified copy of sale deed dt. 09.02.2005 Ex.D.3 Certified copy of BBMP Khata Certificate Ex.D.4 Certified copy of Tax paid receipt Ex.D.5 Certified copy of office copy of legal notice Ex.D.6 Certified copy of postal acknowledgement Ex.D.7 Certified copy of Judgment in RFA No. 1478/2010 c/w 1480, 1484 and 1485/2010 Ex.D.8 Certified copy of order in SLP No. 31656- 31657 of 2011 c/w 20806-20807 of 2011 Ex.D.9 Certified copy of Board Resolution extract
54 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012 In O.S.917/2012 List of witnesses examined on plaintiff's side:
PW.1 Ashok Kumar PW.2 Gowtham Chand Jain PW.3 Narendra Kumar
List of documents exhibited on plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of GPA executed by plaintiff in favour of PW.1 Ex.P.2 Certified copy of Board Resolution dt.16.03.2006 Ex.P.3 Certified copy of Area statement Ex.P.4 Certified copy of MOU Ex.P.5 Certified copy of written statement in O.S.17425/2006 Ex.P.6 Certified copy of common Judgment in RFA No.1478 c/w 1480, 1484 and 1485 of 2010 Ex.P.7 Certified copy of interim order in SLP No. 31656-31657 of 2011 Ex.P.8 Certified copy of plaint in O.S.5468/2006 Ex.P.9 Certified copy of evidence of G.Ramesh in O.S.5468/2006 Ex.P.10 Certified copy of evidence of M.K.Narang in O.S.17449/2006 Ex.P.11 Certified copy of deposition in O.S.917/2012 Ex.P.12 Certified copy of Judgment in W.P No. 3494/2005 List of witnesses examined on defendant's side:
DW.1 Mallikarjuna
55 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012
List of documents exhibited on defendant's side:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of certificate of incorporation Ex.D.2 Certified copy of sale deed dt. 09.02.2005 Ex.D.3 Certified copy of BBMP Khata Certificate Ex.D.4 Certified copy of Tax paid receipt Ex.D.5 Certified copy of office copy of legal notice Ex.D.6 Certified copy of postal acknowledgement Ex.D.7 Certified copy of Judgment in RFA No. 1478/2010 c/w 1480, 1484 and 1485/2010 Ex.D.8 Certified copy of order in SLP No. 31656- 31657 of 2011 c/w 20806-20807 of 2011 Ex.D.9 Certified copy of Board Resolution extract In O.S.918/2012 List of witnesses examined on plaintiff's side:
PW.1 Bhawarlal PW.2 Gowtham Chand Jain PW.3 Narendra Kumar
List of documents exhibited on plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of Board Resolution
dt.16.03.2006
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of Area statement along
with plan of ground floor
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of MOU
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of written statement in
O.S.17425/2006
Ex.P.5 Certified copy of common Judgment in RFA
No.1478 c/w 1480, 1484 and 1485 of 2010 Ex.P.6 Certified copy of order in SLP No. 31656-31657 of 2011 Ex.P.7 Certified copy of plaint in O.S.5468/2006 56 O.S.915,916,917,918 of 2012 Ex.P.8 Certified copy of evidence of PW.1 in O.S.5468/2006 Ex.P.9 Certified copy of evidence of M.K.Narang in O.S.17449/2006 Ex.P.10 Certified copy of deposition in O.S.918/2012 Ex.P.11 Certified copy of Judgment in W.P No. 3494/2005 List of witnesses examined on defendant's side:
DW.1 Mallikarjuna List of documents exhibited on defendant's side:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of certificate of incorporation Ex.D.2 Certified copy of sale deed dt. 09.02.2005 Ex.D.3 Certified copy of BBMP Khata Certificate Ex.D.4 Certified copy of Tax paid receipt Ex.D.5 Certified copy of office copy of legal notice Ex.D.6 Certified copy of postal acknowledgement Ex.D.7 Certified copy of Judgment in RFA No. 1478/2010 c/w 1480, 1484 and 1485/2010 Ex.D.8 Certified copy of order in SLP No. 31656- 31657 of 2011 c/w 20806-20807 of 2011 Ex.D.9 Certified copy of Board Resolution extract (Ron Vasudev) III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.