Bangalore District Court
Raju R K vs Golf Links Software Park Pvt Ltd Co on 1 August, 2025
KABC010130652005
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-26).
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2025.
Present
Sri Vijaya Kumar Rai, B.Com., LL.B.,
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.2916/2005
Plaintiff: Sri Raju R K (Dead By His Lrs)
1(a). Mrs.J. Maria Alphonsa
w/o Late Amal Raj @ R.K. Raju
Aged about 71 years
r/at No.10, R.V. Layout
Kumara Park West
Bengaluru-560 020.
1(b) Sri Nagaraja
s/o Muniyappa
aged about 58 years
r/at #12/17, 1st Main
Ganganagara
Bengaluru-560 032.
[By Sri Prasad, B.M., Adv. For plaintiff
No.1(a) and Sri Krishna, Adv. For plaintiff
No.1(b)]
Vs.
Defendants: 1) Golf Links Software Park
Private Limited Company
A Company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its
Registered Office at No.16
St.Mark's Road, Bangalore
Represented by its Director
Sri Jitendra Virwani.
2 O.S.No.2916/2005
2) Sri Mahableshwara G.C.
Advocate, No.66, 4th Cross
Xavier Layout, Bengaluru-47.
3) Mac Charles (India) Limited
A Company Registered under
The Companies Act, 1956
Having its Registered Office at
No.28, Sankey Road
Bengaluru-560052
Represented by its Director.
4) Mr.V.S. Aravindan
s/o Mr.V.R. Sugunachari
aged about 49 years
r/at No.4/2, Cunningham
Crescent Road, Bengaluru-02.
5) M/s Wipro Limited
A Company Registered under
The Companies Act, 1956
Having its Registered Office at
No.438, Doddakannelli
Sarjapura Main Road
Bengaluru-560 035
Represented by its
Managing Director.
(By Sri R.V.S. Nayak, Senior Counsel for
D.1; Sri Brijesh Chander Guru, Adv. For D.3
& 4; Sri H.S. Dwarakanath, Adv. for D.5;
D.2 in person)
Date of institution of the suit 12.04.2005
Nature of the suit For declaration and
permanent injunction
Date of the commencement 13.04.2011
of recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 01.08.2025
Pronounced
3 O.S.No.2916/2005
Total duration Years Months Days
20 03 19
(Vijaya Kumar Rai)
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The relief sought in this suit is to declare that the sale deed dated 31.05.2004 and power of attorney dated 31.05.2004 executed by the plaintiff R.K. Raju in favour of defendant No.1 are null and void as the same was the outcome of the misrepresentation, fraud played by the defendants and consequential relief for possession of the suit schedule property. Further, an alternative relief is sought to direct the defendants to pay the balance sale consideration amount of ₹15 Crores along with current and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
2. Initially the suit was filed by deceased plaintiff R.K. Raju and after his death, the plaintiff No.1(a) claiming to be his wife and plaintiff No.1(b) claiming to be the legal representative on the basis of the WILL said to be executed by R.K.Raju have come on record.
3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as hereunder:-
(a) The deceased plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property measuring 10 acre and 12 guntas. The defendant No.5 M/s Wipro Limited has offered to purchase the 4 O.S.No.2916/2005 same and therefore a sale agreement was executed between the deceased plaintiff and Wipro Limited on 03.04.2002 for the sale of the suit schedule property. But, the defendant No.5 did not fulfill the terms of the agreement and therefore, the arbitration proceedings were initiated by defendant No.5, but later defendant No.5 withdrew the arbitration case. The defendant No.2 was an advocate to the plaintiff. But, he never used to give information or clear picture of the proceedings. He has also failed to get back the original documents given to defendant No.5 in respect of the suit schedule property on 29.06.2000. In the meantime one Sri H. Rao filed a suit against the plaintiff in O.S.No.3552/2004 by creating a sale agreement. The defendant No.2 colluded with said H. Rao and did not even filed objection statement on behalf of the plaintiff. Later, the said suit was withdrawn by Sri H.Rao in collusion with defendant No.2.
(b) The plaintiff was under enormous pressure due to number of litigations with the defendant No.5 and aforesaid H.Rao. The defendant No.2 under the pretext of saving the property from the clutch of these real estate agents and land grabbing sharks and to avoid constant threat from the antisocial elements coerced the plaintiff to execute an agreement of sale with the first defendant. Therefore, the agreement of sale dated
04.09.2003 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant 5 O.S.No.2916/2005 No.1 under threat of coercion. The copy of the original sale agreement was retained with defendant No.2 and therefore the plaintiff had no occasion to know the contents of the agreement. Later the plaintiff had to issue a legal notice to the defendant No.2 on 18.11.2004 to deliver the sale agreement and in reply to it, the defendant No.2 has called upon the plaintiff to contact him on 22.12.2004 at 5:30 PM. But, when the plaintiff went to meet the defendant No.2 along with his advocate Sri Nanjegowda, the defendant No.2 has refused to handover the copy of the agreement by assigning strange reasons. Similarly, as the defendant No.2 has joined hands with the defendant No.1 by making false representation and also giving threats, a sale deed was also made to be executed in favour of defendant No.1 for a sum of ₹26 Crores though the value of the property was worth Rs.50 Crores as on the date of the execution of the sale deed. Therefore, the sale deed dated 31.05.2004 was due to the outcome of fraud, misrepresentation and coercion without free will and volition of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has compelled to accept the amount of consideration shown in the sale deed and the protest of the plaintiff went in vain as he was surrounded by antisocial elements. There was force, influence, coercion, misrepresentation, threat of dire consequences and hence the sale deed was executed.
6 O.S.No.2916/2005
(c) During the pendency of the case, the plaintiff has amended the plaint by inserting para No.14-A & 14-B wherein he has pleaded that the copy of the sale agreement dated 04.09.- 2003 could not be filed at the time of filing of the suit as it was misplaced and in spite of best efforts, he could not trace it. It is pleaded that as per the sale agreement, though the consideration amount agreed was Rs.41 Crores the sale deed came to be executed for a sum of Rs.26 Crores. The plaintiff has kept in dark about the contents of the sale agreement and he was under
constant threat and coercion for a period of 1 ½ years right from September 2003 and he was under mental shock. Hence, the present suit is filed before this Court on 12.04.2005.
4. All the defendants entered their appearance and they have filed their separate written statements. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, it has admitted the execution of the sale agreement and sale deed in its favour. But, it has denied the misrepresentation, undue influence, coercion, threat, force alleged by the plaintiff in the execution of the sale agreement and sale deed. It has taken up a contention that the defendant No.5 was desires of acquiring land to re-allocate its corporate office situated at Mumbai to Bangalore and therefore the plaintiff offered to procure the land. In that connection, the defendant No.5 has paid to the plaintiff a total sum of 7 O.S.No.2916/2005 ₹8,15,74,135/- from time to time. Later, as per the understanding of the plaintiff with Wipro, the plaintiff obtained conversion of the above lands initially from agricultural land to residential purpose and subsequently from residential to commercial purpose by the various proceedings of the Government. The plaintiff has acquired the lands for Wipro that too from the money funded by Wipro and later without their knowledge entered into a development agreement with one M/s East Coast Rockline during 1999 and a dispute was raised by filing O.S.No.16250/1999 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, which was later withdrawn on 07.01.2001. Subsequently, M/s East Coast Rockolines filed O.S.No.15046/2002 against the plaintiff for specific performance.
After some developments, the plaintiff entered into an agreement dated 03.04.2002 with Wipro by assigning 70% of the aforesaid land in favour of Wipro. Pursuant thereof defendant No.5 has settled the dispute between East Coast rock lines by paying Rs.85 lakhs and Rs.40 lakhs which amount the plaintiff had promised to repay to Wipro. Wipro has also paid ₹75 lakhs to the plaintiff towards cost of the approach road to be provided to the above lands and it was also promised to be reimbursed by the plaintiff. Further Wipro has paid ₹3,00,000/- per month towards the maintenance to keep the above property pursuant to the agreement dated 03.04.2002. As there was a dispute, the 8 O.S.No.2916/2005 Arbitrator was appointed. During the pendency of the above arbitral proceedings and criminal cases, the plaintiff approached the defendant No.1 offering to sell the plaint schedule property measuring 10 acres and 12 guntas and after the execution of the sale agreement a sale deed 31.05.2004 also registered in favour of the defendant No.1 for a total consideration amount of ₹26 Crores subject to the defendant No.1 settling the disputes between the plaintiff and defendant No.5. The possession of the suit schedule property was also delivered to defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 has put a huge constructions in the property. On the same day on 31.05.2004, the plaintiff has also executed a registered power of attorney in favour of the defendant No.1 empowering the defendant No.1 to settle the dispute with Wipro. The defendant No.1 has paid a total sum of ₹22 Crores to Wipro for the settlement of the disputes pending between them by entering into a memorandum of understanding dated 24.06.2004. In this view, defendant No.1 has paid a total sum of ₹48 Crores for acquiring the suit schedule property. Consequently, the Wipro has withdrawn the arbitral proceedings. On the very same date of the execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1, the plaintiff has executed another sale deed dated 31.05.2004 in favour of one Mr.V.S. Aravindan i.e., defendant No.4 in respect of 9 O.S.No.2916/2005 12 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No.5/2 for a consideration amount of ₹20 lakhs.
5. This defendant has contended that the plaintiff has filed this suit with baseless and false allegations. It is its case that the defendant No.1, who has purchased the suit schedule property for ₹26 Crores has taken trouble of negotiating with Wipro Limited for settling the disputes and getting the arbitration proceedings closed by paying ₹22 Crores to Wipro Limited and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the written statement filed by the defendant No.2, he has totally denied the collusion alleged by the plaintiff. He has contended that he has effectively defended O.S.No.16250/1999 filed by East Coast Rocklines against the plaintiff and therefore, the applications and appeals filed by East Coast Rocklines Limited came to be dismissed and ultimately the suit was withdrawn on 07.01.2001. It is further contended that when another suit in O.S.No.15046/2002 was filed, it was also effectively contested and therefore it was also ended. He has also pleaded that all the cases filed against the plaintiff were properly defended and therefore the allegations made against him is totally false. In so far as the suit filed by one H. Rao is concerned, he has pleaded the sequence of the dates of the proceedings and the withdrawal of the suit by H.Rao. He has referred the 10 O.S.No.2916/2005 deceased plaintiff as a fickle minded person in the habit of changing his decisions every now and then and he was known for his falsehood. He has also denied the statement of the plaintiff that he had to change the Advocate and pleaded about availment of his services even subsequent thereof and until the notice was sent to one Mr.Papanna and his family members on 07.12.2004. He has further pleaded that the plaintiff is a highly qualified person capable of understanding the things and taking his own decisions and therefore the execution of the agreement and sale deeds were voluntary. In so far as return of documents are concerned, it is stated that as the plaintiff had executed a GPA authorising the defendant No.1 to collect the documents from Wipro Limited, question of collecting the documents on behalf of the plaintiff did not arise as he was appointed as an escrow to keep the original custody of the document and he has performed his part of obligations. He has sought for dismissal of the suit contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff is totally false.
7. In the written statement filed by the defendant No.3, it has pleaded that it has purchased 13.33 guntas out of 2 acre and 18 guntas from the defendant No.1 through a registered sale deed dated 18.06.2004 and the same is already sold in favour of M/s Umbel Properties Private Limited through a registered sale 11 O.S.No.2916/2005 deed dated 06.01.2006 and therefore, no relief can be claimed against this defendant No.3.
8. In the written statement filed by the defendant No.4, he has pleaded that he has purchased 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.5/2 from the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 31.05.2004 and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is also stated that the property purchased by this defendant is not the subject matter of the dispute and therefore, no grounds are made out to sue the defendant No.4.
9. In the written statement filed by the defendant No.5, it has pointed out that no relief of any nature has been sought against the defendant No.5 and therefore, there is no cause of action to sue against the defendant No.5. The defendant No.5 has also pleaded about its desire of acquiring the land to relocate its corporate office from Mumbai to Bengaluru and to develop software development centres. It is contended that the plaintiff offered to secure the land and therefore the defendant No.5 has advanced a total sum of ₹2,62,75,001/- between 1995 to 1997 to the various registered owners of the lands on the request of the plaintiff and it was subsequently purchased in the name of the plaintiff. It is stated that in all the fifth defendant has from time to time paid a total sum of ₹8,15,74,135/- and the plaintiff and 12 O.S.No.2916/2005 defendant No.5 have jointly agreed to develop the property upon settlement of certain terms with M/s East Coast Rocklines with whom the plaintiff had contracted JDA. The defendant No.5 has also pleaded the execution of subsequent agreement assigning 70% of right in favour of the defendant No.5 and payments of various amounts to the plaintiff as pleaded by the defendant No.1 in its written statement. Further, the defendant No.5 has pleaded about the steps taken for the appointment of the arbitrator and arbitration case. This defendant has confirmed the agreement entered between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.1 by the plaintiff and the settlement arrived between the defendant No.1 and defendant No.5. All other allegations made in the plaint are denied by the defendant No.5 and it has sought for dismissal of the suit.
10. Initially, the suit was filed for the declaration of sale deed dated 31.05.2004 executed in the defendant No.1 as a void document. Subsequently, the plaintiff has amended the plaint to declare that the power of attorney dated 31.05.2004 as also void. Further, an alternative relief was also sought for the refund of balance consideration amount of Rs.15 Crores. After the death of the plaintiff, the plaintiff No.1(a) & (b) came on record, claiming that the plaintiff No.1(a) is the wife of plaintiff and plaintiff No.1(b) is the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff on the basis of 13 O.S.No.2916/2005 the WILL said to be executed by him. In view of the subsequent developments, the defendants No.1 & 5 have also filed additional written statements denying the case of the plaintiffs and their status as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. In the additional written statement, the defendants have denied the right of the plaintiff to claim the balance consideration amount and to seek the declaration with regard to the power of attorney dated 31.05.2004. The defendants have also denied the status of the plaintiff No.1(a) as the wife of deceased plaintiff and the right of plaintiff No.1(b) on the basis of the execution of WILL. On these contentions, they have sought for dismissal of the suit.
11. On the basis of the above pleadings, this Court has framed the following issues and additional issues:-
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that sale deed dated 31.05.2004 executed in favour of first defendant by plaintiff is null and void, as it was outcome of misrepresentation and fraud played upon the plaintiff by the defendants?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit property?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are liable to pay Rs.15 Crores with interest at 18% p.a.?
14 O.S.No.2916/2005
4) Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties?
5) Whether the defendant proves that suit is vexatious and they are entitled for exemplary costs?
6) What order or decree?
Addl. Issues
1) Whether plaintiff proves that power of attorney dated 31.05.2004 is null and void?
2) Whether the plaintiff No.1(a) proves that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased plaintiff R.K. Raju?
3) Whether the plaintiff No.1(b) proves that deceased plaintiff R.K. Raju had bequeathed the suit schedule property in his favour by executing a WILL dated 10.01.2011 in a sound disposing state of mind?
12. During the life time of the original plaintiff, he was examined as PW1 and after his death, plaintiff No.1(a) Mr.J. Maria Alphonsa is examined as PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P.76 documents are marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. On behalf of the defendants, their authorized represents are examined as DW1 & D.W.2 respectively and Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.55 documents are marked.
15 O.S.No.2916/2005
13. Heard the arguments of Sri Prasad, B.M., learned Counsel appearing for plaintiff No.1(a), Sri Krishna, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff No.1(b), Sri R.V.S. Nayak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant No.1 and Sri H.S.Dwarkanath, learned counsel appearing for defendant No.5.
14. Findings of this Court on the above issues and addl. Issues are as hereunder:-
Issue No.1 : In the negative Issue No.2 : In the negative Issue No.3 : In the negative Issue No.4 : In the negative Issue No.5 : In the negative Addl. Issue No.1 : In the negative Addl. Issue No.2 : In the affirmative Addl. Issue No.3 : In the negative Issue No.6 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
15. Addl. Issue No.2:- Initially the suit was filed by the plaintiff R.K. Raju. During the pendency of the suit, he died. Plaintiff No.1(a)-Mrs.J. Maria Alfonsa came on record as the wife of the deceased plaintiff R.K Raju. According to her, she is the legally wedded wife of late R.K Raju and her marriage was solemnized with him on 21.03.1987 as per the customs prevailing 16 O.S.No.2916/2005 in Christian community at Immaculate Conception Church, M.G. Railway colony, Bengaluru and before the marriage, though R.K Raju was belonging to Hindu religion as the marriage was a love marriage, he was converted into Christianity and his baptism was held at Parish Christ, the King Church, Bengaluru and he was renamed as Amal Raju. The status of plaintiff No.1(a) as the wife of deceased plaintiff is seriously disputed by plaintiff No.1(b) Nagaraja, who is claiming that he is a legal representative of late R.K. Raju on the basis of the WILL said to be executed by him and also by the defendants.
16. In support of the contention raised by the plaintiff No.1(a), she has produced the baptism register at Ex.P 73 and register of marriages held at Immaculate Conception Church at Ex.P75. Apart from that, she has also produced the photograph of the marriage at Ex.P59 to 72 and other documents. The plaintiff No.1(b) and defendants have seriously disputed the relationship of plaintiff No.1(a) with deceased R.K. Raju on the ground that none of the witnesses are examined in support to the marriage and none of the documents including Aadhaar card, passport, voters list and other documents are produced to show that they were husband and wife. It is further contended that there are corrections in Ex.P73 and 75 registers and therefore the 17 O.S.No.2916/2005 plaintiff No.1(a) is falsely claiming that she is the wife of deceased R.K. Raju.
17. As rightly contended by the counsel appearing for plaintiff No.1(b) and defendants, apart from the registers pertaining to the baptism, marriage and the photographs, there is no other evidence to show that deceased plaintiff and plaintiff No.1(a) were residing together as husband and wife. Ex.P73 is the original baptism register maintained at Archiocese of Bangalore Parish Christ The King Church. Ex.P75 is the register of marriages wherein there is an entry pertaining to the marriage of plaintiff No.1(a) along with R.K.Raju. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for plaintiff No.1(b) and defendant No.5, the name R.K.Raju recorded as per Ex.P73(a) at page No.165 in Sl.No.11 prime-facie appears to be written in a different handwriting. Similarly, in the register of marriages also, there are some corrections. But, the evidence clearly shows that both these registers were maintained by the Church at an undisputed point of time and the entry found therein are in continuous sequence at an undisputed point of time. The original registers were summoned by the Court and the authorities who are in custody of the registers produced it before the Court from the concerned churches. The baptism register is maintained in one Church and the certificate of marriages was maintained in another Church. 18 O.S.No.2916/2005 Even if there are some discrepancies, the registers were maintained in the regular course of the functions of the Church and considering the entries made therein in continuous serial number, there cannot be any doubt that it was maintained in the normal course of the events held in the Church. Therefore, the entries made in Ex.P.73 & 75 cannot be disbelieved. These entries strongly probablises that deceased R.K. Raju being a Hindu for the purpose of marriage underwent the process of Baptism and later entered into a marriage with plaintiff No.1(a) in another Church.
18. Apart from these baptism and marriage registers, plaintiff No.1(a) has also produced photographs of the marriage at Ex.P59 to 72. These photographs clearly reveal that the marriage of deceased plaintiff was performed with plaintiff No.1(a) Mrs.J.Maria Alphonsa. These photographs were admitted in evidence subject to the objection raised by the contesting parties on the ground that the certificate required under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act are not produced.
19. It is important to note that according to the applicant, the photographs are of the year 1987 and therefore, they are the photographs printed 37 years back. It is a common matter of understanding that it is not possible to produce either the primary evidence or certificate after 37 years in respect of the 19 O.S.No.2916/2005 photographs. Though production of certificate for the admission of secondary electronic evidence is compulsory, when an act is not possible it is not judicious to direct the parties to produce original or to give certificate. Though the law is clear with regard to the electronic evidence that secondary electronic evidence needs certificate under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v/s Kailsh Kushanrao Gorantyal in (2020)7 SCC 1 carved out an exception and held that where the law creates a duty and if the parties are disabled to perform it without any default with the party and has no remedy over it the law will excuse him from producing it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by relying upon the Latin maxims and its earlier decision has made it clear that if it appears that the performance of the formalities prescribed by a statute has been rendered impossible by circumstances over which the persons interested had no control, the law gives a valid excuse. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has observed hereunder:-
"Two Latin maxims become important at this stage. The first is lex non cogit ad impossibilia i.e., the law is a disability that makes it impossible to obey the law, the alleged disobedience of the law is excused. This was well put by this Court in 20 O.S.No.2916/2005 Presidential Poll, In re24 as follows:(SCC pp.49-50, paras 14-15)". ......
"The maxim of law impotentia excusat legem is intimately connected with another maxim of law lex non cogit ad impossibilia. Impotentia excusat legem is that when there is a necessary or invincible disability to perform the mandatory part of the law that impotentia excuses. The law does not compel one to do that which one cannot possibly perform. 'Where the law creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled to perform it, without any default in him, and has no remedy over it, there the performance in general excuse him'. Therefore, when it appears that the performance of the formalities prescribed by a statute has been rendered impossible by circumstances over which the persons interested had no control, like the act of God, the circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse. Where the act of God prevents the compliance with the words of a statute, the statutory provision is not denuded of its mandatory character because of supervening impossibility caused by the act of God. (See Broom's Legal Maxims, 10th Edn. at pp.162-63 and Craies on Statute Law, 6th Edn. at p.268)".
20. Therefore, the subject to the proof of the documents, even an electronic evidence can be admitted in evidence without the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, if the parties are unable to produce the certificate. It is necessary to point out that 21 O.S.No.2916/2005 the marriage was stated to have held in the year 1987, much earlier to the introduction of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and Information and Technology Act. After 37 years of the marriage, it is humanly impossible to remember from which instrument or camera those photographs were obtained. Further, it is practically impossible to the party to produce the primary evidence in respect of the photographs. Therefore, in the present case, the law permits the admission of these photographs even without certificate.
21. The above photographs produced by the plaintiff No.1(a) clearly shows that a marriage was performed between deceased plaintiff R.K. Raju and plaintiff No.1(a) Mrs.J. Maria Alphonso in a Church in the presence of their Priest and a few members.
22. As rightly contended by the contesting parties, the plaintiff No.1(a) has not examined any witness, though some of the witnesses are stated to be alive, who have witnessed the marriage. Further, in none of the records, the marital status is entered. But, in the cross-examination of plaintiff No.1(a), she has stated that deceased plaintiff wanted to keep the relationship in secret and therefore it was not disclosed anywhere. It is an admitted fact that plaintiff R.K.Raju belonged to Hindu and the plaintiff No.1(a) is a Christian woman belongs to Christianity. 22 O.S.No.2916/2005 Therefore, when the marriage was held without inviting all the members of the family and other well wishers, it is also probable that deceased plaintiff wanted to keep the relationship privately. Under these exceptional circumstances, non-examination of any other witness and absence of documentary evidence for the living as husband and wife is inconsequential. Register of baptism, register of marriage, photographs and the oral evidence of plaintiff No.1(a) clearly shows that there was marital relationship between deceased R.K.Raju and plaintiff No.1(a). The evidence given by plaintiff No.1(a) is probable and it is sufficient to show that she is the wife of deceased plaintiff. Therefore, Additional Issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
23. Additional Issue No.3:- The plaintiff No.1(b) Nagaraju has taken up a contention that R.K.Raju had bequeathed the suit schedule property in his favour by executing a WILL dated 10.01.2011 in a sound disposing state of mind and therefore his application filed under Order XXII CPC is allowed and he was permitted to come on record as plaintiff No.1(b). The enquiry conducted under Order XXII CPC was for the limited purpose of recording a finding as to whether he is entitled to come on record as legal representative. After, he is permitted to come on record, this issue is framed casting burden on him to prove that deceased R.K. Raju has executed a WILL in his favour as contended by 23 O.S.No.2916/2005 him. But, plaintiff No.1(b) has neither pleaded anything about the WILL dated 10.01.2011 nor produced the WILL dated 10.01.2011. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that R.K. Raju has executed a WILL dated 10.01.2011 in his favour. Consequently, additional issue No.3 is answered in the negative.
24. Issue No.1 and Additional Issue No.1:- The plaintiff has assailed the sale deed dated 31.05.2004 and the power of attorney executed on the same day in favour of defendant No.1 on the ground that these documents are the outcome of misrepresentation and fraud played by the defendants and therefore they are null and void. In the pleading, the plaintiff has also pleaded that earlier the sale agreement dated 04.09.2003 was also obtained by coercion and misrepresentation. It is contended by the plaintiff that he was kept under threat for 1½ years right from September 2003 and the execution of the sale deed and GPA was not voluntary.
25. Order VI Rule 4 CPC mandates that in all cases in which the party pleading relies on any nisrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid particulars with dates and items shall be stated in the pleading. Therefore, the pleading 24 O.S.No.2916/2005 required under Order VI Rule 4 CPC is a distinct category in law requiring pleading with the specificity, particularity and precision. Though the plaintiff has repeatedly used the word misrepresentation, fraud, coercion, threat and undue influence, the plaintiff has not given the particulars of the misrepresentation, undue influence, fraud or threat. The only averment found in the pleading is that the defendant No.2 being an advocate insisted him to execute the documents to protect his property from antisocial elements. Admittedly, defendant No.2 was his advocate. Though serious allegation is made against defendant No.2, according to defendant No.2, the deceased plaintiff engaged his services even till the month of December 2004 after the execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff has not pleaded that he was threatened by his advocate. The plaintiff has not even pleaded as to when such threat or coercion was made. Defendant No.1 is a Private Limited company. A Private Limited company without its representatives cannot make any such threat or coercion or undue influence. Either in the pleading or in the evidence, the plaintiff has not disclosed the name of the person who misrepresented the plaintiff or threatened the plaintiff on behalf of defendant No.1. The date of the threat, time of threat and the nature of the words said to be used by any of the defendants is not disclosed. The plaintiff has not even pleaded 25 O.S.No.2916/2005 the circumstances under which the action of the defendants compelled him to execute the sale agreement, sale deed and also the GPA.
26. It is well settled law that in order to prove the coercion, misrepresentation, undue influence and fraud, the certainty and degree of proof required is more. The object of the pleading is to enable the adversary to meet the allegations. Therefore, when the plaintiff has not given the particulars of the alleged fraud, misrepresentation or coercion, the defendants cannot explain or defend the allegation. Therefore the law expects specific pleading with all particulars in respect of fraud, misrepresentation coercion, threat, etc. This requirement is consistently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts right from the year 1951 in the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bishnudeo Narain and another v/s Seogeni Rai and another (1951 SCC 447) relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.1 wherein in para No.22 & 25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as hereunder:-
"22. We turn next to the questions of undue influence and coercion. Now it is to be observed that these have not been separately pleaded. It is true they may overlap in part in some cases but they are separate and separable categories in law and must 26 O.S.No.2916/2005 be separately pleaded. It is also to be observed that no proper particulars have been furnished. Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence. General allegations are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice however strong the language in which they are couched may be, and the same applies to undue influence and coercion. See Order 6, rule 4, Civil Procedure Code". ...............
25.We will deal with the case of coercion first. It will be seen that the plaintiffs' case regarding that is grounded on the single allegation that their father was threatened with death. When all the verbiage is cleared away, that remains as the only foundation. The rest, and in particular the facts set out in paragraphs 8 to 12 about the ferocious appearance of Firangi Rai and his allegedly high-handed and criminal activities and his character, are only there to lend colour to the genuineness of the belief said to have been engendered in Ghughuli Rai's mind that the threat of death administered to him was real and imminent. But as regards the threat itself, there is not a single particular. We do not know the nature of the threat. We do not know the date, time and place in which it was administered. We do not know the circumstances. We do not even know who did the 27 O.S.No.2916/2005 threatening. Now, when a court is asked to find that a person was threatened with death, it is necessary to know these particulars, otherwise it is impossible to reach a proper conclusion".
27. Though the plaintiff has stated that he was insisted by defendant No.2 to enter into the contract with defendant No.1, in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Afsar Shaikh and another v/s Soleman Bibi and others (AIR 1976 SC 163), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere showing that plaintiff relied on the defendant for advice is not sufficient. There is no pleading that the advice given by defendant No.2 was with a malafide intention by colluding with defendant No.1 or any other party and it was with an intention to misrepresent the plaintiff. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.1 has also relied up on the decision of our Hon'ble High Court rendered in the case of Ranganayakamma v/s K.S Prakash (R.F.A.No.605/1997 dated 21.09.2005) wherein our Hon'ble High Court has elaborately dealt with the requirement of pleading in case of undue influence, misrepresentation and fraud. In view of the above reasons, the plaint lacks pleading as required under Order VI Rule 4 CPC to attribute undue influence, misrepresentation, fraud or coercion against any of the defendants. On this ground alone, the contention of the plaintiff that the sale deed and GPA were 28 O.S.No.2916/2005 obtained due to misrepresentation, coercion and fraud is liable to be rejected.
28. Now coming to the evidence with regard to the alleged misrepresentation and fraud is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff No.1(a) has vehemently contended that normally a document is required to be registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar during office hours and the exception is only under Section 31 of Registration Act and without any reasons, Ex.P46 sale deed dated 31.05.2004 and Ex.P47 power of attorney dated 31.05.2004 were executed on the same day in a private residence. He has also contended that the sale deed was required to be presented by the vendor, but the recitals of Ex.P6 sale shows that it was presented by Jitendra Virwani on behalf of defendant No.1. It is contended that the manner in which the sale deed was obtained itself shows that it was obtained by undue influence, fraud and coercion. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for defendant No.1, this is not pleaded by the plaintiff. In the entire plaint, the plaintiff has not pleaded that the registration of the sale deed in the private residence was a part of the misrepresentation or fraud. Therefore, this contention of the plaintiff also cannot be accepted for want of pleadings as per Order VI Rule 4 CPC. Apart from that, Section 31 of Registration Act do not specify that reasons to be recorded 29 O.S.No.2916/2005 for registration of a document in the private residence. Therefore, when the law permits registration of a document even outside the office of Sub Registrar in the private residence, the document cannot be held to be invalid or the court can consider this as a part of the fraud or misrepresentation. On the other hand, the Ex.P47-GPA was executed on 31.05.2004 in the same time in the private residence and the endorsement of the Sub Registrar indicates that it was presented by the deceased plaintiff himself. In the entire plaint, the plaintiff has not pleaded undue influence. Coercion, misrepresentation or fraud in respect of the execution of Ex.P47-GPA. Therefore, the fact that Ex.P47-GPA was executed voluntarily remains uncontroverted.
29. It is also necessary to note that initially agreement was executed on 04.09.2003 as per Ex.P48. The recital of sale agreement shows that pursuant to the sale agreement, a sum of Rs.1 Crore was paid by way of cheque and the plaintiff has also admitted that he has encashed it as on 04.09.2003 itself. In the cross-examination of deceased plaintiff R.K. Raju, he has categorically stated that he was engaged in real estate business and he used to purchase the immovable property and sell since 25 years at Bengaluru and other places. Therefore, plaintiff was not a layman and he was a experienced person in the real estate business. In para No.10 of the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that 30 O.S.No.2916/2005 the defendant No.2 himself kept the original agreement with him and the defendant No.2 did not deliver the signed copy of the agreements to know the contents of the said agreement and inspite of a notice, he did not produce the agreement and therefore, he was unaware of the contents of the sale agreement. But, subsequently, when the plaintiff has amended the plaint by inserting para No.14-A, he has stated that he could not produce the copy of the sale agreement dated 04.09.2003 at the time of filing of the suit as the same was placed and despite of his best efforts, he could not trace it. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for defendant No.1, this pleading of the plaintiff is self contradictory and it clearly shows that he was fully aware about the contents of Ex.P48-sale agreement as the copy was with him. Pursuant thereof, he has received part consideration of Rs.1 Crore and encashed it and enjoyed the amount. Thereafter, the sale deed was executed on 31.05.2004 after nearly 8 months. It is an admitted fact that when the sale deed dated 31.05.2004 was executed the remaining balance consideration amount of Rs.25 Crores was paid through cheque and the deceased plaintiff has encashed the entire cheque amount of Rs.25 Crores. It is only after more than 10 months, the plaintiff has filed the present suit on 12.04.2005. The very fact that the deceased plaintiff who was a real estate businessman. 31 O.S.No.2916/2005 received the part consideration amount at the time of execution of the sale agreement dated 04.09.2003 and again at the time of execution of the sale deed dated 31.05.20034 clearly shows that the sale agreement and sale deeds were executed voluntarily.
30. Now coming to the evidence of plaintiff is concerned, in the cross-examination, he has categorically admitted the execution of the sale deed. The admission of the plaintiff also clearly indicates that it was executed voluntarily. In this regard, the specific admission given by the plaintiff in the cross- examination dated 09.09.2014 is extracted for ready reference:-
"It is true that I have sold the entire property to the first defendant during the pendency of arbitration case. Witness volunteers that the defendant No.1 told that they would compromise the case with defendant No.5 and on their assurance, I have sold. ........................
It is true that I sold the property only on the assurance of defendant No.1 to settle the disputes with defendant No.5".
The above oral and documentary evidence including the conduct of the deceased plaintiff subsequent to the execution of sale deed dated 31.05.2004 clearly shows that the sale deed and GPA dated 31.05.2004 were executed voluntarily.
31. Though the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff No.1(a) has vehemently contended that when the consideration 32 O.S.No.2916/2005 amount agreed in the sale agreement dated 04.09.2003 was ₹41 Crores, the execution of the sale deed for lesser consideration amount of ₹26 Crores also supports the stand of the plaintiff that it was a fraudulent document. But, the contention of the defendants is that the remaining consideration amount of Rs.15 Crores was reserved for settling the dispute with defendant No.5 and a total sum of ₹22 Crores was paid by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 and therefore, lesser amount of consideration found in the sale deed is not a ground to infer any misrepresentation or fraud. In so far as the consideration amount is concerned, the court will record a finding while answering issue No.3. But, in so far as issue No.1 and additional issue No.1 are concerned, it is suffice to say that when there is sufficient evidence on record to show that sale deed and GPA were executed voluntarily and the plaintiff had acted upon the terms of the sale deed by encashing the cheques issued through the sale deed, which was registered document, the inadequacy of consideration is not relevant to record a finding as to whether the sale deed and GPA was executed voluntarily or by coercion. Having regard to these aspects in the considered opinion of the court, the plaintiffs have totally failed to prove that sale deed and GPA dated 31.05.2004 were executed either by exercising undue influence, misrepresentation, coercion, fraud or any kind of threat. 33 O.S.No.2916/2005 Consequently, issue No.1 and additional issue No.1 are answered in the negative.
32. Issue No.3:- The plaintiffs have also sought the alternative relief to direct the defendants to pay the balance consideration amount of ₹15 Crores together with the current and future interested at the rate of 18% per annum. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the agreed sale consideration as per the sale agreement dated 04.09.2003 was Rs.41 Crores and the sale deed was executed only for ₹26 Crores and therefore, the defendants are liable to pay the balance consideration amount of ₹15 Crores. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff No.1(a) has also contended that apart from this, in Ex.P48-sale agreement as per Clause-6, the deceased plaintiff intended to purchase a commercial premises from the defendant No.1 approximately for a sum of ₹15 Crores out of the present sale consideration and such a premises is also not given and therefore the defendants are liable to pay balance consideration amount of Rs.15 Crores. While answering issue No.1 and additional issue No.1, this court has recorded a finding that the sale deed and GPA dated 31.05.2004 were executed by R.K.Raju was voluntary. When the sale deed was executed voluntary, the sale consideration amount mentioned in the sale deed binds the parties and therefore the plaintiffs are estopped from contending 34 O.S.No.2916/2005 that the sale consideration amount was Rs.41 Crores and not Rs.26 Crores.
33. It is true that in the course of evidence of DW1, who is examined on behalf defendant No.1, he has stated that the consideration amount was Rs.41 Crores. In the light of the above evidence, the Court is required to consider the entire nature of the transaction. In the written statement filed by defendants No.1 & 5, they have taken up a contention that though the suit schedule property was purchased in the name of deceased plaintiff, it was purchased for and on behalf of defendant No.5 in order to enable the defendant No.5 to relocate its corporate office from Mumbai to Bengaluru. It is their further contention that huge amount was paid by defendant No.5 for the purchase of the property and as there was a dispute, the matter was referred to arbitration and when the arbitration proceedings were pending, the present transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 has taken place subject to the condition that the defendant No.1 shall negotiate with the defendant No.5 and settle the dispute and shall take steps for the termination of arbitral proceedings. In this regard, in the cross-examination of the plaintiff, R.K. Raju has categorically admitted that defendant No.5 has approached him with an intention to develop the land jointly and asked him to purchase the land on its behalf. He has also admitted that he has 35 O.S.No.2916/2005 entrusted with the task of converting it for non-agricultural purpose and therefore the defendant No.5 was making the payments as and when required to purchase the land. He has categorically admitted that the land was purchased in his name on behalf of defendant No.5 on the payment made by defendant No.5. Later witness has added that only part amount was paid by defendant No.5. But, he has admitted that defendant No.5 has paid a total sum of ₹2,62,75,001/- between the year 1995 to 1997 and in all, he has received Rs.8 Crores from defendant No.5. He has further admitted that as per the agreement between him and defendant No.5, he was entitled for 30% in the land and the defendant No.5 was entitled for 70%. In this regard, the specific admission given by R.K. Raju is extracted for ready reference:-
"It is true that defendant No.5 is a reputed software company in India. It is true that defendant No.5 approached me with an intention to develop the land jointly and asked me to purchase land on their behalf. It is true that I was required to convert the land into NA after purchase. It is true that defendant No.5 was making payments as and when required for purchase of land. It is true that the land is purchased in my name on behalf of defendant No.5 on the payment made by defendant No.5. Witness volunteers that only part of the amount is paid by defendant No.5. It is true that defendant No.5 has paid total sum of Rs.2,62,75,001/-36 O.S.No.2916/2005
between 1995 to 1997. It is true that clearance certificate was required to be obtained from Airport Authority of India and conversion order was to be obtained from Dy.Commissioner and thereafter permission from BDA was to be obtained for commercial use. For these purpose I received Rs.8 Crores from defendant No.5.
It is true that as per agreement, I am entitled for 30% and defendant No.5 is entitled for 70%. Witness volunteers that the agreement is not fulfilled. It is true that I have entered into an agreement with East Coast Rocklines. It is false to suggest that I entered into agreement with East Coast Rocklines after the agreement with defendant No.5. It is true that said East Coast Rocklines filed suit OS No.15046/2002 against me. It is false to suggest that defendant No.5 was party to the said suit. It is true that the said was ended in compromise. It is true that as per said compromise, defendant No.5 paid Rs.85,00,000/- to the East Coast Rocklines and got the matter settled.
I do not know whether the defendant No.5 has paid sum of Rs.40,00,000/- to me as hand loan. It is false to suggest that I assured defendant No.5 to repay the said amount after sale of my 30% share in the land. It is true that I assigned 70% of the land to defendant No.5 Wipro. It is true that I agreed to divide the land into 30% and 70% as per agreement on or before 31.7.2002".37 O.S.No.2916/2005
34. The above evidence and admission given by the deceased plaintiff clearly shows that though the property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff, it was funded by defendant No.5. The evidence also shows that substantial consideration amount was paid by defendant No.5 and therefore it was mutually agreed that the plaintiff was entitled only 30% and the defendant No.5 was entitled for 70% of the land. The plaintiff has not revealed all these facts in the plaint. Still evidence shows that with utter disregard to the huge amount paid by defendant No.5, the plaintiff has entered into an agreement with one East Coast Rock lines. The evidence also shows that later the defendant No.5 has only taken initiation to settle the dispute with East Coast Rocklines. Further, dispute arose between the plaintiff and defendant No.5 and therefore, arbitral proceedings were initiated. At this juncture, the present sale agreement and sale deeds were executed in favour of defendant No.1.
35. It is true that as per Ex.P48 sale agreement the agreed sale consideration was Rs.41 Crores. But, as per the terms of the sale agreement, R.K.Raju has agreed that he will make the schedule property free from encumbrance and therefore they have agreed to keep a sum of ₹15 Crores in the joint account in a bank out of the sale consideration to settle the dispute with Wipro, i.e., defendant No.5 subject to the decision of 38 O.S.No.2916/2005 the arbitrator. Further, it was agreed that in the event of arbitrator awarding over and above said sum of ₹15 Crores, R.K.Raju shall pay the excess amount required to comply the award. In this regard, the Clause-4 of sale agreement produced at Ex.P48 is extracted for ready reference:-
"The First Party agrees that with the co- operation of the Second Party, the First Party will make the schedule property free from encumbrance. Both the parties have agreed to keep a sum of Rs.Fifteen Crores in a joint account in a bank out of the sale consideration to settle the dispute with Wipro subject to the decision of the Arbitrator. In the even of Arbitrator awarding over and above the said sum of Rs.Fifteen Crore, the 1 st party shall pay the excess amount required to comply the award".
36. The above clause clearly indicates that even if the total consideration amount was agreed at Rs.41 Crores, the parties have agreed that only a sum of ₹26 Crores will be paid to the plaintiff and remaining Rs.15 Crores will be kept in a joint account in the bank to settle the dispute with Wipro subject to the outcome of arbitral proceedings. Subsequently, after the execution of the sale agreement, the defendant No.1 negotiated with the defendant No.5 and settled the dispute. Though the date of settlement is not forthcoming on record, it is evident from the 39 O.S.No.2916/2005 records that the defendant No.1 has settled the dispute and therefore defendant No.5 has withdrawn the arbitral proceedings initiated against the plaintiff. The title of the plaintiff was cleared only after the arbitral proceedings were withdrawn by the defendant No.5. Therefore, the plaintiff has executed a GPA as per Ex.P47 in favour of defendant No.1 specifically authorising the defendant No.1 to represent him and act on his behalf before the arbitrator in the dispute pending between him and defendant No.5 and also to negotiate and enter into any kind of settlement with defendant No.5.
37. A clause is also incorporated in Ex.P46 to the effect that the defendant No.1 has agreed to resolve the dispute with Wipro Limited pending before the arbitrator and the plaintiff had irrevocably authorised the defendant No.1 to negotiate with Wipro Limited to settle the dispute. In fact, as per the sale agreement, the amount reserved for the settlement of amount payable to Wipro Limited was only Rs.15 Crores. As per the sale agreement, if the amount exceeds Rs.15 Crores, plaintiff was responsible to pay the amount to Wipro Limited to satisfy award. But, in the sale deed, the defendant No.1 has undertaken to settle the entire dispute even over and above the Rs.15 Crores agreed in the sale agreement. Therefore, in the sale deed, the defendant No.1 has confirmed that the plaintiff need not require to contribute any 40 O.S.No.2916/2005 amount to settle the dispute. On a conjoint reading of all these clauses clearly reflects that though initially the sale consideration amount was agreed for ₹41 lakhs, in the sale deed, the amount to be paid to the plaintiff was agreed as Rs.26 Crores only as the defendant No.1 was required to pay Rs.15 Crores to defendant No.5. Added to this, in the course of cross examination of PW1, he has specifically admitted in clear terms that he came to know that defendant No.1 negotiated with the defendant No.5 in arbitral proceedings and settled the dispute by paying Rs.22 Crores and took the original documents from defendant No.5. In this regard, the admission given by the plaintiff in the cross-examination dated 11.06.2014 is extracted for ready reference:-
"I came to know the defendant No.1 negotiated with defendant No.5 in arbitration proceedings and settled the dispute by paying Rs.22 Crores and took original documents. It is false to suggest that, I received sum of Rs.8,15,74,135/- from defendant No.5 and retained the said amount with me. I reinvested the said amount for purchase of another land. The defendant No.1 misrepresented me by not paying the amount of Rs.15 Crores which was payable to me and instead it was paid to defendant No.5 to settle the dispute and took the documents. Defendant No.1 has not done any other act except the above. I filed this suit nearly 41 O.S.No.2916/2005 after one year of the sale deed dt.31.5.2004 since the defendant No.2 did not hand over the original document to me". .........
"I do not know whether defendant No.1 settled the matter by paying ₹22 Crores to defendant No.5. It is true that after receiving ₹22 Crores from defendant No.1, defendant No.5 might have withdrew the arbitration case".
38. The above admission of the plaintiff is sufficient to hold that pursuant to the terms of sale deed and GPA dated 31.05.2004, the defendant No.1 has proceeded to negotiate with the defendant No.5 and settled the dispute by paying Rs.22 Crores. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.1 as against the total agreed consideration amount of ₹41 Crores, defendant No.1 has spent Rs.48 Crores to get the land from the plaintiff.
39. It is true that in the sale deed, there is no specific recital to the effect that the remaining amount shall be paid by defendant No.1 to defendant No.5. But, the terms incorporated in the documents clearly shows that the amount agreed to be paid to the plaintiff was only ₹26 Crores and the entire amount was paid to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot express the grievance that the remaining Rs.15 Crores is not paid to him and 42 O.S.No.2916/2005 claim the balance consideration amount by way of alternative relief.
40. In so far as the contention of the plaintiff No.1(a) with regard to Clause-6 of the sale agreement regarding the agreement for the purchase of a commercial premises approximately for a sum of ₹15 Crores is concerned, the contents of the clause is as hereunder:-
"The First Party shall decide that the second party shall pay the balance sale consideration as per the instruction of the first party and mode of payment. The 1st party intends to purchase and the 2nd party accepts to sell commercial premises at "Embassy Icon and/or The Estate" approximately for a sum of Rs.Fifteen Crores, out of the present sale consideration".
41. A careful reading of the above clause, it merely indicates that the plaintiff was intended to purchase a commercial premises for a sum of ₹15 Crores out of the total sale consideration amount agreed between the parties. This clause is not an undertaking by the defendant No.1 that it has agreed to sell a commercial premises to the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff has not pleaded anything about this clause in the entire plaint. Even if this clause is considered, it was only an expression of intention by the plaintiff to purchase a commercial premises in the 43 O.S.No.2916/2005 total consideration amount payable to the plaintiff. It clearly shows that the defendant No.1 has not agreed to sell commercial premises in addition to the consideration amount. The only inference that can be drawn is that subsequently, the plaintiff has not pressed his intention to purchase the commercial premises from the defendant No.1 and therefore, he has received the consideration amount agreed to be paid to him. Therefore, this clause in no way helps the plaintiff to claim the alternative relief.
42. Having regard to the entire evidence on record, this court is of the considered view that the defendant No.1 has paid the agreed sale consideration amount to the plaintiff. The transaction pertaining to the suit schedule property was taken place as per the terms agreed between the parties voluntarily. In fact, the evidence shows that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property from the substantial portion of the funds given by defendant No.5 and thereafter did not co-ordinate with the defendant No.5 for the reasons best known to him. The evidence also shows that the defendant No.5 has struggled a lot for the enforcement of the agreement entered between the plaintiff and it and ultimately given up the case by receiving ₹22 Crores as settlement. The evidence also shows that the plaintiff was benefited from the funds provided by defendant No.5 and when the original documents were with the defendant No.5 by the 44 O.S.No.2916/2005 intervention of the defendant No.1, he could able to complete the deal and get huge amount of ₹26 Crores. Under these circumstances, the claim made by the plaintiff is without any merit. As such, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim the alternative relief for payment of ₹15 Crores along with interest and hence, issue No.3 is answered in the negative.
43. Issue No.4:- The defendants have taken up a contention that the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties. Initially, the suit was filed only against defendants No.1 & 2. Thereafter defendants No.3 to 5 are impleaded. Having regard to these circumstances, it cannot be said that the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. Accordingly. Issue No.4 is answered in the negative.
44. Issues No.2, 5 & 6:- In view of the answer given to issue Nos.1, 3 & Add. Issue No.1, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any reliefs sought in the suit. The defendants have taken up a contention that the suit is vexatious and therefore entitled for exemplary costs. Though there is considerable force in the argument, it is relevant to note that during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff died and he did not get complete opportunity to establish that the suit was not vexatious. Since the original plaintiff died, it is not proper to hold that the suit is vexatious. Under these circumstances, no doubt, the suit is liable to be 45 O.S.No.2916/2005 dismissed but, as stated above, plaintiff No.1(a) is a widow and plaintiff No.1(b) is a person who claims to be the beneficiary of the WILL. They have stated that they do not know the nature of the transaction. Since the original plaintiff died, in the opinion of the court, it is not proper to impose cost while dismissing the suit. On these observations, issues No.2 & 5 is answered in the negative and the following order is passed:-
ORDER Suit is dismissed.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Judgment prepared through Speech to Text App with the assistance of Senior Sheristedar, carried out corrections, print out taken and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 1st day of August, 2025) (Vijaya Kumar Rai) X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs:
PW.1 : R.K. Raju PW.2 : Mrs.J. Maria Alphonsa List of documents exhibited for plaintiff: Ex.P1 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 9.5.1996 document No.498/96-97. Ex.P2 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 9.5.1996 document No. 499/96-97. Ex.P3 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 9.5.1996 document No.500/96-97.46 O.S.No.2916/2005
Ex.P4 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 9.5.1996 document No.501/96-97. Ex.P5 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 9.5.1996 document No.502/96-97. Ex.P6 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 9.5.1996 document No.503/96-97. Ex.P7 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 9.5.1996 document No.579/96-97. Ex.P8 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 9.5.1996 document No.581/96-97. Ex.P9 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 9.5.1996 document No.583/96-97. Ex.P10: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 13.5.1996 document No.600/96-97 Ex.P11: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 24.7.1997 document No.4641/97-98 Ex.P12: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 24.7.1997 document No.4642/97-98 Ex.P13: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 24.7.1997 document No.4643/97-98 Ex.P14: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 24.7.1997 document No.4644/97-98 Ex.P15: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 7.8.2000 document No.4002/2000-01 Ex.P16: Certified copy of the Office Memorandum dated 19.6.2001 Ex.P17: Certified copy of the Office Memorandum dated 2.4.1997 Ex.P18: Certified copy of the Office Memorandum dated 30.6.1998 Ex.P19: Certified copy of the Office 47 O.S.No.2916/2005 Memorandum dated 2.4.1997 Ex.P20: Certified copy of the Office Memorandum dated 2.4.1997 Ex.P21: RTC pahani of Sy.No.2/1 for the year 2000-01 Ex.P22: Extract of the Mutation register No.3.
Ex.P23: RTC Pahani of Sy.2/2 for the year 1994 to 2000 Ex.P24: RTC pahani of Sy.2/3 for the year 1994 to 2000 Ex.P25: RTC pahani of Sy.2/4 for the year 1994 to 2000 Ex.P26: RTC pahani of Sy.No.4 for the year 1994 to 2000 Ex.P27: RTC pahani of Sy.No.5/1 for the year 1994 to 2000.
Ex.P28: Extract of the Mutation Register No.6 Ex.P29: RTC pahani of Sy.No.5/2 for the year 2000-01 Ex.P30: Certified copy of the order sheet inOS No.3552/2004 Ex.P31: Certified copy of the plaint in OS No.3552/2004.
Ex.P32: Certified copy of the IA U/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 along with affidavit in OS No.3552/04 Ex.P33: Certified copy of the IA u/s.151 CPC Along with affidavit dated 31.5.2004.
Ex.P34: Certified copy of the IA u/s.151 CPC along with affidavit dated 31.5.2004.
Ex.P35: Certified copy of the memo dated
17.6.2004
48 O.S.No.2916/2005
Ex.P36: Certified copy of the vakalath
Ex.P37: Copy of FIR
Ex.P38: Copy of complaint dated 27.5.2004
Ex.P38(a): Police endorsement on Ex.P38
Ex.P39: Letter dated 17.6.2004
Ex.P40: Letter dated 27.10.2004
Ex.P41: Reply notice dated 15.12.2004
Ex.P42: Letter dated 3.1.2005
Ex.P43: Letter dated 10.1.2005
Ex.P44: Application dated 12.1.2005
Ex.P45: Letter dated 22.1.2005
Ex.P46: Certified copy of the sale deed dated
31.5.2004 document No.4689.
Ex.P47: Certified copy of the power of attorney
dt.31.5.2004
Ex.P48: Original agreement dated 4.9.2003.
Ex.P48(a): My signature
Ex.P49: Certified copy of the sale deed dated
31.5.2004 document No.4688
Ex.P50: Letter dated 14.5.2004.
Ex.P51: Copy of legal notice dated 18.11.2004
Ex.P52: Police complaint dated 25.5.2004 with
Endorsement.
Ex.P53 Certified copy of the petition in P&SC NO.179/2015
Ex.P54 Certified copy of the order sheet in P&SC No.179/2015
Ex.P55 Death certificate of R.K.Raju
Ex.P56 Family tree certificate
Ex.P57 Family tree affidavit
Ex.P58 Petitions filed by the applicant U/s 372 of Indian Succession Act
Ex.P59 Photographs (exhibits P59 to P72 are marked subject to the
to P72 order passed by this court on 19.12.2024 with regard to its
admissibility)
49 O.S.No.2916/2005
Ex.P73 Original register of baptism maintained at Parish Christ the King
Church, Bengaluru for the period 1980 to 1986. the relevant entry pertaining to the baptism of deceased plaintiff R.K.Raju is at page no.165 at sl.no.11. It is marked at Ex.P73(a). Ex.P74 The notarized copy of Ex.P73 is marked as Ex.P74. The relevant entry is marked as Ex.P74(a).
Ex.P75 Original register of marriages maintained at Immaculate Conception Church, Railway Colony, Bengaluru-23 from the year 1980 to 1999. The relevant entry is marked as Ex.P75(a). Ex.P76 Notarized copy of Ex.P75 is marked as Ex.P76 and the relevant entry is marked as Ex.P76(a).
Ex.P75(b) & (c) : Signatures of R.K. Raju List of witnesses examined for the defendants:
D.W1 : B.S. Mohan D.W2 : Shrinath M.S.
List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D1 : C/c of order sheet in Arbitration proceedings Ex.D2 to 4: C/c of compromise petitions Ex.D5 Power of attorney (marked subject to the objection raised with regard to the proof) Ex.D6 Possession letter (marked subject to the objection raised with regard to the proof) Ex.D7 Certificate issued by BBMP Ex.D8 Endorsement issued by BBMP Ex.D9 Certificate issued by BBMP Ex.D10 Endorsement issued by BBMP Ex.D11 Property register extract Ex.D11 Property register extracts to D17 Ex.D18 Tax paid receipts to D41 Ex.D42 Proceedings of the government Ex.D43 Commencement certificate 50 O.S.No.2916/2005 Ex.D44 Occupancy certificate Ex.D45 Permission granted by BDA Ex.D46 Online copy of the sale deed dtd.18.06.2004. The original sale deed is said to be delivered to the purchaser. Certificate U/s 65B is produced. Therefore this document is admitted in evidence subject to the objection of proof raised by the Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff no.1(a) Ex.D47 Photographs to D50 Ex.D51 Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.D52 Copy of the cheque Ex.D53 Memorandum of understanding Ex.D54 Receipt Ex.D55 Letter dated 24.06.2004 X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.