Sri Chirag vs M/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Chirag vs M/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

 

SM'? SUNITA

WXO GULABCHAND DANE}

AGE 53 YEARS, OCCi;HOUSEW1F'IEi

R/O SHANTINACEAR, KESHWAPUR
HUBLE

SHRI MAHE$I~1 KEEMAR

S/O VELJE KANJE

AGE 64 YEARS, OCCEEJSINESS ,_ _
R;"O 54,112, SANS VILLA, RO.P§D._II NEAR "
MEDLERE HOSFITAL, KESHW.A§'"i~J,_i? .
HUBU  é'

SM'? 1'-IIALABAI
W/C3 PRAFUL Sﬁﬁﬂ , .L  j
AGE 51 YEARS, OCC:H{)E3SEWE'FE

mo NARAYAN?URA  
AHMEi33AB1'_a,D--.¢«_  I

sHR£..m:.:_,:P~V;;U3;L§a§z,
S/cv>vEL;iV!€ANJ::V' _ . .
A<;:£«:.,_49-_'s:'EARs;;"Qc;Q:E3:;s=:--NE:s;3
R/0 '62, §"A'1'IL I,;A&'€}{§T, 1;.:.Na:}ARaJ NAGAR
RQ§xD,'VZJNAKAL  

HUBLE >30 gPPEL§..AN'£"S

 {'g3;s;7:ii:'iz*£i1'RC;2\:, Sax c"éi:NsEL, Sn: (3 M PO{3N§.GH£% AEJD

» _'s..r~;;:;:I{e;xss: 1&5' mm, mvs FGQ LEXPLEXUS, AW. 3;

AM

_>:--.«

z~5;'.s"§:s_",:§E§<;a. BLEELSERS

T {3F'F'£';Zi E AT MOPEQK '$E~§15sFvfBERS

~ AA  S--'?ATI¥L3N ROAD, HUBLI DUE.-Y EEPRESENTED
 " ._B'i ETS PARTNER
 SHE} SHVAM RAEVIASA JARTARGHAR

351% SHYAM RAMASA J.%RT§§§GHAR
&GE 54 YEARS; OC5C:PAR'I'NER

EMS EUREKQA §L?¥L{)E§S

S1/C} EVEGHAK CZHAMBEFES

J

'a



U.)



STATEGN RGAD, HUBL1

KASHIEEUATH RAMACHANDRASA NERANJAN
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS

OCCFARTNER

MXS EUREKHA BUILDERS

R,/O MOHAK CHAMBERS

STATION ROAD, HUBL1

SHRI If R' E3'I33A1~¥L.AD
AGE ABOUT :36 YEARS

OCC;PAR'E'NER ws EUREKE-IA BUILDERS   

¥?;'0 MOHAK CHAMBERS   
STATEON ROAII}, HUBLI 1

sm' KAMALAVVA _

wxo KYATANAGOUDA F'A'I'iE,,'~.._ 
AGE 75 YEARS, OCC;AGR1CLiL'I"'LIRE
R,fO KESHWAPUR  .
HUBM

F'A1--;;:1Qz~,Aé: <}:":p.g"V% "  _ - .
S/O KYATANAGOE3 DA 3~m';_L
AGE 3.5 Y3?$AF<"S, 0CC_;AQR'iCULT{}RE

R/0 KES_HWAPUR  '

}:7I'E...:FII3;:I.IE  A ' V

-.?._§<'AKiRAx:}0uDA """ "
 s;'::> BAsA;--NAGOUDA PATEL
~ T 'M332. f_?'1..Y"E'.'_A3?.S, O€1C;AGRICUL'E'U§%E
._ /C» Kasyzwgwg
A '2~41iJBLI~j; 

uE3H§,Nff.i§4ASHEKAR MARIGGUD& Pt3s"i'iL

AGE371 YEARS

AA '  ;C3CC;AGR£CUL'£'UR§3

?<,/0 KESHWAPUR

 HUBU

MEMO}-{AR S30 IEYAMANACEOUDA ?ATEL
AGE 54 YEARS
CPCC: AGRICULTURE

vi 3



11,

Rf C3 KESHWAPUR
HUBLI

MAHESH szo SAQKSHIVAGOEEDA;  ._
BYAMANCECJUDA PATEL :
AGE MAJOR

£i}CC;AGRICUL'1'URE

we KESHWAPUE

HUBLI >
MAREGOUDA DYAMAMAGOQ 13;, .?M:'L _
AGE 56 YEARS ' _  5 _   , 
OCC;AGRICUL'¥'URE;

mo KESHWAPU V .

HUBL1  V  

AGE 51 ::YEA_:?s'*~  _ 
OCC;AGR1CUI;TURE'  
R/G'*Ki3SH%VAP"G;R. *
HUSH '~* 2

ESE-{WA RA.é:;::L5:§3~._.L>Y§a1»1}*a1§}n;G<§£3 lib; 'P.ea::'*:L

c1»~uVé;1s:D'{2*A:ar:<;7Vr>i;é:~es:§{;«:.§i;:{}:3AsANAGou SA PATEL
AGE'; 6':';"~ YaTL'-ABS  
<3CC;AG'f%§CU1_fI'iJR§:3_

4:g';*'::>L.;<EsHv.?gP*L3R
¢. £ﬁiUF;§L{  ~ A ..... .. »

" ~ .YA£,LFaP£?£{T;QUDA ggamaeaum PATEL
 AGE'53"YE}A§§.S
-.QCC;A(3_R£(;ULTURE

'A  22;0_;:E;Ls;&wAP1_:R,HUm,1

RAL§£1SHEKARG{3U DA BASANAGOUSA FATEE.
ACTrE---- 48 YEARS

A' ' L '- f.3C:C;AGRiCU 1:11; RE

*  Ti/<3 ycaaawapuﬁ

HUBLI

PRAKASHAGOUDA BASANAGGUM PATEL
AGE: 43 YEARS

éi)CC;AGRICUL'I'URE

E2fO KESHWAHER

HUBLI  RESPGNSBNTS



{By Sri: MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV. F012 C/Rm A'
an': S S KHATEEB, ADV, FOR £2? T0 15    4 
Sri: R B HALE AND Sri: 3 K ANAND, £&,D_Vs 9:312 f%4=f5;§',.5}V"   

THIS APPEAL IS 91153 LI/S. 3?{_13".QF  AA§:::;1*P;AT:<3pJ,%
Arm CONCILIATION ACT AGA;:N's::;* THE. ORDER ...3.--9.200'?.'

PASSED IN ARBETRATION A§>PL1C'A*1§i@N No."'3_12*c~:3'-r 0;; THE) FILE
OF' THE PRL, msw. JUQGE, DHAREVAD.1 DIRE~CTEN,ff3 ALL THE
PARTIES TO MAIP¥I'A1Nv'__S'PATL_i:AS _Qr;:~Q :'N_ RELATIGN TO THE',
OWNERSHIP AND P'OSSE'S;S1ON~L__{iF v ':*r%1Ef_ n;%§;*.r.'mo:~: Sci-VEEBULE
PROPERTEES AS ON THA*:i_QAv_ 'F§__L1,_ THE} 'a:;;=g.:r¢--<:LusroN 09' THE
ARBITRATION PR<3§:§;..gDIr§<3s."~, > -  '

§\iI.¥".A. N0.  '_  '_  '
BETWEEN T T

3. 31%: Y':iLLA9?AC%Q%<,jm"  " " 
3,152 BA::.ANmo.Um w§:..:*1;:,

5{Z§.E:'E:53 YEZARS, OCCﬁ:AGR}CUL'§'URE ag SERVICE,
ﬁg/A1*~KEsHw;s.9;;R,4HUBL:

A . 3 €;H£§E£E}Rﬁ;SHEKH&R

 S,/_{}v-vPgffA§2'E{3€J'II{j)A PATH.

~ . =I'_.;'a{34E~:7"i_Y1"::§xi13'S,OCC:?xC§R£<':UL"I'UF2E
1 EVA'? 2<:E;'_3I~.i'waPUR, HUBL1

--V 3 §i:;AN ;.m"A R

 s/::~.;:'-mMANAGo:;aA PAHL
~ : AGE:€§4 YEAES, €i)CC:AGE13ICUL'F{§F2IS'F,

  §*gA'r KESHWAPUR, Htjmx

   MAHESH

S] O LATE SAIEASHEVJKGOUDA PA'§'IL
AGESZE YEARS, GCCIAGRZCULTURE
R/AT' KLEt':'sHWA.PUR, HUBLE

J



)0

(Bar M

MARECEOUBA 6

S/O DYAMANAGSUDA PATH,

AG-E:?S6 YEIWS, OCC:AGRECUL'i'URE: 85 smvzcg,
R,/RE' KESHWIKPUR, HUBL1

ISHWARAGOUDA
S/{:2 DYARIEANAGOUDA 9am,    _ 
A<'}"E:51 YEARS, OCC:AGRiC'iUL'TURE 8:; SERVICE,  '
R/AT KESHWAPUR, HUBLI ;  -- --.   -
CHANE}RA£V10}§ANGOUDA

S,/0 BASA{\§A(3«OUDA PATEL ' ..
AGE:65 YEARS, OCC:AGRICUjLTURE1, '
R/AT KESHWAPUR, HLJBLI' .  'V

RAJASHEKHARGOUDA   --
S30 BAsANAGoU2;~A;"?g3TiL.VA" * 
AGE:48 YEARS, 0cc::,9;;;R1c:i;:§*:.;E::?._;»v.% _
R/AT' KESHWALPUR, 1403;:    

?£<:V;$'1{A'S:4i:T%€,)U@"§é,VV' ¢ ._ .
S ,!Q BAsA,NAa3:::.;n:>A Pssiz'-1:.' -
A(3E--:43 as EARs:;V:;<:£:;4.ac;:2:{3UL*z*a1RE,

RfAT' ;?:.LEs%HW;2P£:'R', HVUBLI  APPELLANTS

5:5-; ;;?AéAa3g'gs?$Qt:IA}rEs, A9113;

' V _ 3%,? ;$'«,1%;u»v:2"1;:*T:§::5;@.g2,;2:,1:>ERs
. " -AREL~f§_1"f3TEVREﬁ PARTNERSHEP E'«*'iR§~£i HAVENG
A , rm R_g::;%:i:e:s**rERE§ apnea AT MO§~£é';§{ cagmgma
'*s?Ai;*£<.;-:~§*"R0A§, z§L;BL:,

i3:?E€:P'Fg_ EY ITS PARTNER

AA ' *~$Ha§'M RAMASA JAR'£'ﬁsRGHA§2
=  5:33:55 YEARS, OCC:E3USiNESS,

Q/Q I--{.NQ.H, EUEQEKA QZOLONY,
KESHWAPUE, HEEBLE

KASHENATH RAMACHAi'€ﬁRAS£%. NIﬁANJ&N
ﬁsGEE:11 ABOUT 58 YEARS; C1CC:§USENESS,

.1

9'.



{By Sr"?

OCCEEOUSEWIFE,
R,/'O KALEDASANAGAF?
VZEJYANAGAR, HUBLI

MAHESH KUMAR S/O VEIL-51 BAND
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OC;C?;:}E3USENESS,

RXO 5-'H2, SAME VILLA, RQAD H, LANE
NEAR MEDLERI HOSPITAL,
KESHWAPUR, HUBLI

MALABAI w/0 PRAFULM-. SHAH 
AGED ABOUT 5: YEARS, '
OCC:1~{OUSEWIF'E,

R/G KALIDASNAGAR,
VEDYARAGAR, HU8Li_

DELI? K?J'Ivi:'?\£"x' gm VE3~LJ_1 B.AI\fD'[ '
AGED A'B_0E;3_':',;52 Y'EAR'::.,'= '_  
oCVc.:Bus1';~z3sS;;:.    
R/Q # 62',*vPA3'ILv':;,Av_QU.T, .
LINQRA5 xaaag man,'-----.. ' -
UNAKAL, HUBL:   

:' 3 3 KHA-*ﬁ3;EB';' 51:59 #62 R1 To 9

#3 RESPONDENT?»

SE'»1'*E.:. R B KALE 13;?'-3«D..___3.I".9.v: B K ANAND FOR R5 85 6

Siri

ﬂ

 « ; PQAKASH KJAWALKAR' 909 E81 Ti) 4,
"Szji: vV1~>;_R--QN, Sri: <: M POONACHA AND
I;:':.2g:=: V._R€_;'.>N FOR LEXPLEXUS, ADVS FOR 12:2 T0 14;

'---._':*H::;.~;~ APPEAL ES FELED Ufs. am; OF' THE A§BE'I'RA'I'Ei1>N
 4  AND CQRCELEATEGN ACT AGMNSI' THE': GREEK? DATED: 3.9.2007
1  Pasysgn an ARBETREEIQN APPLESATIQN NE}.
 '~{%:3? ma PRL, ms'? JUDGE, DHARWAI),
 .1?za§':"';~Es T0 Ms=.;NTA:N STATUS QUO ifs!'
 ow*NERs:~;:P AND mssgsszm <1? THE PETITEGN SCHEDULE
 PEEGPERTEES AS ON THAT may TILL THE cowcwsaeyzar :3}? THE
 ARBi'1""Rﬁ'FiON PRQCEEBENGS;

3;'2GO7 {EN THE} FELE
BERECTENQ ALL THE
RELATEON TO THE



no

C.R.P 230. 49432007

BETWEEN :

1.

MZS EUREKA BUiLDE3I~?S  

oppzcg AT MGHAK CHAMBERS,V=STA;TIC>5.€ ;:»:3A:>"'- '  f~ 
HUBLI, DULY REP BY ITS MANA<;mG--PAm'NE,g - . «.

SHRE SHYAM RAMASA JAF§'1Z€£E2GHAE3_  
AGED ABUUT 50 YEARS, OCCEARTNER V

M/S EUREKA BUILDERS, 1;»/C>».M::>HA;< ci:m M$E3a¥ss§

$'I'ATION ROAD, HUBLI

SRI SHYAM RAMASA '¢FA'RTARG:{_HA§2"'-. Lj AA ~ 
man ABOUT 50 YEARS;  " _ 
OCC:PAP;"1'NER     
M/S EUREKzajBu:L13:ERs, i»€OHA~K'~E3U1LDE3RS
STATION Roaxja,'   g  
max;   

SR1 MOHANV»-RAMAs.A ;;,¥A}?'I'§.R£}HAR
AGED"AE30'i§T 4'::.;?F;A:2S1--  '
OG.C:PAR;T}\?EvR_&V    . _'

M/.2; Et;REKA'BL*:mERJ.s, 'M:::«1~iA§< CHAMBERS
S'E'A'I'I<3N-- ROAD "  .   

HUSH' " ' A =

s;:2:";»;AsH1N2;fr:§' §Azv:AcHANDRAsA NIRANJAN

 A§3C'sU'}' 5Gv¥-EARS

CJCC: §5"AR'?NER

»  M;s_VELr1:;~§::{;a_BU£L3g:es, MOHz%K CHAMBERS
. .S'1"3ZTf{I§N R<:».;;_@

'»'auBuJr_'

SR1 ii :2 ':>§AHma
A<:e§:D";ABoL;*r so mags

.A 0c:::;.§>AR'rN3R
' ms EUREK,& BUELQEZRS, MOHAK or-mmgms
 = STATION was
-Vauam

T 9.2: MORAN RUEEMPPA WAL:

AGED ABGUT 56} YEARS
OCQ: PARTNER
MXS EUREKA BIJELEEERS, MO§%:%§{ CHAMBERS

J

7%



 

1E

"ms PETITEQN FILES ms 115 CFC AG£iNS'i' '",!f'A.{4..VE"f51<E»I;.>"'_,*'3E§"' 
mmrz; 2a.':=.2<3o7 PASSED ON I,A,N<:;x2 m o.s.--:~1.oj;'~..si2;zV2<3o'r __or¢ 
THE FILE OF' THE E ADDL.CIVEL;"'JL}{}GE.<& {sR'.£:rs;'.;,V "§»E'UB"LI, T

BISMISSING £.A..NO.2 912,213 [US s'=.Q;«iTHn1: Mé:BI'1*p:TA1*:g;:.13:~v:;a:aD
CONCELIATION ACT.    'v. 2   

These appeais and  i1aving' '23 §ée'z5'1 rééserved for
orders on 04.03.2009, <:<;ming.<m--.f(§r gimnounéemrsnt this day,
{ha (301111 pmnaunccd th<:'f0ﬂe'§vi;i1gV: "  

 [}V _..3_:;t:>t§r:t'n;;n m'§j*x¥ * 

f3Qtﬁ» "2.m vagaj11st the order dated
(;3.09.2¥:ro7'-- 'pa$$t:ii&'-~  Appiication No. 3/ 200'?

[k1€:€inaftef"r¢f%:rrc§t§_  No.3jiZQO'7 for short). In MFA

 Ne. ,1:§S99j:2oa'?'Av.:§¢____;»gspo::;denzs Ne. 13 to 19 (hereizlafisr

 ref:::rr&€£ 'Va-,~3 'assignees' for conV5::1ie11ce) have qucstioned the

Said" {:§§,'téIé;i';' '_"_fﬂ.  No.14061/2037, the mspondents No. 4 1:0

 _ 1.2, ﬁle  reyresentafives {ref extzcutants of disputed

 gigrmmszif (hezrzainafiétr referred to as the 'owners' far

 T.;:§<nﬁ's*s1*:ﬂ«i,t3:1ce} have 3330 questianed the said eréer. in CR?

 / QQQ7, thé defﬁndanis No. 1 :9 7 (hcrﬁinaftar  V no

A b'  51$ the 'builders') in G.S.No.52/ 200'? have questiomzd £116: ordar

dated 28.,(}'?.2£'3G'?' passed 0:1 I,A#No.iI. Since the rcapective

J



ordmfs in ABN Nz:>.3/2907 am: 0.s.No.52/2:307 mxatéfm the

same subject; mattizr tlmugh under different pr<;:av.isi_m:.§s-  ;}1é'£2T§":

been clubbrzti and heard together anci as    V' 

well as the revision patition are difééposéti ._ofT_b§;' 

osder.

FACTS IN COMMON

2. The bI"i€f_f§€lCtS an: that the buﬂdexs ﬁ§ﬁiid&'ai31e property bearing (ITS No.36i gixntas and the property 24 guntas situate at Ward 1_ A:--j§'fi;»§.*%i£':«V, :Késhavapur, Hubli, ciaim to haw:

aniertzai» §.;{:l{(}";'V:1iviv"~E§lVgfﬁ€}:£}Lf§I%IE{. of sale dated 23.83.2081 with the . '<)v.fﬁt:I:S Vﬁaﬁéily. "ﬁ;ié"v¥C¥1Iiilé.t':I'S also claim that a sum of been paﬁaé by them by paying ii 3:0 the mrs;?;::z.$rs' .~ . 'E3h%: aszsignees are said. ta be in possession of 1:133 V'-».§I*<;peft;§__§fn qusstion. Tfhe owners thereaﬁer haw: executed two i{'€'§}I1{]j1iS1'3I11ﬁ1I1i daeds aiaiﬁd 8,3.2G€)6 and 12.%.20{)i§ ' aésigning thﬁil' rights in respect of the properizy E0 the " assigns:-:3. The: axccution of the said assignment daéds. are i3 consuneé as a breach {sf the agreement sf sale by i:hc:.":3;wners and as such the btzikiers have inveked the Arbin§"£;%§$- in (Tliaust: No.9 as contained in the said agre:€:ﬁ1e£1t=VV:é>'f' Pending Arbitraiiong sincs the Zbiiﬁdegrs L36 ' j ' assignees am seaking Change in I'€(:0IﬂS and arc making a.f:te1:t1V1;sts 'i{3su1:§Lé.iv:Ed.§Van6;. ti*a::zSf¢r the V propertiag have approachgd thgé---j1tiis.dic:ti0naf 'ﬁénsiizfiitt Court in a petitien flied under""'Sec§o1_.}i*.V&€} Arbitraiian and Canciliatjon A<:t,_ ;i9g96 ziféf' £,€£V§Cwi;%'}VV'V"'5§"§'}iCh came ta be I1umbere§7;"'as I.?&BP«§:*;.;i'-3n.'i3[2£§{)?.""'~*Ff1e ewners as 19961} as tht:

assigneés z§*¢ré 'iiéspaxzdants, R is relavarrt to new .h€':I'€iiS€if éixaﬁ ffh% -_z*€:2._v{§;s::1}u{}e1}%is eitoxisisting the group of the «_ 0E7§}*€'E5I:$ iiﬁcipée Aﬁ3;:.V__}_é;*j:g:3} repmsﬁntativss sf {ha executants cf agi'ci?,1n«§:;3;i$':%}Ss:1,,_ 11: the said petition, €116: gerzuinenesa of tbs is disputed by contendiﬂg that {ha signed 'V have ﬁmn usad ta create the agrmtment as well as x V' .a€;kn§::wIéﬁgment of that eaasidcraﬁsiah Simufianemlsky, G113 cf itspondents 1:9 the Saié pctitien, W119 5,3 the son of ~ Easanagguda 9&3': fxleﬁ ma suit in 0§s,:~§e.5--2/ ma? seeking far a judgment and decrea ta {itzclam 1:113 agpeemeni 0f S318 dated J '1 13% 23.63.2001 alleged to have bean executeti by as mncacted, sham, begus, unanfezmeabla in 1ai$e*,:: i}3.{¢;Tg£V: 1, and void and not hintiring on the consequential releifs of injuxlmiesn a;a-__ ﬁimii as _~;§.eCLarat};o'1; Vfe_V declare the Izatice datsd :5. :1;2.§§a iséueg' 'a3.§I:"'_t1¥€:\Vv jt§ eVi'e'§§}da:1f' N<;2'9 {Arbitrator} on tft1e.if.é:-agis Q33 "i}:1<;'V%.};1igiVjéc3:;11s11;t.« as 'e11'1 wa1°ra11ted and illegal. In tbs said4'$§.xi£:, F$:1i:i§ir§:'€'%.f1l§;d an apylicafiﬁn under Seciisn of the suit to Arbitxaﬁmi. gumbemd as; i.A,N0.l§ and mid applicaticsn. In 8113 backgregwiliiéﬂ cf {ha {}I'{3.€I' of Sta'{'L1S~*q116 in MEN I~§:),3fi3--{}f€}T, €h_a :7§isp:§:£nc1a1;ts themtin 33:6 quesfioxﬁng {ha > _$a£t:§5e'3;:. thﬁéiismisvgai 01" the appiicaiion mekimg I'€f€1'€ﬂC€ 't§2V'ar}:gi";::j3;£ic§za«""i3_ bging qusstiouad by the builder whs is '£116 dﬁféiidarét -iii}. suit.

x 3;" Heard Sri meg. R011 and Sri Kiran V Ron, bsarrieé far thﬁ assigneﬁs, Sri Prakash K Jawaikar, learnéri Tﬁauzzsei far tha buiiders, S;-:2 RB, Kaifz and 3111 3,3, gzghatem laarned Counsel fer ﬁzz? I't:'fS§€C¥IJ:V€ awners. I f:

COIITEHTIGHS IH COMMQN 3

4. Theugh the I'€S}3€Ci;iV€i learned Counsel hemﬂ at iength, the cendensed f<;m:n..§3f 3%.? :1:§fi,»3Zc%':'f3., ~ 1 summaty of thc commtztions urgcii 211253;? '?ie:a'r::1édV_ {ZZ0Vi;f1--$é3?.1br the assignees is fustly Wiﬂi._.i\i3.g81'd '-'E0 ﬁ1e' _ IA18;,j{L1I'.f;V {sf iii:-.:::

prcmerties beirxg zmxtan proper'ti§:s;VVVig,<Qvczj:1c:d. hbg-2;. ﬁe pjéoviﬁiolas cf the Bombay Heredifazjﬁ 'tZ>f:ii{:ei%s :§g(:%..," (heremafter referred to as 'Act of 1874') and 3;£r:;°t:I:1e ieasa granted for 19:5. The iegai effect (}f the lease grantttd 'Vi.0Ia'ti,0«i"1 :3f S of the Act of 18?4 has btszzzn fefeitfaicd to is cantendeﬁ that the Ectase W0111€3. « "b€<§§;§é" '$*0iiiA.pn tlxéfdwéatlx cf the original iessozs and as such 2 waiarzdars wauld have right ta recaver ;3<.%>:«"*»gs3:c:'-:s$;'V~:>.Tr.§L'_ 'jltha lands within 12 years as per Aﬁicle 3344 of {ha Lizgiiation Act 1938 (hersinaftﬁr mferred '£20 as 'Aci 03"

Hence, it is aantcnded that the succeeding Watandars V. §§'0111d 1003:: al}. rights if the suit is not ﬁled within the period 5f {imitation and the right $3136 and iﬁterest would vest with the parser; in wrcngful possesaian of that suit garoperty by virtue {sf 1 ﬂu E6 Sectien 28 of the Act of 1908. The date <:>f death of the iessors laie Adveppa Gouda and late Marigouda is also 1'e:fr»:t_'_1"€d to indicate this aspect. The dacisions in the case of :EL:}'*{:f}vl'RA BAX AND ANOTHER' ---vs» THE TAHISILQR, Hamji Tmu 3$;;f.:§:

OTHERS, 1996 (6) ;<.L,,L 339 aname.4¢as;§V$:f"':*2a:{t3' .W<:<£U"j. KADAM Arm omgag -~vs-- GANU §z1*rPi:I§~'KA'B§3;AA§?1 ~_2~,:"?E}:§i3;3 _1 BOMBAY 24 am relied on in _ _V V_ 1

5. Aitematively, it is also L>c»:3;t;Le:1dsc¥' in vi€W of £116:

c0ming'VViii{£}'Tf§§;';;€ Oﬁices Abolition Aci, 19631 (ﬁﬁxffiaaiieg; as 'KVOA Act'), the §I'Gj§}€l",'t§F governed £:f:;:ie:- .A§;t '--.{:b3f"bLV3.874 stood vcgted in the State '~ as }§€r'S$cﬁ0n 4 of KVGA Act. The relevant data any person in occupatéan in the lands as 03.1. hthé ﬂsting, other than Watcmdars air: dszfmcd as 12I3a1i'tZ";1::)f§r:;$€L-if holders. I1: is contended that the Iﬁgrant as per "..f§}i'9'if;i$«3'.<31:1VL'$ sf Section 5 of KVOA Act was an 4.9,19'?S anti % 27z:;,Q27.19s2 in favour of {he legal ham af the eﬁginal zssgms " tbs grantﬁas not being 113 possessian, the rmgmntees were required to file ﬂit? suit for rtzcmrery sf passessiozi as J :3?

cemiemplated under Artickt 65 of Act, 1963. in this regard, relianctz is piacad. on the judgment in the CRSE 8ABU"'MALLU §<m)'1* mvs» DEPUTY COMMISSEONER 3§:Lgg5*;{:V:vi"}j"%T.A':éVD GTHERS» 19% (2) KLJ 315; V <:HANNANARAs'i_§a;V;A:;%§i' ~»v§§'s¥ ' ABDKTEONAL TAHSIIJBAR BA:xzGrAL;<3'"RE,~.:\;<::412'1'_::€'f"fi"5.~mj1«:i',.A'%x:DI ' OTHERS--- 199713) XL? 10: (DB) (E! S1;! 1$§BA "£'AHSiLDAR, CH1CKBALLAPUiQ'{§'B)>, 1953..{3}.,;§:m";br§vi3j3;"

5. Tha abave aspgjcfs ha$_r¢ E";::¢11._»p0nti¢11d£:(i tggii claim that the assigisazzesi. the property' haﬁ perfectﬁd their til: xfﬁiinquishment ciecd executed by the <:;\x;3::e:*§a ﬁc2V ﬁé righi not being traceable to the Gxsz:m5~;fsvbxt:i:1g on fhe miinquishmem are not. bound ~E>;§,*'--»?,ht:.VVai;lcg§€E. agmament of $3112 1191' am ihéjy' reguirﬁé to 'ézgﬁjcctvviﬁémsgiiés to arbitxafion. ii is alse caxztﬁndﬁd that {E16 .V owziém ﬁgeci suits in 0.s.r~:os.354;2Q<}4 ané 365/2964 0:1 u1'_1.2Vi304 seeking posgessiﬁn aﬁci the said suits Wars .' ﬁ.§$*m':issed on 29.C!1.;2'{}0? as bazrred by Law ané as such, iha "'s:'am€ having aittainad fmaﬁty against 11 piajﬁﬁﬁs {hermit}, :10 right can be claimed agaénst; €238 agsigneésg E': is themférz:-:

J 4 £9 bringing about the agmement. Rafarence is I11a{i f3-_':.!tiQ' the S11S§)iCi{)1lS cixcumstaaces of the agreement bein;§"b1*éi1g1_1'i:.j;itg force. Above all, strong reliance is placed cf» the I-I011'hle Sugsmme Court in the %:,fa.sti:.,c§f j:'SB_i? '

-vs-- PATEL ENGINEERING LT,9_ANDAAN'GTHEl2 --1~ ($3) 618 to contend that the .¢b11éid é; all these aspects of the matter }:u%:i'c21~e to procwd and as such in the instant would mat have jurisdiction.

rI_'}'.1€".VvV£-ii';Vt"Vgh*;Ij(:V1't'51'§"IL'E§~_éC1C1I'£'?§;S!;'3(Ii by the learned Counsei for 11113 aSSi§11E¢S~ is in a veiled maxmer by the 1ea1j:p$tI' Couﬁ3é1.. for the owners. The awners not over the property is conceded and it is further 1 builders have obtained signatures on blank paptzrs assurance of helping the Qwners for recavczy of "ppsses;sia'3ﬁ of the occuiaants of the lands in qnestion, but A 3136 of the same have got Hy {he agmctmzmt of saie _§_;§tad 23.83.2001 azzé the same came t9 the kncawletige of the V owxicrs easily when there was a public: notice in the newspaper on 30.8.2005 by the lcgal mivisers of the buiidam indicating 4L V':

that the Qwners haw: given all right in respect of the property and the suit in O.S.Nos.364/ 2004 and 36:3'/2004 haci been ﬁled. A mply notice is contended to have been pubﬁslgedv on 10.16.2085 and subsequentiy, ma suits were and as such the: interim order in the naturéﬁ gimitgd ABN M31200? is not sustainable} "c¢ﬁt¢ﬁi§ap~«;.éas % aiso urged by the learned C.0u.1is-t:_l wIiéA.a:§d;1ea:*:Ci'A' f§>:fi_V<émeT§ of F Iegai repzttscmzaﬁvesf owner ' pla ;im:2ﬂ' in O.S.No.52/2007 and '<:;($éE1*:tn:fied§V. . ix;a_:_ :3;.;¢ trial Court was justiﬁedvi£iVT:*ej:§§&.tj.n§:;'fLh&: :'é::;:1f:li(:3.2;.1;'<V§hVﬂﬁ.Icd under Section 8 of the Act, moﬁ ﬂit': original or 3. certiﬁetd copy of the agreemént. was along with the applicaiien. The ._V$us;§_i§:i0,;:s naturoé '<jf------«{11e agrtemem: was also sought :0 be ~--.t.h€ iearrzed Counsel :0 inciicatc that these aSpE:£:is {if was Iéghﬂy notziceﬁ by the Big} Court.

'I'ht: 4Ce1ms:;~:} placed rﬁliance an the judgment of the f§~Eiozi*b.}¢ éupmme court in LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT mus'?

--¥.é'g§'2\.i«;/8 "mm? HGMES AND INi1'RAS§'RUCfI"URE «mos SA}?

" '(C§ivi1} 103?.

J

-"a 21

8. CI}. ht:-half 0f the builders, it was contcndeé by the learned Counsel that insofar as thﬁ grant of the ixlterim ()I'(it':I"

in ABN N0.3/2007, the Eistrict Judge was justiﬁeti the éntire issue is now before the Arbitrator and <)1_1_-;°iéEi"t3£:1§;:--..§;x%*s;V1c=:3.*s as Wei} as assignees have subjccteé thcznsfslvesi' 10 fuss:

arbitxation proceedings, they canned; arid. ' the same. It is ooutcizdeii t]:1é'1t_ si:r3.<3e érbi¥t1;é;i;i0.'L:

proccedrings has aktzady co1nmc'é'i1r%éd._a11 fzoﬁieﬁﬁoéis including the validity of the L'quesﬁc;£;1ééVV before the Axbinat6i'"V[as Scc'a'on .16 of the Act and explaiaéd case which has been relied 011 by tht-_: owﬁézs V§Z}1QV}".iE.SAéi=7§;ti'5S"."bhV The learned Counsel 3330 referrcﬁ .._t<:.: €i£':C}:§iG£}«-~-Kild contsnded that whexz that was the Fa-'}1en the axbitraﬁcn is pezilding, all that the lémiziiéd Judge 133$ cicmef: is :0 protect the interest Gf the the }3(?5I1C1€ﬁ(i:y of the arbitrat:ion since the: V' »p::révis'i01V:': contemplates SC). The enly nemsdy open for thc: ' efiynérs and assignees is as contemplated under Sﬁction 34 or " of the: Act after completion of the arbitrati-91:: proceedings and ﬁe": at this stage; Insefar as the rejecﬁon cf the appiication fled under Section 8 of the Act in G111? suit, the 1fiEi'§T'.'.}tj;.L2'5:VV':C4E.:"3"lTf§T:i'»i"-$1 <:o:1i:ent:lad that the: tria} Court wag not justi:§§§:éi~._;i11~ such a conclusion ans} in this regarﬁi, th(:"1caiI'I1€:d.Ceu11St': }' aim) pointad out. that one of ﬂ1eT.assigAm:éS.V_ had i3;=.¢'c1- :3. nSi;2'i'$. ':L=r:;V O.S.N0.3S9/"2096, wherein gar" mgcij _ §:)fVV;V":Vv §V'ét¥iV:1é§;ra1:i(}';i51 relating $0 the agrf:eme1f1i.V_}Va$." inc: suit an appiication ﬂied by the 8 of the A01; had been allowed. §..A§:§ﬁxst thcreign was before the W.P.No.18-42/2067 (GFv'§»C:F*{;%}'"' Gftifil' (iated 2936.200?' has €1és:mis;%e;i"¥,%he' hupheid the order yasssd by the trial thg"1;:1}_itt::1" ta ar¥3it;I*a'£ion and as such, the géssgd '%$§:'«f11{:«.vt1*ia1 Caurt. in the presant suit in all ' ;:¢%spg¢:g%*u¢L§"g%s_im31a:is net sustainable and is hams ta) be sci zéiﬁiitlti.

x ' .. mgnészs 1?! mm Nos.13599I2007 AND 14061L2j)'G'? :

9. in the light ef thﬁ rivai -mntentions urged, i ham:

considerad the c-9B.ie11?:io1::s.3 keitping in vim: $15: ambit and siéepe cf the pmsent iitigation before this Caurt 331 the namrs of J:

23

proceedings arising at gmszscni. As already f}';6 Miscellaneous ﬁirst Appeals relate tn) the o§;_1_é'i*..V:paL$3é:d'A §1; ;a V' petition under Section 9 of the Act" ' No.135SQ/200? is by the _..a_ssigf§it:e:S,_.az1d ;;aS* contentions urged are €;,xami3;m¢&a'.i:V'ﬁ*thatV. arises against the crd<§r..._"pa$séd". Judge dimcting the parties to reiaﬁng to the properties V' '%:;é:'11dinsg arbinatien ymccedingtiw that insofar as the assig11ctt"$"a4'*::A:{:onéé:ix§3cé,.no c3fh'"zw-ﬂatter right has bean sought by way?'-pf' a s.*:}:>V'a,§'.V'-".4:-3?afé ésay other pmceedings "but they have mer£:1f;.4_V6ieVfeVf1:i_z§ud'._tlzgappiicatiozx ﬁled uncier Section 9 of thttg in the perusal of the contentiens 'AtG~,:t'.i:c_ propttrties being watan properties and the "' .c:]aimed snbsequent therttto to conteﬁé that haifé 'h é<::)me the awaers of the pmpcrty independent of 3 i*}1E:_.c1aimcd by tbs owners to these pzoceediﬁgs, in my woulé not arise for considrzration in the prescnt appeal " "'--'s$-'hiCh is limitritd to the examinaﬁon of the C{)I'I'{i(:t;If1€SS or Qthenxzise of the interlcscutory order passed. It "Ls; needless to i Vi mention that the assignees also are made péii"£ies_'--.

preeeedings before the Arbitrator and View of the relinquishzzaent decal: jj.ti":ejy? 4._hzee;re. ' apmared before the Arbi13f'at03f,_ Henee, ethenvise of the manner in the Iiiiildexhvsi lttéve entered into an agreement .r§e'spite Hewners not having any right over quesﬁonec} in the primary whefe is sought to be enforced of this nature. En the "it eiéfeii' case Where the assignees were in. 1&2' such right and it is not a ci1r:u111stam:e'._wh.ere each preeeeciings, the buiiders 2 _haci_': __for to arbitration iﬁ View of the clause w§1ei'e, ::r;é1y:i2e',"'so;;ne examination was required to come tea a e<iI1ci*sx'siozi--.V--"vzhetJ3er such $z1;it would be maintaizlable or f whettier hélxssigees shcsuld be xeferzeti to arbitration. But as :'~a1fe'a{iy netieed in the instant case, the assigees as Wei} as the are "before the Arbitrator and in Vi€W cf the pending " érbitiatien, such 3 interim relief by way of interim measure as V contemgslated under Section 9 01" the fact is sought and as such, 1 'I 25 the scope of the present appeal cannot be expanded fleeyond examinatien of that aspect and as such, the eontenﬁioeis-éﬁxzith regaxﬁ to the mazmer of right acquired by the the zelinquishment eieeé, the ézsgeeft suit for recovery of §}<)ssessionja11d the Vtiecisioﬁs: Areiied *<.:-i1~.1:'>§;,V the learned Counsel on these $.";é.;§'e-trts of 'i:1;e' c>I11y noticed to iﬂdicate that éi~?q_s2*ou1gi"i1G£:"afiSe. for eénsideration in the present proceedings. ' V t1j16ufg$¥:.1"'3_uch contentions are urged, the, a:;is£%g:2_ees parties to the re}inqui§;ii~iiie'i1t :;:§eeéfé; and 12.4.2006 CEiX]3i]0'§ be disputed: _ " ._ V. 'i'E;,eref<3fe,...§f§1s;: question for censideratjon insefar as i.i:Le '_i:.-fa regard to the nature of the interlocutory or{§.ei**§a$$ee?,j as to Whether the same is sustainaiﬁe in the fVfac:'i:s Aeifeumstanees ef the ease and also as to Whether the District Judge ought to have eeszclsiéered the ' cezgieiztiens Ieiating t0 the vaiidity 9f the agreemetzt itself whzlie " eieeiding the petition under Section 9 of the fact keeping in View A the ciecisicm of the Horfbie Supreme Cam": in the ease of SB? J» '9 AND COMPANY which has been extensively renegyoxg.' the sides. In this regard, it is appmpria{ﬁ.,v'Ato.VVr;o}i§cc u judgment in the case of SBP .

learned Counsol appearing for_Vt11e out certain portions of the jtzégﬁioﬁts to iiidioatti ultimate View and also noticing ..}vas ;*aVvl'$0"xa minority viaw in the said judgment to vtigtitxlatoly noticed is the pxincipic _ majority View. in this regard, the nature of the antler passed by' E113 under Section 11(6) of the Act séziti' as to Whether the same is in the i1§itI1}:B'~..§)f"adIl};§I1iSfTLI33,!:iV€ power or a judicia} (>I'€}.€I', the; d;_£-:'ci§iort,"i13V.(1o:1bt, is that even though Section 16 of V"._t}:;¢;"Aot p;t3vid,¢$ ___tI1e power to the Arbitrator to docide with of the a:rbitra'¢:io;:1 agreement or clause, is the Hozfbie Chief Justice Wouid have right to 'A u ' théit question before refirxutting the parties to arbiﬁation. tfpttxjrpoxt of tho said decision wouiﬁ roveal that under T :, 7S*:3;C:tion 8 of the Act aiso the juéicial authority wouid have the n a Eight of noticing tho 3211:} oontmgtions before accepting or J O rejecting an appiication ﬁled seeking }1"€tfEiI'€:i1C6 Though this is my understanding of the 355;. the }§on'b1c Supmme Court, whethtké" ﬁﬁf the instant case, the said decisiqg siicﬁld be * "

would be mfexrcd by me while: to V the revision petition 'vlviisigfar as the appeals are concerned, :§1b--o§fé;A~'.::?v;§fx%*ithstandi11g the said decision SESQTAN the situation before the leasmcd 'Giza 0f the parties tr: the 1:t) ﬁle an agnplicatian for interim under Section 9 of the Act.

Such he Sought by such party either ;;;_::_: zh_::.z'i::1gV ar%3+£t1*a1 proceedings or at any time after awaxtl but before it is enfcrced , in the iﬁsmni: ca3§§';'j_ pagrtgr beforc: the learned Pr}. District Judge i.::., 1ﬁhr:i'b_ui}d&r is sacking for interim measure at 3 stage A {"x:¥1:rTi:i;--g pandency of arbitral proceedings, since net 0111}? the had issueé a netice dateai (.}S.04,2%6 :0 the 0WI1€I'$ " well as Em: assignees caﬂjng upon them to axecuté tha sale deed failing which they Wﬁlllii enforce the agreement but L W further by ﬂzeir lczzttar dated 10.11.2006 to the as the assigness have indicated the reference of-._thr: 'riis;pi1¥:::::fS V' and the diﬁcrences per£,a1'x1iz1g in thé 23.03.2001 to the Arbitral Tzibunal c;3né1:s_t§ng u named in tha: said agreement' Piujéuant t¥1er£at9,:'V_£h3::V<§§§s?nérs as' we}: as the assign<::es }?}_£:§,Vt ﬂ tlxémsalvtés to the aI'3Zli"€I'a3ii{)I} proceedings .§§;jcarance thrcugh their Adv{:ac:at,e. . « I: 1j:'*_-$3 "of tbs: a;rbitrat:io11 proceedings manner, simte the A1'bitm1'"£:r'ix*3.usV : in the matte): in View of the §:~'33f'1(i£',"11(ij;'V:'V€§.{'{V:'§LiTé.:t? fﬁund of C0111': pi'OCf§€diI1gS, ﬁrm necessity {($23-..see.kii1g §l3._é'E1§faz"im m6:as'u1'e amse as the hllildﬁfs _a'13}r::_:t:§'.}1ct;r3_éﬁ::§1 .t1_";;f:;«'.p:10§erties wouid be s;u¥3--divides:i and '?:ra5'z1:;fe;?1jcé;3_ '§3}5"»:_h€ assignaizzss Siiléiﬁ they were makrigmg hﬁitﬁii aiicemlpts t«~:x§',"::11i;: :' their names in tbs City Survey and Municipal j Racd§w§s'§' ﬁiersfoit, in the instani case, it was not appr0pri.ate x V' ,f{5£* figs Earned Pr}. Dismict Judge to g0 into the said asgccts

-- to that: vaiidity er Qthenxgise sf the agrcement since the is in ths reaim cf the Aybitratnr. in this ragard? the lsarneﬁ Pr}. Disirictt Judgs has noticsﬁ Ciauses 9 of $113 said I 4:

29

agreement of sale which provided for arbitration naticing that the piarﬁcs have already s11}3je{:tcd""'t}::1em§T:'§c§1x?E:a Vf¥:3 arbitration and the procetzdings :h.éiiI€'< .cg)1nme1i dtid "zis pending before the Sole Arbiuator !3.<:>té u decision in the case: of SB?' C{§§aIPA§¥§f perspective am} has procsttfzdeé {hex éaﬁﬁﬁll' 31317113 Of interim measure. That Judge ﬁas also taken nets of ear?§éfV' 'Q.S,N0.3:3':7)/ 2006 xvhich had r§:$'aii*;f;*c"i:§?i. w'vj§§§.1'§:a,'2a.4;;§;';290%' ({}M~C3PC} , wher£:i3:1 this CoL?;i*i§V'1'i a{£..;}3,$0 ééifiéiusien that the arbitxaﬁon pmcaediiigs' have : 2:;{§e;i{"}y_:aktgﬁznmenced and would have to proceezzi furtliar. ' V *} _1;v..ﬁI'§ﬁér"v4'%§:EC:*e, when the Court had tightly' came to such a <§{:1::z <:;V§usi<«3n;",f further question is as to whether the Court ' 'was jﬁsljfiﬁd Via granting the interim measure of statuswque in 'manﬁérr dame. The contention of the learned Counsel abave with rafemnce 3:9 tlzc judgments which have also " cited supra is that even While consiﬁering {ha grant sf interim meastare under the Act, thrs: same pzinciplas raiating to I \'u-

38 gram: of intsrlacutory oréers. viz, the trigzod 'test would '?5_1§§ive to be fallowcd to §ust:if§; the grant of interim measure mere prima facie case or 90-ssibie success. is _;1Qt sa.1§i{Eicnt4 b'ut_ that ba}a11c:e: of convenience and iiregarablé i;1§«ur}-* a1,:so.V;~eg':.i:ix't:'é; ta ba COI}.$id€i'€d.

12. Though, am ;:3ointed _Q'ii3;V§3y ﬂizei fo1* the assignees, the iznyuggzed {>rd¢_rx:dQe's_._vno£hixidigatcviia detailed ciiscussion 021 $1131' aspe€:':., 3esz}ia€ be considered is whsthmj '1':a;.:a.§s.z::"e :§i;;f" gI'£{1i:iéti'Vis justiﬁed and the m>r1~ gram: 0:" Vihe' *i3I"?3€1'V{)£':E';':£:'>§i'{1}._§~§.§:'¥.;.Q woulzzi have resulted in iI1j1§iI"j_y' tr) the pe:i1a5::¢r'v:uV:he'~.§ee::i9n 9 petition 1.232., the buildmr. In * ._t_hi$ w11€1:Iir3r--..tI::<: assigxxees can succtted because of £115:

sought to be made cut. by them in View cf t§:r:y %;sé:i13 g5 ﬁovésession ef the watan iands or as ten whether [their .V is ilﬂdﬁl" the rcliaquishment d,{i':(i:C1S dated V' " ', a8.€*:3_.a2®a and 12.04.2006 and in that light as to whether the

-- a'5g:?:é»$ii§3nt sf gait: can or caﬁnet be fiI}f(}I'C€d by the buiidsrs is " é. iss:.t1c: to be éccrided by the Arbitrater in the pending : arbinaﬁaﬁ and judicial review {hereafter in a(:<:-zrrrdailce with J 31 the provisions of the Act. That apart, the buﬂderffs have producteci prima. facie documents to izzciieate that _.t1*~:e:§=..'Thave parted with huge amounts which is no doubt but at this stage, it is being dispyzteé ably"

xepresenfatives and not the executz§nts;"et1£e1;'1$(%ives. :H.eﬁ{:e, during the pendency of the $5-'I:'bZ3._f.I':';i1'i{3;i{'i,. if :he'v:"a$$igH3:;eeS permitted to eﬁect the change of efxtﬁt:$_iﬁ I-§;111've"y' and Municipai Records or if aft: to subdivide and transfer the properties :IL:)y "'t1'71e':..mﬁilders, it would cieﬁniteljé"eeLise:{}i;ref%:§i'a§1e:injuzfﬁfWiizasmuch as it is likely to create ~».'s$:i1eﬁ at present itself there is cenﬁxsiegn gai1'c_r*e"1xIitIrf1 to the different nature of rights being ¥a3?"Vt}1e"*pa:"ties to the property which is the V'~.3i1E?je<;€._ "mé1tt<'*:r_V of the agreement, Hence, balance 0f coxiveiiience' is in favour of the builders. Further, the '~m.aIIlﬂ(i1'~. which the reﬁnquishment deeds have come into as recent as in the year 2006 would indicate that the "'«"ap§rehen3i0:u is net Wiﬁleut any hasis. '£'11e:'efore, in such a "*.VVevie::11msta11ce§ 3}} that the trial Cami has directed the yazﬁes is 1:0 maintain st;at,21s--qu0 in xelatien to ownerehjp and possession L *4':

32 0f the ﬁsuit $c:hcdu1e property till the conciusion of the arbitration pmccédings anti as such, the ordar ziees not suffer from any crmr cf Zaw, since the paﬁies Wouid be able 1:9 enjoy the pmpcrtics in the same maxmar as they were cioiIj7g. 1:3i.1;'1:~.*:rt:) and if they c0--opt:rat,r:t and have the -E§i1'bitI'at;i0I} the further judicial review procee€iVi;;;Vgs at €§ie'~ b earliest, the position wouid be ciear. Irz§3@f;;i9r as t}y1'Cv"0;"?'3;IEIS"3«5;f1:3 concerned, in any event, tlxrsy'-.__have Agither with ¥:i1r:_ ' L. property either under the reﬁnqﬁislﬁmcﬁt To} event the assigiiéés also the uitimate orcler granted {<3 .."?:'-..1;_:éiiE.1iS---qlli) in View of the imgending dangesrpf ti1é" ~a$sig;1¢eS--._ch2ii1gi11g the revenue records to their was ..po§z1iéci"------3--ut. As such, the same is also an V":€§§~i1ﬁ{§:b}.€'~.{§f(3§f5TA%:il.€113 fact$ of tbs: present case, which does not cal': fcir inierfzétrﬁtixct.

V4 jmégnsszé Hi cap 1\ia.494l2007:

'A13. insofar as the revision peﬁtion, the same arises frém the suit which has bean filed by 911:5: of the kegs} 1% an reprttsentaﬁvas via, Sri Yallappagouda, who is the son of Basanagoucla Patil. The said Basanaguuda Patjl was a signatory to the aiiegcxi agraement of sale. As noiiceci tfég:*»jsaic1 suit is ﬁled ﬁecking for declaration that the sairi sale dated 23.03.2001 is null and void. No dozilw__lﬁ, as..:ﬁ¢£:c§a above, in View of the: principles 1ai{imVdc::m_:1"..i11.; COMPANY's case , it would {ye o§:aé;1__ l thcll' consiéer with regard the existencﬁf the itself befere referring the "-to afbiiraﬁbxl While considzzajiiésgllv appiication ﬁled under Section thé manner as permissible in the case efa petifiazvﬁ i313.§3--.:21; }' 1(6) of the Act. Similar View is LU')5H':;:-Essa IMPRQVEMENT 'I'RUS'I"s case in a .V'--V;$it1;éa{tin;1"':'§Li"e;IT'€:1ce under Section 1 1(6) of the Act by naticing SB?' ENS case. But such gxzswsr available is in _ ladditiﬁu. tlgtlie power available under Section 16 of the Act and V' «be: észercised in apympriate cases. Though that is the '~«l«.--po'::;£ticn of law, the qtzestic-:1 is as to whether tbs instant case " {pf Similar facts and wheiiher the trial Ceurt, Was. justiﬁrsxl in rejecting the apylicaticzn. The trial C0113': has noticed the l f':

3% earlier proceedings zelaiing to the litigatioe betu?eei:é"fiie_' _ which have been indicated abeve, therefore, I_€3<:;;» p":~'<:::»;:.s:*;se;i0' V. b refer to the details xegazdiag the saigﬁze. 'v2feéceoi; which has prompted the triaigﬁ'-.{}111"i Vtiirsv reject under Section 8 of the Act as }i}mvisi011s contained in Section 8' is to be accompanied by the or a duly cexﬁﬁed c:0§y = has noticed that I.A.N(:as. 6 Vdefendants to produce the 1ette*:9'eVf letter of acceptance by defenéazﬁ. .to the said applications, the trial Court has mereiy Sfateéi that there is 120 reasozz put fszrth A35 penéeney of the earlier suits in and 365/ 20945 the said agreement has not Been A reference is also made to the suit in whieb was ftieci by the present plaintiff and A ..iS2as'Twi£hdzaw*n. The mere reference to the said matters and uiiimate decision indicates that the trial C0311"? has " "VVV}§feCeec1e<:i at a tangent: '1' he sajﬁ suits were irxstituteci in me name of the owners and as such the :10n~me:1f3loz1ing of the i 35 agreemeni a§one cannet lead to adverse i:1f'erence.'...VVT»-Ijf1..Vthe instant case, the fact that a copy of the _ which was ebtained as a cextiﬁeé copy ..

proceedings between the parties tlrm cannot be in dispute inasmuch' 3,3 t]:1eV"l¢_3a111ed Tfiiixmsei ﬁiyr ti11t_t L. glaintiﬂ" himself has attenaptctéf' attébk-- aéignduci of producing a certiﬁed "'0bta§i1g(§ Iifoceedings. That apart, the conVtentic>nH_Q;vtT" not about ﬁle I1on~cxi$£;encc: (sf {}'I'_f?,:.23gI'€3€1]1{'§11'1E a't'£l.1l~.ii£OI7.J:$ it their contention that it iségiiéﬁi 'tizéﬁr aiiegation is 01" concoctirzg tint .. t31eir signatures ané as such considerixig Ltiaat several litigatizms batween the " 371:: agréémeixi proétficsd before the Court was in the facts and circumstance of thfa giiiéscxit' where repeated suits on tbs: same subject 'vgnaticf f¢c;1'«:_aV simiiagr Tﬁliﬁf is ﬁled by diﬁemnt pemo11$. The "..gf;}¢§i}sian in the case: of ATUL sxmn AND OTHERS -vs~ surm

-?'--'KL;;;~v:AR swan ANS OTHERS (20939) See 502) wm1§d not be ""V V{dVf"assistance to the msgyndents herein on both the aspects dmidﬁd mcmm since: the same is Ieirzéered in a circumstance J .1:

Whﬁfﬁ the partner to the earlisr parmexship was sxciudéerj' the sub$t:que;1t parinexshiga deed and in tilatﬁituaficri', _« V' gnamproduction. of dead ccntainmg a§%;'1:3itI*.'faf£i;}V3i"«;:}z3j11$§§, relying on the same, when he was ::;.<::t a Wa'.;3 }:1e1d ix3{11is'«..

favour. In the instant C§:.-'LS6, the V' sigxmtoxy is the: dispétcrl «aﬂd /Vfflﬁ' glisgmted agreement which contains is aiready 3.

gaart: of the judiciai'::)§%x:eé{1iI1§gi§...'bet§éé?é::ut}:u§j's'é1me yarties. "¥'hc: decisien in %1§e::.k:;;§§é:'*--%«;f 4Sft}KANiTA"v--:»HQ'LDiNGS (P) mm «vs- JAYESH"'H%"¥>AT:si';>YA:';%js.m"}'-zgrx:<>'rt§'F;*R"(2003(5} sec: 53 3) is 3180 not of asééstancﬁe .fc)x~. §a« .si1n_i1'2::;j "mason. 'i:i;4;'.' The AAiiec.£....t%i9n relied on in tin: case: of INDIA "».H@VQ:%;E,r:§m:<V%.s§:e--.§ HEALTHCEARE LTD wvs-ﬂ LG. HOESEHOLD Ai§D"E{EAL'§'3ii_fﬁ?sVi2E (20076) soc :'51G)by the lztarned Qounsez 'for Jéegshigness to <:<:sn1;e;:1d that it shmlid ha ioeked at VA '~ éiiﬁléLIa;1ﬂ#s}' also Wotzlé be of no aSSi'.:"~'»'{a.I1iCﬁ. Them can be no with regard to "£116 prc>§ositi::>n sf iaw enunciataﬁ u Hiiierein, but. in the .i1;:st*ani case, as alrsaiiy noticed, the persons whose srignatums €:II"€ contaizled in the agrtzcment have net i '5 38 the present suit was sought in the said suit as well. Per that matter, even the plaintiﬁ" in the instant case is not a sigxftatoxy to the agreement, but is one of the legal represent§§¥i{feS:4§>f.Vt}1e signatory to the agreement. The sigatories haveA.':tio§.'eei1f:e in the' open to disgzute the same but-the1"eAapj;)ea.v1"et etc: V ' War. By the relinquishmeni: deed'bA:'exe-eéited the.' wherein the rights have been CQf1"eJ_¢'E2y€d" tag the '-aesivgheee, the"

present plaintiﬁ" cannot be ﬁéﬁemtxt *3n"..ght'§than that of the assigees and each other is complenientarytv 'A ' wtfz} eziuther, View taken 13 the earlier petition felaiing 'tot' t:11e"'aeSig1'1ee would be relevant for the present. _proee'e:i§i1gs".asA"~§veI1.; It is true that as contended; by ' V' 'the iefmﬂed €L1{)21:z1Se1"f£§r' the assigaee, a judgment of a learned court need not bind another Singie Judge of any View taken therein is eentmxy to the 'decision the Haﬁbie Supreme Court. Such contention was ._ '~:§.i_ya:ieed since according to the learned Counsel, the decision .___""."0fV'ihe iearned Single Judge is not as per the gsrineipie laid "*.a;:>wn in 88? AND Cf3MPANY's case. On that aspect of the matter, I have already Concluded that even after J;

'I 39 understanding the principle as enunciated by the 'ti-.i'['t'21§1'¥a}e Supreme Court in the said ease, the same Wouid to the aid of the plaintiﬁ'. Therefore, the 0It1e:_t')f.:

Single Judge being no diﬁerent to 'be"'no'ﬁCe_eji.-- aspect wlnjch aiso need. ta be noticed the 17' of the plaint has also taken"a:1§' "a1te1't1a?ti§fe'VAe(;z1tet1MQ;en that he is net the owner of -.¥f1'as '1f1e"se§blance of right. If that be the to be taut forth before the ATbi$'Eaf;£téT:- tteeisien, whereas in the earlier __ claimed right over the tttt of a sitailar relief sought relating by a person putting ferth 2:

better _r2.g::1t, ttiis_:V(J03;Li"tAhae.'t1;3}1e1d the order dated 22.12.2006 iﬁasseécta in. G,.S.Nt:'>tV"'3'S}C}/ 2006 whexeia the applicatien in Section 8 of the Act was allowed and the matteufwas. tethered to arbitration which was already gaending, '$3.16 flfﬁﬁieﬁt order dismissing a sitniiar applicatirzm cannot be ééustatinied and the same calls for interference. I 1;3¢ {Ens ether contcmtien urged by the 1e.%s§;:91..1Lt=i¢:f»;VV.i;T';--0i:i3:;~'{i2§3A_V for the owners as well as the assignees is f.'f1E?ii;"'§.;';'?_¢?;::;'$1"§ﬁ'}:1:Z;f;'§I,§1<;33_f is , 11021:: other 11131: the bmﬂzer of 5:36 of the'.»p9:*tr1ei*:§"wQf'<A;ﬁ1e buildsrs. Fhsﬂy, the said coz1tc--t;fion \!?1aS ava§.1s1i:>1eV§:ve11§ at31_1 L. earlier paint of iiﬂifi and 'V':ap'1:i;roved the a:.'bii:ratic.:n grocecdings "p6;{iti<;v#. V;I"hat apart, if is alga to be noticed th;;:_ :::§_¢ is an Arbiuatar agrrsed to betw§;ci.( agreement of sale is bemg of tha ownera and tbs as:«jiVg$1:i'écé:3.,.::;'fVf.§'uﬁi:£sé11g who are the alleged signatozﬁi-:3 31% not qumtioned that same in any inéepenéirznt §ﬁmée_di$;"gs that Woulci have bean. open to I§$;§av,,VA_nor §)m<:::edi.11gss under $e<::'£:i»::>n 11(6) of the "§~I(f:I;:,¢;fé; at ﬁfxis stage, a1} that ceuld be obscrveci is that the said'. C{§n£é:QV£i@1§'T1={$zouId be open to be urged if the u££in1ate jawaré; goéis; against the awncrs and assigness, Tﬁis epimbzx is 'A the decisign (pf '(ha Hawbie Suprema Court in tbs &mm%0; A63 Pzpizmsa CONTRACFS (P) um. ~vs« BHARATH

-«'.. 1T*'£::'§"RGLEUM {3ORP€)RA'I'IQ§\}' LTD. (200? (5) 803 394; mum V upon by the isarned Caunsei for {ha bujléers' 1 *9-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court