Karnataka High Court
M/S Apex Builders vs Sri H V Rangappa on 6 September, 2011
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar, K.Govindarajulu
anh, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 6™ DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011 °. SR SENT ns THE HON'BLE Mr JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTA AHAGOUDAR BETWEEN: Nije Apex alidere, A proprisiary COTICETTL " sented t le © Be Jayaprakash Gupta, Pod. Holder. of the a Proprietrix, Me, . Appeligayt fae Sea Ashok k Baran; Si Adv, lor Sri Yashu Mishea, Adwj te es Ago @ about 74 yeas . Roe. No. 32, HC: Set iat be fe Muniewaray Murlaliar, Aged about 69 yeare, | No.73/8, 218 Crass, 0 oper Mejapriagar, Gergelore-SS0 O10. 3. Smt. Gowran, WioJlate Mr Merapos, Aged about 66 years. CURT OF RARNATAICA NIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH: see é KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C¢ les "GUET GF KARNATAKAHIGH CO WRT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT GF KARNATAKA HI GH COURT GF oe oon et Bat S/o. late Mr ed about 54 y ~~ ae. S/ oleate Mr, Morappa,. wbout 3 86 years, Reaporde onte 2 2 te Bs are eal R/a. Ro. 50; ike sock, , Rei WO Sou. FR Geeta, W/o. Sri _ 'Aged about 38 years, ~~ He. 1471/2, VI Cross, Srirerpuram, Bengalore-360 O21. il. Mr.S PR Krishne Matar, S/olate Sri Rar Aged about $4 years. (Vex siittests Murthy . 7 ek sth ta me ERs LOGE OURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH FP RARNATARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ oh joo Oe 12 chs ite iS. Sel ke Bevi Sher S/o late Sri ke Reeporsienta No.1] to 1¢ are all oo Biaeldle. 1467, Gib Cross; ; iS. St ve amninedd Ayub. Khas, S/o Sri MA &, Khaz, Maser, No.2, "Boo 4h Strect, ae E Cross, Chae tH Chowk Bangalore 360 O84. 4, is, Orci Mohamined Yor ueuf Kher, ah o.Sri1 M A Khen, } or, "Ne. 182, ~ Main sane ON Mapr, 152, 5 5h Main - "ft Black East, Jey. . Benwelore S60 O11, 18. Sri Amjad Ali Khan, S/o.Sri 8 A Subher: Khen, abe 2 rfa.No.J 12/ Appellate uthority Moi Garden, Munirediyo pala Per ce lore- ty S60) OG. COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C TEESE Soh GHGS TUM" RAL LARA HEGRE COURT OF KARNATARA bf yo " Sgarned XT Additional C ry Cr Judge, Bangel Major, t/ oph .. Reanordentts © for R16, 15, 17-19). i under Section BO read with Order sdnet the judgment dated 143. 2006 g 44, 2006 3 tn OS Ro.7436/ 1995 uOre. esting on for MOHAN SHANTARAGOUDAR J delivered the following:- We Haws the learned counsel for the oppellants ivi intit perused the records. Ne nuentation ie made on behalf of the rMsporc.eris. "awed 14.3.2006 im OS No.7436/1996 passed by the xe City. The parties are referred to aa per their ranking before the trial Court for the sees of corverdence. i GQGURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH G@URT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ralerrec, to ag "eult achedule property? hureininfier., 7 "The =
schedule annexed to the- plant 'clearly' mieartionss tee boundaries of the auit feted BeOS He. t¢ 13 ente 20.12.1989 witht the 'Plain i iinet agree ae) schedule propart rey. 7 for a conniecation 'of Be.165/- oer eq. aA ais adva PALS aenowitt of Ret by way fo. ene re "ce of of cheques, The agre antes emit ¢ stipulated thet the b gale consideration. shall. be said by the plaintiff within ei 7 monte after the defendants Ne.l to 13 complying with the Os following ¢ onnditions:
"y Resettlement ef the shirn-dwellere andi art pousession cl the wi othe suit in Derm btior: of thee shure achedule property, OF RARNAT AIA, c hat a PRARNGTAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF KARNATAICA HIGH C¢ mitiert LANA) OF KARMNATARAMIGH COURT © Be
4. "The aforementioned corulitionms were to be coms by the defers! ion from the requisite eutnorties for ue the suit schedule -
iv) Obtain Khate trom the Cerporation of the.
ome ni resdect of the suit ~ 4 Be iom fom: the cmmpetert authority umier the Urban Lard (Ce lation) Act, 1976 in respect of the suit schedule property. . wi) Obteis « Zorancs taxler Chapter MC of "the Income Tax Act idr the sale of the suit iff scheduls property im favour of the p ines setaole title of the "¢ oF tee awit echeedule . peoperty."
re from the date of the Mis Within two ¥ wert. The vit further etipuleted that in case "the deferelante fadl to comply all or any of the conditions referred to above within a period of twa yeare from the date eo _ . = cae Bee, Ecooes Hn EE 7 . 5 eta det! om. ant rn ae ef agrecmery, tne plamull mey at fe oction ask the :
TSH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIG H SGURYT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢
5. ~ lempite.of the as defendants to aell the suit schedule property in its Jewour of 'as ms where is basie' for @ tote! eale consideration of
8.15 lakha. The agr Les Ex. 2.
8 Ga per Ex.PS dated 3 3 4.1999, Ex.P7 dated 15.3.1993 ami Ex.P22 dated 70.4.1988 te the ¢ The notices have been served oc seme of the defend door some of the d the same have Geer retried unser defendants. In thé meanwhile, the plaintiff paid an iditional suum of Rs.One lakh on 8.2.1994 by way of cheq fe ts detersians Nos. 1 ta 1 BE or them ard coruply with the coreitionm: ioposed pied fo ewerute the sale deed i favour of Thus, the plaintiff chose the option of : purchaa wasing te property in ite favour on "as & where is basew" jor tetel ele corsuieration of Re.15 iti the agreement of eale/Ex.P2. But defereiants No.1 tw 13 ga 8 x fe g Cl riot comme forward to ewerute the sale deed mm feu of oF g Bs RiGH COURT KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KAR NATAKA HIGH CC wf Henoe, the suit ant Nos.
Deferdant Noe.1 to 8 ae well ae 1 il t6 3 have adopted the | 7, Subsequently, defen: t eet to 18 were from defendant 'Nos, r te 13 to ati extent of 1500 aq, ff. seach undex four 'sale desde: io De. fer: ded fondant Ke. iS Siled written: atetement. The ant Ros. 1 4 ant 16 $0 18 heve adopted the written statrasert Friend by defen '. @. The onse.of defendant Nos.1 to 13 is that, before dated 20.12.1989, the Wee @eriere inte at Na.l0, mone of the question of to enter ito memorandum of understanding with the pleintill, whatever amourt is pedl te defendant QURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH oo Sat VET OF KARNATAKA HIGH tiff No. 10 by the p J heen gpent in various Wilgations yarost the Sham Clearance Hoare: since the Board slid wat within Bik. noni, *, by 'defendant Nos.1 =) 13; delendant Nos.1 to 13 are not in pes S103. of the land in : posse een ok ecoordarice with question ari thet secur iaw, much leas, obtaining athe from. the 'Corporation is oriy e dr de notification, ihe owners :
28 eri orier of : aL the State Governinent ; 0 ?
ies with "h the Slum Clear one, was help feiss :
Clause 2 of the memmorandiim of urulerst further case sof defendants L to 1S that ve cortege of the putt'p PPO; roperty '<cunen to defendant Nos.14 to 18 under gieo urvler mece dated 2.4.2001 | confirmation deeds dated 11.12.2001. On these among
- other grounds, caiencents No.l te 12 prayed fer dimwdesal = ee" ow ah Oo Oe woe S. ie, "g, have purchased ive portions of property measuring 1600 Bes sete ite Eaves ee Sg Benen cpa, opt sweatin es, esate a ae hes , aq. Ft. each out of the land beering Sy.We22 onder JOURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH Ce or "a é GURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH me Ine 4 ARM ATARA MEG ee JT OF oy 5 oat Sy i.
RiP BOAR ATA ICA MG Plight Capi i Op tered sale deeds dated 2.4.2011 from defendants Ne.Gla} arxi Ofb); 3 of confirmation of aale. were also executed in favour of defendants Ne.14 to 18. on. i the portions purchased by themide met fall. within the sult echecule property and therefore thers was mo bar on the part of defendant Noe.14 t6.19 t purchase the 6aic bite of property.
iO. Based on tue aforementioned pleadings, the following senies were frarned by the trial Court:
"1... Whether. the. plaintiff! proves that the tom gell the seid delendants wre . echeduls property at the rate of Re.165/- recemwed ert agherice amount of Re.l2 lakhs by exeecuti at of aele 61.40.19 Bo?
- | agrest:
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the | 6defendant-10 received further advance of
- 'Re.One lakh on 8.2.94?
4. ether the plaintiff proves thet it has been abvays ready ard willing to pertorr a ig part of tee contract?
- app gree 4 SoBe, aud A Bie oe ed hme EE oe BB cseay BoX stcy cap * WSLIer LG @Uul ie barred: by domtetion T OF KARNATAKA muGh COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ha cs CMIE u Thee © ther the sult ie proverly valued & the oourt ise paid i just & proper? ii. Im support of the of the plewtiff was-exzamined as 32 documerts. On behalf of the defendants, got marleed Want Nol S wae esamined. ae OW! ht deoumdertal:.
12. Baked on the metericl on record end on hea: the sides, the toml Court refused to grant the relief of af contract es well as rere BUMGIction amight by the plamtil < ly decreed only with regard to However, the eult wae o pefurs oF earmeet money of Re.13 lekhe alo five by the said juc a fileci by the plained.
LS. Sf Ashok Haernahsli, learned Senior Courmel .
(OURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA MIGH COURT OF KARMATAKA HIGH Ci MGM UWE Ur RARMATAMAMIGH ¢ fone of the deienianta No.l te 13 have entered the Wiiness 'form its part of contract till the date of fling of the suit; . t the trial Court is not justified mm holding that specific a i8 niet mentioned in the agreement of sale ard that, ie ard cannot be acted upon;
thet defendant Nos.14. to 18 have.ne loctia-etendi te contend that the plaintiif was 'not ready and willing tw Rog.1¢ te 18 perform ite pert of contract: that defendant p part of ; the a of the property In queetion curing the subsistence of the Hiigation before the Trial Court, will fime.DS to DS. On these among other agie the judgment and decree passed by the court below. etetement, they have not denied the execution of E RARNATAICA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH the sale cormideration to the tune of Re.i2 the Taot that they cuted the agresment of aale/Ex.P2 in favour of the plemtil z eng to sell the wut schedule statement regeardirg ulertity of the property. They do HOt ciswute thet they iwita delinite bowrdieries) in favour = plaintiff. é tae iS. None of the defersiacte: No.l to.1S heave ent a box asd have: 'not deposed evidence in support of ther case. Even in thin we ra = next, contend that the: plaintit wae cexer réeacy arn willing to orm. ite part. ol of contract, On the other yeals that the plaintiff was ever fermi ite gart of cortrect. The a slain fT fseued notices ae per Ba.PS dated 3.1.1902, Ex.P? dated 18.4.1998 and subsequently Ex.P22 dated 29.4, if 1998, Though the plaintif hed paid mejor certion of by way of cheque on 8.2.1994. Thus in all < out of total eagle coreideration of Ke.15 i@kne. Tleese ie oething on reoord to ehow the They do not raise any objection i in Wie written ~ to sell t the 6 aut schedule propery ee MiGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 14 it was never ready and willing to pay the remaining eum of Re.Twe lakhe to the defermiante No.1 to 19. On the contrary, Clause S of the einent stipulated that.
deferuiania Ne.i to 12 shell witturl @ period of two years from the date of the agreement comply with certain it. of the .shito-dwellere' : secure physical vecart possession of the suit achedule property.
Demoltion of the shume in the suit .--
ete schedule property: -
ii) Gecure permission from the requisite "authorities for using the suit schedule property for resilential grous housing.
'a i} Obtain Khata from the Corporation of the ie "hh lore in respect of the suit Cotain permission from the competerit i Lerd (len in reepect af Seong the suit schedule property.
"2 Ooten clearence urcer Chapter AM C of the booome Tew Act for the sale of the euit m= a fe -
e f WRENS EIST NMIERS SSE MAR MALARIA Mkt COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH twee years re frem: the date of : " Broperty ie ite favour on 'as is where @ haste warited to purchase the property on as is where ie come ee", 15 schedule property in fevour of the plamntitt herein.
Estableh clear and markseteble t: itis: of the & vendors in reapect of the suit 8 chedule - LS, it ® ret in diapute that noe of the above' 'conditions ae ei by defendants No.t te 13 80 as ts enable the ave full plainui® to go ahead with the. | cole deed.by paying the reqmairing amount of Rs Two. Takhs. * Having me other pled nif fpr oceedied ti 'e out lor gettirg the ealce deed of the suit schedule 'property im is lavour on 'as is where is basis'. fea + Hot in 'dispute that the egreement of ee bes stipulated that BEL oe d the defendants fail i gecure all 'or any of the. conditio is referred to above within a period of reamient, the plaintiff may at its option. ase 'the defemiants to sell the eult echeduls ¢ a i o sale oGrwideration of Re.15 lakhs. Though the plaintiff the SE delendents No.l to 1S did set agres to execute the sale fin Bey ere. ae goat, Bam Bem FS - SE thesis me, fe 4 wnt. sues eee ot Cee¢ anc the sull came ta be Sled, All tmeee faote clear ec aM COURT OF KARMATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH os ei ANE EEA OR AI FERRET Gath ATE EGR ER CEE HO ok fst of go to show that the plaintiff was ready and Willing to periorm its part of contract. i7, "Tine trial Court is net justified in concluding thee che. EASUTCieS are not given in the agroement/Ee.Pa.. ft is no doubt true that the actual MIGSASLIOSReiS are mot- give e in the agreement. But thet docani't moar: that the suit schedule property i not. specified. "As could be eee Feom me plain, (he schodule ie 'mentioned specifically , (he same is asunder: | | SO All the piece ork' parcel of the property bearing Sy Jee ot "Areleons Se : . panahelli (Bormmenshalli, Bangalore South Talhik and bounded on the:
Eeetby ¢-. Howur road and private land Westby: Sy .No.23, Ther Armipura Gadi Herth by 9: Hosur Road Souus by | Sy. No i"
Same are the boundaries mentioned in the achedule attached to the agreement of eale.
"L8.: From the above, if i¢ clear that the definite beurderies: are given in the agreement, t which, the % 4 we; Bow, Eosen bn Lae? ee 8 - me lunand BF x. "4 Brae EOE 2 8 BR, Serpe ot we laintil as well aa deferviant Nos.1 t 13 have Sigried. ed B cs 4 © amy GP 4, ae: ang Boag gs, patton' gpa Deterient Nog.l to iS hewe: not reed arm emection UGE ES PGA Pe LP ef Yayt Tot Wel Pb tet Awe Qi BR LAR Po Pa.
A AME RLM NR, HEE EE AEF that aod Ba EE ENE MH lk adh, AERA AR Tea hae tht PRE PGI EMG POR PERE Ged Od AP . Noa.14 to LS mere partion pay Re.1,36,55,745/- as sale comexieration. Thue it is thet suit echecdule clear sures about 1 acre ark] -37 gurtas. Heroe, there is mo amburuity as such, in tthe reement of sale particulare mm the vuatter of describing ay f the property in the plaint schedule. 12 Tre defendant No 5 was. ean amined as Dwi as etigess om bene of deferdaint No 14 te 1s. His father 2% was signatory i the . agreement af bale ef Ear, a cae a F wt ture is marked ass Ea. Pala), Ts the - erows- exarnination of DW, Era we 6 oink omted te him. Hewever, DWI denies the signs share of Jetner in the that ea 1 inay. 4 since 6 agreement ¢ of agile imei' is not Garis, by arty of 'the deferdants imchiding defersdart ly, the defendant Hos.) te 16, eeryect ol eagle Goes net the question of further proof of e BPs.
; 20, Reta telly, defendants Bo.l4 t 18 are the : qessuring 25 x GO aq.
&., each weer four sale deeda/Eus.O1-D4. The mueterial = ees thet an order of myuricton wee Sue He?
Sof FEI EAR EEE Mae thal GPT, Sha ES, EEO ASOD, EEE AR Nase GR ES BRA PRO FS, PEELE Se bol LP PL IRR BREE AL PARIS OR PE Ri Pg fet ES Mae BE AM GE A iE gl awe Seal Hal! BY | : subs! istonee of the order of temporary iyunction im the operating im the suit restraining ther from alenating the euit echedule property or ary pert thereof to tiird parties. inapite oi the sare, deferiants No.Ola) aml Wh), who are. "the eget representatives of the deceased detendait No 9, proose ded to well the property of the aforementioned exten ini fawour | of defendants No.1 to 18. Thus, a is clear that tae sale te} oid afb) a an fevers of defendants No.1. te 'by the principles of He- perviem. Co sep ently, : sy invot be acted oper.
21. tw netan aia pute thet the infanction was operating againat thé defe adits ivte 15 restraining them from atienes ang the property 1 question. Crrnyg the .
ot vil suit sigedars He.9 8 PS Se ye ee ee eee GE oe oh ae "eet, % 7 ee Zak Hoo ie., ce@encen Nos Qa) are Yb) ip alenate tre auit if Be ee % & sagas 2g ee eee sg pate oriperty aryl commequentiy, the celerndant Nee. Sle) anc eet 7% , Sonu ya Pgh g & ee es Gu, have eel four bile of preperties m2 Tevowur of the PPE AP Qe BURP POR Pie ee A, BA AI PS A PA Sha tind Sef #8 SRL ESA EOS PLETE AAPL FREY a LO Sap eg te! ite case for the relief of specific performance of entered into witness bom to optioee ine case OEE T UPS BP ube BRR RG Reta hat Gh hE ERE SOR RP, EE SER EE 10 to 13 ewe authoriaed the legal representatives of a ;
E 2 No.9 to sell the properties, tm mot open fee thie defendant Noa.l to i3 to contend that thé ord eer. of injunction does not bind dei aelling sult achedule pro "4 net the sele made m favour of delervianta 14 18 - a e ee by defendants Ofa) to 90h) of iota bite of the sult property al, inaexmuch a, ye ale i made curing the perdency of the ith gation, that toe, during the subsiatemce ef the order at injunct MEE rope traning ellen tion. eee Having | pertcad the i aovesail material on record, we are clearly * of tne conclusion 'that the plaintit hea proved of pul mer the plaintiff is entitled for the said relief. m . : is 3 a % #8 Pa Mor recover re. aloremernhoned, inere @ mo opposdien of eens ndenta fo. to 13 for grenmt of rede? of epeciic porinmance i fevour of the plait, as teey news mot 6 o es = Ey a. ee a ene _ om % Reecnecn qrscnoiy ate trtpgny, Dosmapey $ PERSE, Ee EOE ier Tere Feces fo be creorr SERIE EES, @ Bann 1 ta iL 4 hae bell be the "heoceme aeervlar® foe. te LS #8 fee been bell oy tae Sucre enka a Es ee et aa $e & Court Di tee case of Vidowacher -ve- Maricerac ex. tae plewtilf, has feeuone eteted above, we fir that the naasoms aeeigned by Tea th a eh TR hee gl Raat RO at er on ee a a. cee a 4 oe eae Eta, oi aaneeodes - ten guy le tae Trial Court arc the conchision arravec af on both the arioter reported in Ale 1UGG BC 1441. Addec te nm, tne defendant Nos.14 to 18 carmot raise plea of readinmes. arul willingness as they are the subsequent purchasers, that - too, durmg the pendency of the eum. / the Supreme Court in the case of M M S lrivwesetments, durai & ore. -ve~ V Veerapoan & ore. ceporied ui AIR a t the newly nnuleaded defendants, who 2007 SC 2663 are the ul uenl purchasers, cimriot ree pl the absence of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff. In-wew of tee above, the judgement amd decree dated 14.3,2006 in GS No.7436/1996 passed by the leer ri pal 'Addaisrival. City Coan Judge, Pe @ 4 the Tyruel Court = wetiied in anawering wsues No.1, 2, 4 and 5 in favour of it holding issue Hos. amd 6 against the plaintiff on the ground thet the plaintiff was orn ie ocbligetion arsi the pectic area @ mot mentioned in the schedule. For the Boo BO