Bangalore District Court
Puttaraju N vs M/S Cosmos Shelters And Structures (P) ... on 10 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. (CCH-90)
Present: Sri.K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR., LLM, M.Phil,
LXXXIX Addl.City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024
Com.O.S.No.381/2020
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Sri.N.Puttaraju,
S/o.Narayanappa,
Aged about 44 years,
2. Sri.N.Srinivas,
S/o.Narayanappa,
Aged about 41 years,
Both are R/at No.8,
Maruthinagar,
Kaikondanahalli,
Bengaluru-560 035.
(For Plaintiff No.1 & 2
By Sri.A.M.Suresh Reddy-Advocate)
-Vs-
DEFENDANTS: 1. M/s.Cosmos Shelters and
Structures (P) Ltd.,
A Company registered under the
Provisions of Companies Act,
/2/
Com.O.S.No.381/2020
Having its registered office at
No.475, 7th Main, 4th Block,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 011.
Represented by its
Managing Director,
Sri.Shyam Sundar.K.R,
S/o.K.S.Ranganatha Rao,
Aged about 49 years,
(By Smt.C.A-Advocate)
2. Mrs.Ashwini.M.
W/o.Sathish.K.V,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.84, Kachamaranahalli,
Gunjar Post, Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru-560 087.
(Exparte)
3. Mrs.Shalini Vaikuntanath,
W/o.Vaikuntanath Kakarla,
Aged about 44 years,
4. Mr.Vaikuntanath Kakarla,
Aged about 51 years,
S/o.Late K.V.Balasubramanian,
Defendants 3 and 4 are
Represented by their Attorney Holder,
Sri.H.Mahadevan,
S/o Late.K.Harihara lyer,
R/at No.B-2,
Alsa Crescourt 108,
Londons Road, Kilpauk,
/3/
Com.O.S.No.381/2020
Chennai-600 010.
5. Mrs.D.Suchitra,
W/o T.V.Raveendran,
Aged about 45 years
6. Mr.T.V.Raveendran,
S/o.T.S.Vasudevan,
Aged about 49 years,
Defendants 5 and 6 are
R/at No.B3, Fortuna Serenity,
6th D Cross, Kaggadasapura,
C.V.Raman Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 093.
7. Mrs.Suchitra Subramanian,
W/o K.S.Venkatakrishnan,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.102,
LMP Vrinda Apartments,
Bellendur Main Road,
Bellendur, Bengaluru-560 103.
8. Mr.S.Subramanian,
S/o Late K.Srinivsan,
Aged about 73 years,
R/at No.104,
LMP Vrinda Apartments,
Bellendur Main Road,
Bellendur, Bengaluru-560 103.
9. Mr.Krishna Sumanth Samprathi
Prakasam,
S/o Late.Samprathi
Krishnaswamaiah Prakasam,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.24, 1st Main Road,
/4/
Com.O.S.No.381/2020
Muneshwara Temple Street,
Venkate Gowda Extension,
Hebbal, Kempapura,
Bengaluru-560 024.
(For defendants No.3 to 9
By Mr.George Joseph-Advocate)
Date of Institution of suit : 05.12.2020
Nature of suit : Declaration & Injunction
(suit on pronote, suit for
declaration and
possession suit for
injunction, etc.,)
Date of commencement : 09.06.2022
of recording of evidence
Date of judgment : 10.09.2024
Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
03 09 05
(K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR)
LXXXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU. (CCH-90)
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed this suit praying the court to pass a judgment and decree against the defendants
a). Declaring that Joint Development Agreement dated 10.05.2012 registered as Document No.00546/2012-13, CD /5/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 No.INRD36, in the office of Sub-Registrar, Indiranagar, Bengaluru and General Power of Attorney dated 10.05.2012 registered as Document No.00109/2012-13, CD No.INRD36, in the office of Sub-Registrar, Indiranagar, Bengaluru, are terminated and cancelled.
b). Consequently, direct the defendant No.1 to execute and register Deed of cancellation of the Joint Development Agreement dated 10.05.2012 and in case the defendant No.1 fails to execute the Deed of Cancellation, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to execute the Cancellation Deed in favor of the plaintiffs.
c). Consequently direct the defendant No.1 to demolish the incomplete structure on the schedule property and to bring the suit schedule property to its original status at its cost and in case the defendant No.1 fails to demolish the incomplete structure, permit the plaintiffs to demolish the same at the cost of the defendant No.1.
d). Consequently direct the defendant No.1 to handover the custody of the original documents which were handed over by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.1 at the time of execution of Joint Development Agreement.
e). Consequently declare that the Sale Deed dated 16.04.2016 executed in favor of defendant No.2 i.e., Smt.Ashwini.M. registered as Document No.363/2016-17, /6/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 Book 1, stored in CD No.INRD167 in the office of Sub- Registrar, Indiranagar, Bengaluru, in respect of proposed flat bg.No.B-301, having super built up area measuring 1250 sq.ft. along with 555 sq.ft. of undivided share in the schedule property as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
f). Consequently, declare that the Sale deed dated 02.02.2019 executed in favor of defendant No.3 and 4 i.e., Smt.Shalini Vaikuntanath & Sri.Vaikuntanath Kakarla, registered as Document No.18170/2018-19, Book 1, stored in CD No.BNSD694 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi, Bengaluru, in respect of proposed flat bg.No.A- 401, having super built up area measuring 1725 sq.ft. Along with 841.91 sq.ft of undivided share in the schedule property as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
g). Consequently declare that the Sale deed dated 02.02.2019 executed in favor of defendant No.5 and 6 i.e., Smt.D.Suchitra & Sri.T.V.Raveendran, registered as Document No.18171/2018-19, Book 1, stored in CD No.BNSD694 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi, Bengaluru, in respect of proposed flat bg.No.A-201, having super built up area measuring 1725 sq.ft. along with 841.91 sq.ft. of undivided share in the schedule property as /7/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
h). Consequently declare that the Sale Deed dated 02.02.2019 executed in favor of defendant No.7 and 8 i.e., Smt.Suchitra Subramanian & Sri.S.Subramanian, registered as Document No.18174/2018-19, Book 1, stored in CD No.BNSD694, in the office of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi, Bengaluru, in respect of proposed flat bg.No.A- 101, having super built up area measuring 1650 sq.ft. along with 805.30 sq.ft. of undivided share in the schedule property as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
I). Consequently declare that the Sale deed dated 02.02.2019 executed in favor of defendant No.9 i.e., Sri.Krishna Sumanth Samprathi Prakasam, registered as Document No.18176/2018-19, Book 1, stored in CD No.BNSD694 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi, Bengaluru, in respect of proposed flat bg.No.A-301, having super built up area measuring 1725 sq.ft. along with 841.91 sq.ft of undivided share in the schedule property as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
j). Consequently declare that the Sale deed dated 02.02.2019 executed in favor of the defendant No.3 to 9 (in the plaint wrongly mentioned as defendant No.3 and 9), registered as Document No.18172/2018-19, Book 1, stored /8/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 in CD No.BNSD694 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Banaswadi, Bengaluru, in respect of proposed flat bg.No.C- 301, having super built up area measuring 1325 sq.ft. along with 646.68 sq.ft. of undivided share in the schedule property as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
k). Consequently direct the office of this Hon'ble Court, to send the copy of the decree to the office of the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar/s, to make a note on the copy of the instruments contained in their books, the fact of cancellation of the aforesaid sale deeds.
l). Permanently restrain the defendants, their representatives agents and any person claiming interest or authority under defendants in any manner from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property by plaintiffs by way of Permanent Injunction.
m). Permanently restrain the defendants, agents, henchmen or any other person claiming interest or authority under the defendants from creating third party rights in respect of the schedule property by way of permanent injunction.
n). Direct the defendant to pay sum of ₹.18,44,000/- being compensation / damage amount from the date 10.05.2014 to 27.08.2018 and further direct the defendant /9/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 to pay a sum of ₹.16,43,760/- being co mpensation / damages from 28.08.2018 till the date of filing of this suit along with interest @ 18% till the date of actual payment of the above said amounts.
o). Direct the defendant to continue to pay a sum of ₹.60,880/- p.m. as damages from the date of filing of the suit till the defendant execute and register the deed of cancellation of Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney and till the date of demolition of the incomplete structure on the schedule property to its original status by defendant No.1 and on failure of defendant No.1 to do so direct the defendant No.1 to pay said sum with interest @ 18% p.a. from due date of payment till date of actual payment and for costs and such other reliefs.
The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under:
02. That, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in possession and enjoyment of the residential converted property bearing site No.12, Katha No.335, New BBMP Katha No.365/335/12, measuring 4000 sq.ft and Site No.13, Katha No.336, New BBMP Katha No.366/336/13, measuring East to West on the Northern side 108 feet, on the southern side 80 feet and 25 feet and North to South /10/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 on the Eastern side 40 feet, on the Western side 50 feet plus 20 feet in all measuring 4302 sq. ft, both sites together measures 8302 sq.ft, situated at Junnasandra Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk which is henceforth described as schedule property.
03. That, the defendant No.1 is a company registered under Companies Act, and is represented by its Managing Director. The defendant No.1 is into business of developing properties. The defendant No.1 after satisfying with the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property, offered to develop the same into Multi-storied residential apartment building.
04. That, in pursuance of the offer and acceptance, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 10.05.2012 and in order to facilitate the defendant No.1 to comply by the obligations and conditions of the Joint Development Agreement and to complete the development and construction within the time fixed under the agreement, the plaintiffs executed a General Power of Attorney dated 10.05.2012 in favor of defendant No.1.
/11/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
05. That, as per the terms of the Joint Development Agreement dated 10.05.2012 the plaintiffs are entitled for 45% of the super built up area of the apartment building and corresponding 45% of the undivided share in the schedule property and the defendant No.1 is entitled for 55% of the super built up area of the apartment building and corresponding 55% of the undivided share in the suit schedule property.
06. That, as per Clause 6 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 10.05.2012, the defendant No.1 had agreed to complete the construction of the multistoried residential apartment building in all respects and deliver the plaintiffs constructed area within a period of 18 months plus grace period of 3 months from the date of obtaining plan sanction approved from the competent authority.
07. That, the building plan for construction of the multistoried residential building in the suit schedule property was approved by the BBMP on 03.05.2012 as per LP No.28/2013-14 and validity of said sanction plan was till 02.05.2014.
/12/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
08. That, the defendant No.1 had agreed to commence the construction of building on the suit schedule property within 1 month from the date of approved sanction plan. That in compliance of the terms of the Joint Development Agreement dated 10.05.2012, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 entered into sharing agreement dated 13.06.2012.
09. That as per the sharing agreement, the plaintiffs are allotted the following flats/apartments:-
Sl. Flat Floor Super built up Descritip No. of Car No. No. area in sq.ft. tions Parking
1. 1-B First 1195 2 BHK 1
2. 1-C First 1265 2 BHK 1
3. 2-B Second 1250 2 BHK 1
4. 2-C Second 1325 2 BHK 1
5. 4-B Fourth 1250 2 BHK 1
6. 4-C Fourth 1325 2 BHK 1 Total 7610 6
10. As per the sharing agreement, the defendant No.1 is allotted the following flats/apartments.
Sl. Flat No. Floor Super built Descriptions No. of
No. up area in Car
sq.ft. Parking
1. 1-A First 1650 3 BHK 1
/13/
Com.O.S.No.381/2020
2. 2-A Second 1725 3 BHK 1
3. 3-A Third 1725 3 BHK 1
4. 3-B Third 1250 2 BHK 1
5. 3-C Third 1325 2 BHK 1
6. 4-A Fourth 1725 3 BHK 1
Total 9400 6
11. That, the defendant No.1 has commenced the construction in the year 2012 and has put up only structure of the building and subsequently failed to complete the construction of several internal walls, internal plastering, outside plastering, plumbing, electrical works, painting, flooring, doors and windows, kitchen works and several other works in the building and failed to get the electricity, water and sanitary connections and other agreed amenities and as such the defendant No.1 has violated the fundamental terms and conditions of the Joint Development Agreement.
12. That, the plaintiffs have complied and fulfilled all the terms and obligations on their part under the Joint Development Agreement. However, the defendant No.1 has completed only 30% of the work and failed to complete remaining 70% of the work of the development and as such /14/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 failed to deliver the flats allotted to the share of the plaintiffs under the Sharing Agreement.
13. That, the request and demands made by the plaintiffs to defendant No.1 to comply the terms of Joint Development Agreement and to complete the construction has failed to achieve any results.
14. That, as per the Clause 6 of the Joint Development Agreement, the defendant No.1 had agreed that in case of any delay in completion of the construction and handing over the possession of the plaintiffs constructed area beyond the time fixed under the agreement, the defendant No.1 would compensate the plaintiffs by paying the amount equivalent to the monthly rent in respect of each flat allocated to the share of the plaintiffs which shall not be lesser than ₹.8/- per sq.ft for each months delay.
15. The defendant No.1 despite not completing the project has failed to comply the terms regarding the payment of compensation to the plaintiffs and further failed to respond to the legitimate claims and demands /15/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 made by the plaintiffs in terms of the Joint Development Agreement.
16. That, as per the Clause 7.4 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 10.05.2012, the defendant No.1 had agreed to indemnify against any loss or liability on account of any failure on the part of the defendant No.1 to discharge its liability/obligations or on account of any act, omission or commission in using the schedule property or arising out of putting up of construction. Hence, the plaintiffs are legally entitled for the compensation and as well as damages from the defendant No.1.
17. That, on 08.08.2018, the defendant No.1 got issued a notice to the plaintiffs, alleging that due to the demonetization and downfall and sluggish in real estate market and other adverse market condition, the project is delayed and also contended that defendant has paid a sum of ₹.10,00,000/- to the plaintiffs to appropriate the same towards monthly rents in respect of each flat and also made allegations that the plaintiffs have stopped the construction work and as such called upon the plaintiffs to /16/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 permit the defendant No.1, their employees, labors etc., to carry out the work in order to ensure the completion and handing over the owners share of the building and also alleged regarding execution of the agreement of sales in respect of the flats allotted to the share of the defendant No.1.
18. That, by refuting the allegations the plaintiffs replied the said notice on 27.08.2018. The plaintiffs have contended that the construction work is stopped around 4 years back and the plaintiffs are entitled to minimum compensation at ₹.60,880/- p.m. from May 2014 and due to the inaction on the part of the defendant No.1 in completing the project has resulted in huge loss and as such terminated/cancelled the Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney dated 10.05.2012 in view of fundamental breach and called upon the defendant No.1 to execute registered Deed of Cancellation of Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney.
19. That, defendant on receipt of the aforesaid reply has issued rejoinder dated 14.09.2018 reiterating the /17/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 contents of notice, but failed to complete the project nor has paid the agreed compensation amount.
20. That, as per Clause 8.2 of the Joint Development Agreement dated 10.5.2012, the defendant No.1 and plaintiffs are entitled to enter into agreement for sale in respect of their respective share/s of super built up area along with corresponding undivided share in the schedule property with any person/s intending to own flat/unit or to enter into construction agreement with such intending unit holders. Hence, the defendant No.1 was only entitled to enter into agreement of sale and construction.
21. That, on 16.11.2020 some third parties visited the suit schedule property and the plaintiffs questioned the said persons, they intimated that the flats are for sale. Hence, the plaintiffs immediately applied for encumbrance certificate on 17.11.2020 in respect of the suit schedule property and secured the same on 18.11.2020 and on perusal of the same was shocked and surprised to notice that the defendant No.1 has transacted all the flats allotted to his share under the sharing agreement in favor of defendant No.2 to 9. That, on securing the certified copies /18/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 of the alleged sale deeds, the plaintiff learnt that the defendant No.1 in collusion with the defendants 2 to 9 in violation of the terms and Joint Development Agreement, sharing agreement and notice exchanged has executed the alleged sale deeds showing wrong flat/apartment numbers, measurements and fictitious sale consideration.
22. That, the defendant No.1 violating the terms of the Joint Development Agreement, has executed the alleged sale deed dated 16.04.2016 in favor of defendant No.2, i.e., Mrs.Ashwini.M having super built up area measuring 1250 sq.ft. along with 555 sq.ft of undivided share in the schedule property. Hence, the sale deed is void and not binding on the plaintiffs.
23. That, the defendant No.1 violating the terms of Joint Development Agreement and after the exchange of notice and reply, has executed the alleged sale deeds dated 02.02.2019 in favor of defendant No.3 i.e., Mrs.Shalini Vaikuntanath and defendant No.4 i.e., Vaikuntanath Kakarla, in favor of defendant No.5 i.e., Mrs.D.Suchitra, and defendant No.6 i.e., Mr.T.V.Raveendran, and in favor of defendant No.7 i.e., Mr.Suchitra Subramanian, /19/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 defendant No.8 i.e., Mr.S.Subramanian, and in favor defendant No.9 i.e., Mr.Krishna Suman Samprathi prakasam and in favor of defendant No.3 to 9 vide registered sale deeds dated 02.02.2019.
24. That, the defendant No.1 was legally entitled to execute the sale deeds in favor of the agreement holder only after the completion of the construction of the building in all respects with amenities and on securing the occupancy certificate as required under law and on registering the project under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act & Rules. The defendant No.1 in order to deprive and nullify the effect of cancellation of Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney sought by the plaintiffs in the reply dated 27.08.2018 in collusion with defendants No.3 to 9 has executed illegal sale deeds dated 02.02.2019. As such the sale deeds are null and void and also not binding on the plaintiffs.
25. That, the aforesaid acts of the defendants and contents of the aforesaid sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favor of the defendants No.2 to 9 clearly /20/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 demonstrates that there is a collusion between the defendants and are made with the sole intention of defrauding the plaintiffs, the alleged sale deeds are obtained by the defendant No.2 to 9 despite having the knowledge of the fundamental breach on the part of the defendant No.1 and also the termination of the Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney as per reply dated 27.08.2018.
26. That, the fact that the Joint Development Agreement is of the year 2012 and the construction of apartment building was required to be completed on or before 10.05.2014 and further the validity of the sanction plan having been expired long back in the year 2014 and since no efforts were made by the defendant No.1 to renew the plan and to complete the construction of the apartment building in all respects with all amenities and facilities as agreed and to secure the occupancy certificate and failure to register the project as required under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act & Rules, clearly demonstrates that the defendant No.1 was never ready and willing to perform the obligations under the Joint Development Agreement and has no means to proceed with /21/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 the construction and complete the project as agreed either within the time stipulated under the agreement or at any point of time.
27. That, the defendant No.1 alone is bound to answer the alleged claims if any of the defendants No.2 to 9 and the execution of the alleged sale deeds does not restrict or debar the plaintiffs from exercising their right of cancellation of the Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney in the facts and circumstances of the case.
28. That, the incomplete building structure constructed on the suit schedule property is more than eight years old and unattended for so long and as there is a substantial material damage, leakage and weakness and further the construction has lost its strength due to passage of time and natural wear and tear, the same requires to be demolished at the cost and risk of the defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 is also obligated to bring the suit schedule property to its original status in view of default.
/22/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
29. That, in terms of the Joint Development Agreement, the defendant No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the plaintiffs at the minimum rate of ₹.60,880/- p.m. from 10.05.2014 till 27.08.2018 amounting to ₹.30,44,000/-.
30. That, the defendant No.1 has paid a sum of ₹.12,00,000/- to the plaintiff, being the refundable security deposit, which amount is required to be refunded by the plaintiffs after the completion of the project. Since, the defendant No.1 has failed to perform or complete the obligations under the Joint Development Agreement and in view of the fact that the Joint Development Agreement is terminated/cancelled, the plaintiffs are legally entitled to adjust the refundable security deposit of ₹.12,00,000/- towards portion of the aforesaid compensation amount of ₹.30,44,000/-. As such the defendant No.1 is liable to pay ₹.18,44,000/- to the plaintiffs and since, the transaction between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 is commercial in nature, the defendant No.1 is liable to pay the aforesaid amount along with interest @ 18% p.m from September 2018 till the repayment of the same.
/23/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
31. That, the fact that the plaintiffs are deprived of their legal entitlement of income from the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs are also entitled for damages from the defendant No.1 @ ₹.60,880/- p.m. from 28.08.2018 to till the date of filing of this suit. Hence, the defendant No.1 is liable to pay a sum of ₹.16,43,760/-(i.e,. ₹.60,880/- X 27 months) along with interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of the payment of the said damages and further the plaintiffs are also entitled for damages from the defendant No.1 @ ₹.60,880/- p.m. from the date of filing of this suit to till the date of execution and registration of the Deed of Cancellation of Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney dated 10.05.2012 and demolition of the incomplete structure on the schedule property and bringing the suit schedule property to its original status at the cost and risk of the defendant No.1. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the reliefs of declaration, consequential demolition, compensation, damages, permanent injunction and such other reliefs.
32. That, on 24.11.2020 when the persons claiming to be representatives of defendants tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property, /24/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 the same was resisted by plaintiffs and the said persons left the spot, however proclaimed that the defendants are making arrangements to transfer the flats to third parties. The defendants might go to any extent to deprive the rights of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. By contending so, the plaintiffs have prayed to decree the suit.
33. Upon service of summons, the defendant No.1 and No.3 to 9 have appeared through their counsels and have filed separate written statement by denying the entire case of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.2 has been placed exparte.
34. In the written statement the defendant No.1 has contended that at the outset the above suit is not maintainable before this Court either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs, as the defendant No.1 has already acted upon the said JDA and GPA.
35. That, the defendant No.1 is a company registered under companies Act and was engaged in the business of development of land and residential and commercial buildings.
/25/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
36. That, the defendant No.1 company had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the plaintiffs on 10.05.2012 and also the plaintiffs executed an irrevocable General Power of Attorney in favor of the defendant No.1 and as per the same the defendant No.1 has got right to develop the suit schedule property and to construct apartment units in the schedule property.
37. That, the first defendant has paid ₹.12,00,000/- as refundable deposit and ₹.10,00,000/- as non- refundable deposit to the plaintiffs. That, the first defendant was entitled to 55% undivided share, right, title, interest and ownership in and to the said property with a right to nominate prospective purchasers of its choice who would obtain the construction of residential apartment through the first defendant with proportionate undivided share in the said land. That, the defendant No.1 with fond hope of building an apartment units had entered into the said Joint Development Agreement with the plaintiffs. That, all required sanctions and approvals were obtained by the defendant No.1 on its own costs to complete the project.
/26/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
38. That, the defendant No.1 had also started construction work by investing huge sum of amounts by obtaining financial assistance from various persons and also found the genuine purchasers i.e, defendants No.2 to 9 and entered construction agreement with them and also received part of sale consideration from them and the same was invested and utilized for the purpose of developing the land and construction of building.
39. That, when the project was about to complete, the plaintiffs in the year 2014 got an offer from the neighboring property developer to convert the apartment complex into a PG Accommodation thereby earning additional income. The plaintiffs were very interested in the proposal. The plaintiffs requested the defendant No.1 to organize meeting with defendant No.3 to 9 and plaintiffs offered the defendants to repurchase their proposed UDS and constructed area for a valuable sale consideration. But the defendant No.3 to 9 did not agree with the proposal of the plaintiffs because they are the genuine purchasers of apartments for their own dwelling purpose only and not for sale. The plaintiffs made some offers regarding the repurchase of the schedule property but it was not amenable and the defendant No.1 /27/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 was not ready for betraying the defendant No.3 to 9, who had already entered into sale and construction agreements with the defendant No.1 and had already paid part sale consideration to the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 resumed the construction work in 2015 by investing another large chunk of money, procured even by the sale of the personal property of the father of the Managing Director Mr.Shyam Sundar to complete the project. But, the plaintiffs started quarreling with defendant No.1 and its employees with ulterior motive to illegally snatch the entire property which was under the development by the defendant No.1. The plaintiffs greedy attitude for money made problems for completion of project in time and it was adversely affected the interest of the other defendants too. The defendant No.1 and other defendants made several requests to the plaintiff to sort out the problems but the plaintiff was not ready for anything. Thereafter, the 1 st defendant executed sale deeds of partly completed building with its proportionate UDS to the defendant Nos.2 to 9 and also handed over the possession, title, interest and ownership of their respective apartments to each defendant. The 1st defendant had done this as per the right obtained by him through Joint Development Agreement /28/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 and General Power of Attorney dated 10.05.2012. Thus, the 1st defendant had already sold its allocable share, right, title, interest and ownership, strictly in adherence with the provision of the Joint Development Agreement, General Power of Attorney and sharing Agreement to the defendants.
40. That the only reason for the non-compliance of the project 'Cosmos Swara' was the non-cooperation of the plaintiffs and their unwanted intention and intervention to bypass the Joint Development Agreement, which has caused all the defendants to sustain huge loss and which cannot be compensated.
41. That, the plaintiffs have approached this Court with unclean hands and are seeking for cancellation of Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney by suing arm twisting tactics to make unjust enrichment at the sole costs of other defendants too. As per the registered Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney the defendant No.1 has also rights of 55% share over the constructed building and UDS over the land.
/29/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
42. That, the above suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The plaintiffs have approached this Court after the time of limitation. By contending so, the defendant No.1 prays to dismiss the suit with huge costs in the interest of justice and equity.
43. On the other hand, even though the defendant No.3 to 9 have filed their separate written statements the contents are more or less similar as below:
44. That, the suit of the plaintiff is bereft of any merit in law or on facts and hence the same is liable to dismissed in limine. That this suit is also to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party, as the other Director of the defendant No.1 company is deliberately excluded from the party arrayed of this suit. That, this suit is filed merely on an experimental basis.
45. That, the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs are not maintainable either in law or on facts as the same is barred by law of limitation. The defendants No.3 to 9 deny all the allegations made in the plaint except those which are specifically admitted therein. That, the plaintiffs have no /30/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 cause of action against these defendants No.3 to 9 as the remedy is specifically defined in the Joint Development Agreement dated 10.05.2012.
46. That, the plaintiffs were the absolute owners of schedule property totally measuring 8302 Sq.ft and the said land was handed over to the 1 st defendant for developing the said land into a multi storied residential apartment. The defendant No.1 a company registered under Companies Act and engaging business in the field of developing properties and the same has entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the plaintiffs on 10.05.2012. The plaintiffs also have executed a General Power of Attorney. As per the terms of the said JDA and GPA, the first defendant obtained right to develop the said property into a multistoried residential apartment building and the 1st defendant was entitled to 55% undivided share, right, title, interest and ownership in and to the said property with a right to nominate purchasers of its choice who would obtain the construction of residential apartment through the 1st defendant with proportionate undivided share in the said land. Accordingly, the 1 st defendant got plan sanctioned on 03.05.2012 from BBMP for the project /31/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 by name 'COSMOS SWARA' and hence has formulated an integrated scheme of construction.
47. That, the defendants were approached by the 1st defendant to join the said scheme of construction of the residential apartment and to purchase a 2 BHK and 3 BHK Apartment along with one covered car parking slot, together with proportionate UDS in the land and proportionate share in common areas in the said project under a separate agreement. On 11.03.2013, 13.03.2013, 31.08.2013 an agreements for sale of undivided share of land was executed among the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and the defendants No.3 to 9 as purchasers to purchase proportionate undivided share for a sale consideration of ₹.8,06,424/- by defendant No.3 and 4, ₹.8,06,424/-by defendant No.5 and 6, Rs. 7,71,372/- by defendant No.7 and 8 and Rs. 7,71,372/- by defendant No.9 and subject to a right of the defendants to obtain the construction of a residential flats of the agreed measurement in the residential apartment building known as 'COSMOS SWARA'.
/32/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
48. That, the defendants also entered into a construction agreement on various dates with the first defendant to construct the above said apartment by paying of various amounts as per the progress of the construction in phased manner. The defendants as borrowers, along with defendant No.1 as developer and LIC Housing Finance Ltd., as financier, have entered into a Tripartite Agreement on 19.06.2013 for payment of the various paid amount for construction to the defendant No.1 in accordance with the progress of the construction, in phased manner.
49. That, as per the said construction agreements the first defendant should handover the said constructed apartment within 16 months from the date of agreement and deliver vacant possession of the same on receipt of the entire cost of construction. In case of unforeseen incidents which cause delay after the expiry of grace period of three months from expiry of the said 16 months, the first defendant undertook to compensate the defendants herein by a fair monthly rental amount @ ₹.8/- per sq.ft for each month's delay through the said agreement.
/33/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
50. That, the defendant No.1 has failed to hand over the constructed apartment within the agreed time frame, even though the financier of the defendants were paying the agreed construction amount, as per the terms contained in the said tripartite agreement. That the defendants suffered huge financial losses not only due to the callous attitude of the defendant No.1 but also have paid huge interest to their financier. The defendants made several demands for the performance of the agreements dated 11.03.2023, 13.03.2013 and 31.08.2013 to the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. That, the defendants have been continuously requesting both the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the JDA and GPA, and execute and register the sale deed in the year of 2017 itself. But the defendant No.1 has failed to complete the construction of the entire building as agreed. Thereafter, on 02.02.2019, the plaintiffs represented by their power of attorney holder and defendant No.1 have sold the flats in favor of the defendants and handed over the vacant possession of the property on the very same day.
/34/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
51. That, the plaintiffs being fully aware of these true facts and circumstances have wantonly withheld these facts from this Court and has made a patently false claim of ownership over the suit schedule property, to make unjust enrichment at the cost and consequences of these defendants. That, these defendants cannot live in the said apartment, as the same has not been completed. These defendants are trying to organize some fund to complete the remaining works of their apartment and start living therein.
52. That, the plaint is a concocted story, created by the plaintiffs, for the purpose of overcoming the question of Law of Limitation and there is no any iota of truth in it. That, the defendants have no intention of selling their apartment at any point of time and rather they have purchased the same with their life time earning to lead a peaceful life in it.
53. That, the first defendant sold its allocable share, strictly in adherence to the provision of the JDA and sharing agreement, to the defendants. That, the defendants have purchased the apartment.
/35/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
54. That, there is no violation of any existing laws or rules, as the project is approved in the year 2012 itself and all other allegations made therein are absolutely baseless only with the intention of making unjust enrichment at the sole cost and consequences of this defendant.
55. That, the first defendant along with the plaintiffs, under the irrevocable power granted by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.1 have jointly executed the sale deeds in favor of defendants and thus plaintiffs along with defendant No.1 had validly transferred their joint rights, title, ownership and possession over the schedule property to defendants as stated. That, if there is any dispute between the plaintiffs and first defendant in respect of the breach of the contract between them, they have to resolve the same, strictly in accordance with the provisions stipulated therein and the rights of defendants, legally obtained over the apartment, can never be liable for the claims of the plaintiffs, the remedy for the plaintiffs are clearly detailed in the JDA. That, the prayer for nullifying the sale deed, as claimed, executed by the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in favor of the defendants can never justified and the same is equally binding on the defendant /36/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 No.1 and the plaintiffs as well. That, there is no collusion between the first defendant and other defendants to execute the same. On the other hand, the plaintiffs and the first defendant have colluded each other to file this suit for unlawful gain and enrichment from the defendants even after receiving huge amounts as sale consideration from the defendants.
56. That, the defendants have demanded the defendant No.1 to execute and register the only remaining unsold apartment Bg.No.C-301, having total super built up area of 1325 sq.ft. in Block C, on the third floor, into the name of the defendants to secure the value of the said apartment to utilize for the completion of the remaining incomplete works. This fact is also revealed to the plaintiffs by the defendants and had requested him also to contribute some amounts to complete the unfinished works to safeguard the common interest of both the defendants No.3 to 9 and also the plaintiffs. The defendants are ready and willing to capitalize the above said apartment registered in the names of defendants and contribute the sale considerations towards the completion of the said apartment complex. That, the defendants are ready and /37/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 willing to contribute even more than the agreed sale consideration to complete the unfinished works. That, it could have been completed the entire works by now, provided the plaintiffs would have co operated a little bit, keeping the overall benefits of all the parties concerned. By contending so, the defendant No.3 to 9 prays to dismiss the suit.
57. Heard both the parties. The counsel for plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 to 9 filed written argument and a citation reported in 2022 (11) SCC 460.
58. On the basis of the rival contentions, pleadings, material proposition of fact and law and the documents this Court has framed the following:
ISSUES
01. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the defendant No:1 has committed breach of terms of JDA No:00546/2012-13 dated:10.05.2012 and has failed to complete the project as agreed under JDA?
02. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the JDA No:00546/2012-13 dated:10.05.2012 and GPA dated:10.05.2012 executed by the Plaintiffs in favour /38/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 of defendant No:1 are liable to be terminated and cancelled as prayed by the plaintiffs?
03. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant No:1 is liable to demolish the incomplete structure on the schedule property and to restored to original status at his cost?
04. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the defendant No:1 is liable to return/handover the original documents handed over to it by the plaintiffs?
05. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the registered sale deeds standing in the name of defendant No:2 to 9 respectively are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs?
06. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant No:1 is liable to pay ₹.18,44,000/- being compensation for the period between 10.05.2014 & 27.08.2018 and ₹.16,43,760/- being compensation for the period from 28.082018 till the date of suit in all ₹.34,87,760/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization?
07. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant No:1 is liable to pay damages at /39/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 ₹.60,880/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of defendant No:1 executing and register the cancellation deeds in respect of JDA dated;10.05.12 and GPA dated:10.05.12 and also till the date of demolition of superstructure so as to restore original status of suit schedule property?
08. Whether the defendant No:1 proves that on account of conduct of plaintiffs it could not complete the project i.e. construction of apartments as per JDA dated;06.06.2012
09. Whether the defendants No:3 to 9 proves that the suit is barred by limitation?
10. Whether the defendant No.3 to 9 prove that the sale deeds executed registered in their favor are binding on plaintiffs?
11. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the suit?
12. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for suit reliefs?
13. what Order/decree?
59. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff No.2 himself got examined as PW.1 and got marked /40/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex P15. On the other hand the Managing Director of defendant company has examined himself as DW.1 and got produced documents marked at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4. The defendant No.5 has examined herself as DW.2. The Court Commissioner is examined as CW,1 and Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 are marked.
60. Heard on both sides.
61. My answer to the above framed issues are as follows:
ISSUE No.1 & 2 : In the AFFIRMATIVE
ISSUE No.3 : Partly AFFIRMATIVE
ISSUE No.4 : In the AFFIRMATIVE
ISSUE No.5 : In the AFFIRMATIVE
ISSUE No.6 & 7 : Partly AFFIRMATIVE
ISSUE No.8 : In the NEGATIVE
ISSUE No.9 : In the NEGATIVE
ISSUE No.10 : In the NEGATIVE
ISSUE No.11 : In the AFFIRMATIVE
ISSUE No.12 : Partly AFFIRMATIVE
ISSUE No.13 : As per final Order
for the following
REASONS
62. ISSUE No.1 and 2: For the purpose of brevity and convenience I would like to answer above two issues in common. It is also pertinent here to mention that as I have already narrated the facts of the case in detail at the /41/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 inception, I will not repeat the facts once gain at length, but I will confine myself to the material facts.
63. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 on the strength of JDA and GPA has commenced the construction of a building in the year 2012 and has put up only structure of the building and subsequently failed to complete the construction of the several internal walls, internal plastering, outside plastering, plumbing, electrical works, painting, flooring, doors and windows, kitchen works and several other works in the building and failed to get the electricity, water and sanitary connections and other agreed amenities and as such the defendant No.1 has failed to complete the project and breached the fundamental terms and conditions of the Joint Development Agreement and the General power of attorney. Hence both the documents are liable to be cancelled.
64. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 in his written statement has contended that he has carried out a lot more works in the schedule property than mentioned herein by the plaintiffs. That, the defendant No.1 has /42/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 constructed the structure, completed masonry, internal plastering, electrical connections, door frames fixing in some apartments, chiseling the walls for plumbing etc. The wood required for frames, plumbing materials, primer, putti etc., were delivered and stocked at site. The defendant No.1 had also displayed the sanitary fitting, SS fixtures and floor tiles at site for selection by the purchasers of apartments. This shows that the building was nearing completion when it was forcibly stopped by the plaintiff. In short, the building has been completed by around 80% of the entire works required. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
65. Keeping in mind the rival contentions of both the parties I would like to go through the evidence adduced by the parties i.e. the PW.1 and DW.1.
66. The plaintiff No.2 has filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief reiterating the entire plaint averments. Apart from the PW.1 got produced the Ex.P.1 which is the certified copy of the Joint Development Agreement dated 10.05.2012. The PW.1 also got produced certified copy of the General Power of Attorney dated 10.05.2012.
/43/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
67. On perusal of Clause 3 of the Ex.P.1 it is very much clear that the defendant No.1 being the developer is bound to commence the construction of the building on the suit property within one month from the date of obtaining approved plan sanction.
68. As per Clause 4 of the Ex.P.1 entire cost of construction including architect fee and for temporary connection of water, electricity during construction and development was agreed to be borne by the developer.
69. The Clause 6 of Ex.P.1 reads as under:
COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION The developer shall under normal conditions and in the absence of any restrictions, complete the construction in all respects, the Multistoried Residential Apartment Building and deliver the Owner's constructed Area completed in all respects within a period of 18 months plus grace period of 3 months from the date of obtaining Plan Sanction approved from the competent authority and subsequent to the /44/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 aforesaid, the parties shall execute the Supplementary Joint Development Agreement/Area Allocation Agreement for identifying their respective flats. However, the Developer shall not incur any liability for any delay in delivery of the possession of the Owner's Constructed Area by reason of Governmental Restrictions and/or by reason of Civil Commotion, any act of God or due to any injunction or Prohibitory order (not attributable to any action of the Developer) or conditions of force majeure, litigation, omissions/commissions of the Owners. In any of the aforesaid events, which are beyond the control of the Developer, the Developer shall be entitled to corresponding extension of time, for delivery of the said Owner's constructed Area. In the event of any delay in completion of construction work and handing over of possession of owner's constructed area beyond the aforesaid time period, the Developer shall compensate the Owners by paying the amount equivalent to monthly rentals in respect of each flat allocated to the share of the owners /45/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 which shall not be lesser than ₹.8/- per sq.ft for each month's delay.
70. As per Clause 6 of Joint Development Agreement the developer ought to have delivered the possession of the constructed area to the plaintiffs completed in all respects within a period of 18 months plus grace period of 3 months from the date of obtaining plan sanction approved from the competent authority. In this case admittedly, the agreed period will end in the month of May 2014 itself including additional grace period if any. However, even after completion of a decade the developer/defendant No.1 has not completed the construction work as per the terms of the Joint Development Agreement/Ex.P.1. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant No.1 or the purchasers are put in possession over the suit property.
71. It is also relevant to note the Clause 8.2 of the Joint Development Agreement which reads as under:
The Developer as well as the Owners shall be entitled to enter into Agreements for Sale in respect of their respective share of super built up area along with corresponding/proportional /46/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 undivided share in the Schedule Property with any person/s intending to own flats/units or to enter into any Construction Agreement with such intending Unit Holders;
72. As per Clause 8.2 the defendant No.1/developer is entitled only to enter into an agreement of sale or construction agreements in respect of his share of super built up area with any person intending to own flats/units. However in this case the defendant No.1/developer has directly executed sale deeds in favor defendant No.2 to 9 violating the terms of Joint Development Agreement/Ex.P.1.
73. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1 by counsel appearing for defendant No.3 to 9 it has been suggested to the PW.1 that on the strength of JDA, GPA and Sharing agreements the defendant No.1 has entered into construction agreements with defendant No.3 to 9. However, on perusal of the entire records it is very much clear that the defendants have not produced any documents to support their suggestion. This Court can draw an adverse inference that contrary to the conditions of Ex.P.1 the defendant No.1 has executed sale deeds. Even though the defendant No.1 contends that construction agreements /47/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 were executed prior to the sale deeds, no such documents are forth coming before the Court. The defendants No.3 to 9 have not produced the so called Tripartite Agreement as pleaded in their written statement.
74. It is also suggested by counsel appearing for defendant No.1 to the PW.1 that the defendant No.1 could not complete the project only because of the reason that the plaintiff obstructed him. However, the defendant No.1 has failed to produce any documentary proof to show that the plaintiffs have obstructed him to carry out the work. Had the plaintiffs obstructed the developer, the developer would have approached the civil courts seeking necessary reliefs or he could have approached the police station seeking reliefs. In this case admittedly, the developer has not filed any suit from 2014 till this date. The developer except issuing a legal notice in the year 2018 has not taken any steps against the plaintiffs restraining them from obstructing the work.
75. During the course of cross-examination on 04.07.2022 by the counsel appearing for defendant No.3 to 9 to the PW.1, it is suggested that the defendant No.1 on /48/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 the strength of Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney and Sharing Agreements had entered into agreement of Sale with defendant No.3 to 9 and it is also suggested that the defendant No.3 to 9 based on the agreement of sale have raised loan from banks and have paid the loan to the defendant No.1 for the purpose of construction of flats. To these suggestions PW.1 feigned his ignorance. As per the suggestion of defendant No.3 to 9 the defendant No.1 has entered into agreement of sale with defendant No.3 to 9. However, as I have already held on perusal of entire records there is no piece of document available to hold that defendant No.1 has entered into agreement of sale with defendant No.3 to 9 and thereafter they have obtained loan and paid the amount to defendant No.1 for the purpose of construction of lands.
76. It is pertinent to note that the defendant No.1 has suggested to PW.1 that he has entered into construction agreement with defendants No.2 to 9 (as per cross- examination dated 19.07.2022). However, the defendant No.3 to 9 counsel has suggested to PW.1 that the defendant No.1 has entered into agreement of sale with them. Therefore there is material contradiction in the /49/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 suggestions made by both counsels. Hence, in my opinion neither there is an agreement of sale nor there is a construction agreement entered in between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 to 9.
77. In order to support the version of the defendant No.1 he has filed affidavit evidence in lieu of his examination in chief and examined himself as DW.1. The Ex.D.1 is the photo copy of the wood material, plumbing material, electric pipes and sand stored in the suit property. The Ex.D.2 is the CD, the Ex.D.3 is the original copy of the plan sanction pertaining to the building in the suit property. The Ex.D.4 is the another photo of the incomplete building in the suit property. The Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 have been marked on the basis of Statement of Admissions and Denial and with consent. The Ex.D.4 is marked during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 by confronting him.
78. As I have already held the DW.1 has not produced any documents to show that he has entered into an agreement of sale or construction agreement with defendant No.2 to 9. The DW.1 neither produced any books of accounts, purchase bills nor relevant documents to show that he has purchased steel, wood, M-Sand, cement, jelly /50/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 and any other such materials. The DW.1 has not produced Income Tax Returns in order to prove his assets and liabilities.
79. During the course of cross-examination of DW.1 at page No.6 he has clearly admitted that he has completed 80% of construction as envisaged in Joint Development Agreement and in support of the same he has furnished photographs. The DW.1 further voluntarily deposed that in early 2014 he had completed structure work, wood work, internal plastering of two flats and that he had stored plumbing, electrical material and door frames required for completion of the project and that he has not furnished any other documents except photographs.
80. On perusal of above admission of the DW.1 it is crystal clear that whatever work has been done it is only during the early 2014 itself. It means from 2014 till this date there is no progress in the project. The DW.1 being a developer clearly admits that the project is incomplete and 100% work is not completed. The DW.1 ought to have produced relevant documents to show that he has constructed major portion of the building. If really DW.1 /51/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 has constructed 80% work of the building then he would have produced bills of purchase of materials, accounts books of records or Income Tax particulars. The DW.1 further admits that he has maintained regular accounts in his company and that he can furnish Income Tax Returns for the year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17. It is also admitted by the DW.1 that they have purchased all materials through bills only, that they have maintained accounts regarding payments and receipts and that he has no difficulty in submitting the statement of account before the Court. Admittedly, the DW.1 has not produced neither the bills, Income Tax Returns nor the Statement of Accounts. The non-production of documentary proof by DW.1 is sufficient to come to a conclusion that even 80% of the building work is not completed.
81. It is also relevant to note that the DW.1 at page No.8 has clearly admitted that he has not encountered any reasons stipulated to exclude his liability as shown in Clause 6 of Joint Development Agreement, that the project was not completed within 10.05.2014 and that he has not paid any sum @ ₹.8 per sq.ft for each month's delay to the plaintiffs.
/52/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
82. The above admission is clear that the developer is at fault and due to his negligence the 100% construction of the building work is not completed. At page No.9 of the cross-examination of DW.1, the DW.1 clearly admits that he has not initiated any legal proceedings alleging that plaintiffs have been interfering with the construction work. It is also admitted by DW.1 that as per the terms of the JDA and GPA parties were conferred with an authority to enter into agreement of sale and construction. The DW.1 further admits that he has not obtained sanction letter from BWSSB and BESCOM. At page No.11 he also admits that if the project is not completed as per the period stipulated in JDA it amounts to breach of contract. The DW.1 admitted that he can produce documents to evidence his financial capacity to complete the project during the relevant period. However no such documents are produced by DW.1. Hence adverse inference can be drawn that DW.1 had no financial capacity to complete the work at that relevant point of time. The DW.1 also admits that he has not registered the project under RERA.
83. At page No.12 of the cross-examination, the DW.1 clearly admits that earlier he had financial /53/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 capacity to complete the project but now he has no financial capacity. It is further admitted that there was no order of injunction passed against him restraining construction works by any Courts in respect of suit project. The DW.1 has deposed that he has spent ₹.2,00,00,000/- for execution of suit project and he is able to furnish the documents in support of the expenses incurred by him. However no documents are produced by DW.1 to that effect.
84. At page No.14 the DW.1 admits that he has seen the suit property in 2015 and thereafter he never visited the property as plaintiffs did not allow him to visit. As I have already held if the plaintiffs were obstructing there was no impediment to DW.1 to take proper legal course against them. The DW.1 also admits that he has not delivered physical possession of the flats to defendant No.2 to 9 purchased by them. It is also relevant to note that during the cross-examination of DW.1 by defendant No.3 to 9 he has deposed that he has delivered possession of flats to defendant No.3 to 9 vide respective sale deeds. This admission is contrary to the admission made by DW.1 at page No.14. There is material contradiction in the evidence of DW.1 and I have no /54/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 hesitation to hold that the conduct of DW.1 and other defendants is unjust and unfair. Hence, in my opinion the defendants are hand in glove and tried to hoodwink the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the defendant No.3 to 9 relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2022 (11) SCC 460 argued that the plaintiffs have got no right to cancel the GPA as it is an irrevocable document. However, in my opinion the decision is not applicable to the case on hand as the plaintiffs have approached this Court seeking for cancellation of the General Power of Attorney. It is well settled that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to cancel any registered document. Therefore in my opinion the plaintiffs have successfully proved that the defendant No.1 has committed the breach of the terms of the Joint Development Agreement and failed to complete the project as agreed under JDA. It is also to be noted that as per Ex.P.7 the plaintiffs have issued reply notice and terminated the JDA and the GPA. In view of the above discussions, in my opinion the Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney dated 10.05.2012 are liable to be terminated and cancelled. Hence, both the documents stands cancelled. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 and 2 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
/55/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
85. Issue No.3: It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the incomplete building structure constructed on the suit schedule property is more than eight years old and unattended for so long and as there is a substantial material damage, leakage and weakness and further the construction has lost its strength due to passage of time and natural wear and tear, the same requires to be demolished at the cost and risk of the defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 is also obligated to bring the suit schedule property to its original status in view of default.
86. On the other hand, the defendants have denied the above facts and prays to simply dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiffs. In order to support the case of the PW.1, the PW.1 has further got produced the documents Ex.P.3 which is the copy of the sanction plan pertaining to the suit building and it is not in dispute. As per Ex.P.3 the date of sanction is 03.05.2012 and it is valid up to 02.05.2014. As per the said document the DW.1 was bound to complete the project within 02.05.2014. Admittedly, DW.1 has not completed the project and neither produced any documents to show that he has applied for extension of sanction plan.
/56/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
87. The PW.1 also got produced Ex.P.4 which is the Sharing Agreement dated 13.06.2012. The Ex.P.5 (1) to Ex.P.5 (13) are the photo copies and CD pertaining to the incomplete suit building. For the cost of repetition I am of the opinion that the DW.1 has not at all completed the work as per the terms of JDA.
88. The Ex.P.6 is the copy of the legal notice dated 08.08.2018 addressed by the DW.1 to the plaintiffs. The Ex.P.7 is the reply notice dated 27.08.2018 issued by the plaintiffs to the DW.1. The Ex.P.8 is the rejoinder notice dated 14.09.2018 issued by the DW.1 to the plaintiffs. As I have already held the defendant No.1/developer i.e. DW.1 has not assigned any reason as to why he has not initiated any legal action against the plaintiffs much prior to the year 2018. Therefore the legal notice issued in the year 2018 do not help the case of the defendant No.1. It is also pertinent here to note that in the Ex.P.6 there is a mention that DW.1 has entered into an agreement of sale in favor of defendant No.2 to 9. However, as I have already held no documents are forthcoming to support of his version.
/57/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
89. In the Ex.P.6 at para No.10 DW.1 admits that due to demonetization, downfall and sluggish real estate market and other adverse market conditions the project was delayed. This admission of DW.1 is sufficient to hold that it is due to the fault of DW.1 the project remained incomplete. The plaintiffs cannot found fault with.
90. It is pertinent here to note that during the course of trial a Commissioner was also appointed by this Court in order to know the extent and quality of work carried out by the DW.1. One Mr.S.Ramesh/CW.1 (A Civil Engineer) has filed his Report/Ex.C.1 wherein he has submitted that only 35% of building work is completed and the quality of construction is average. The CW.1 has produced a CD with 15 photo copies pertaining to the suit incomplete building. On perusal of the photographs it is clear that the incomplete building is in a dilapidated condition. Except pillars and columns no much work is carried out. The building is in bad condition.
91. The learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 has cross-examined CW.1 wherein nothing has been elicited from the mouth of witness. It is suggested to CW.1 that all /58/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 the materials which are dumped in the year 2014 are still available in the disputed property. This suggestion in fact goes against the case of the defendant No.1 because all the materials which were stored about a decade back cannot withstand the weather conditions. The wood and other plumbing materials cannot be in good condition if they are kept open in the disputed property. Therefore in my opinion the defendant no.1 is negligent in constructing the building and the construction of the building is not carried out in a proper manner and it is incomplete.
92. During the course of cross-examination by the counsel appearing for defendant No.3 to 9 the CW.1 at para No.10 admits that in his Report he has advised the parties to take advise of structural consultant to assess the strengthening of the building, however in this case the defendant No.3 to 9 have not made any attempt to approach structural consultant. The remaining portion of cross-examination is not useful to the case of the defendants.
93. In this case admittedly, the defendant No.1 has stalled the construction of building about a decade back. It /59/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 is admitted fact that the defendant No.1 has not paid any compensation to the plaintiffs as per the terms of Ex.P.1 till today. The defendant No.1 has not initiated any legal action against the plaintiffs. There is a clear admission on behalf of the defendant No.1 in the Ex.P.6 legal notice that due to demonetization and other market conditions he could not complete the project. Therefore in my opinion it is because of defendant No.1 the project could not be completed.
94. The defendant No.5 has also filed affidavit evidence in lieu of her examination in chief on behalf of herself and also on behalf of defendant No.3, 4, 6 to 9 and examined herself as DW.2. In her affidavit evidence DW.2 deposed regarding the agreement of sales and Tripatite Agreement being executed in between the defendant No.1 and other defendants. However, the DW.2 failed to produce the said agreement of sale deeds and Tripartite Agreement. There is no documents forthcoming to hold that the defendants have borrowed loans from the banks.
95. It is relevant to go through the Ex.P.9 which is the certified copy of the Encumbrance Certificate wherein the names of defendant No.2 to 9 are appearing as they have /60/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 purchased the flats from defendant No.1 in the suit incomplete building on various dates. The Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.15 are the certified copies of the Registered Sale Deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favor of the defendant No.2 to 9. On perusal of the said sale deeds there is a mention that the purchasers have not received the possession of the flats. As per Ex.P.1 JDA the defendant No.1 has got a right only to sell the flats after its construction in its entirety. Admittedly, the defendant No.2 to 9 have purchased the flats without there being a full construction. The recitals of the sale deeds clearly goes to show that possession is not handed over to the purchasers. The said sale deeds are contrary to the terms mentioned in JDA/Ex.P.1.
96. The DW.2 is a nutritionist working at Sri.Sathyasai Sarala Memorial Hospital, Chikballapur, she cannot be termed as a rustic person. The purchaser should always beware of the purchase. In this case all the purchasers have purchased the property without there being full construction. Therefore, the defendant No.2 to 9 in my opinion are not bonafide purchasers. Even if the defendant No.2 to 9 have paid any amount to DW.1 then they are entitled to claim the said amount from the DW.1.
/61/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
97. The evidence on record, photographs and evidence of CW.1 clearly goes to show that the building is not fully constructed. However, the defendant No.3 to 9 counsel suggested DW.1 in cross-examination that physical possession is handed over to the purchasers. No prudent man will purchase a flat which is not fully completed. If unfinished flat is purchased then this Court may draw an inference that the purchaser has not paid any amount to the vendor or if at all paid they might have been paid a meager amount. As I have already held if the purchasers have paid any amount they are at liberty to recover the same from DW.1.
98. In this case, the plaintiffs without there being any fault are restrained from enjoying income from their property since 2012. Almost 12 years have been elapsed. Now the building is in dilapidated condition without external plastering and proper maintenance.
99. As per the evidence of CW.1 in order to complete the work still an amount of ₹.4,05,63,000/- is required. The total approximate cost for completion of the existing /62/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 unfinished building as on today is huge and in my opinion cannot be borne by the defendant No.1. Admittedly, the defendant No.1 has deposed that he has got no financial capacity now to complete the work. Even if the building is now fully constructed, the building is unfit for habitable condition. If any person or purchasers are made to reside in the said building then there may be a chance of damage or loss to the life and property of the residents. Hence, there is no other way except to demolish the building and restore it to its original status at the cost of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff is at liberty to demolish and restore the suit property to its original status at the cost of defendant No.1. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 partly in Affirmative.
100. Issue No.4: The plaintiffs have sought for return of all the original documents handed over by them to the defendant No.1. As per Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 i.e., Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney it is admitted fact that the plaintiffs being the owners of the suit schedule property have handed over all the original documents of title of the suit schedule property to the defendant No.1/developer. In the said document Ex.P.1 at Clause No.14 it was agreed that on completion of entire /63/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 project the owner along with developer shall handover the original documents of title to the apartment Owners' Association. However, in this case as the developer has not completed the entire project handing over the original documents to the apartment Owners' Association does not arise. The proper custody of the original documents should be the owner i.e, the plaintiffs. Therefore, the defendant No.1 is liable to handover all the original documents pertaining to the suit schedule property in favor of plaintiffs within a period of one month from the date of this Order. Hence, I answer Issue No.4 in AFFIRMATIVE.
101. Issue No.5: It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the registered sale deeds standing in the name of defendant No.2 to 9 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. As I have already held as per Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 the developer/defendant No.1 was entitled only to enter into agreement of sale pertaining to the flats to be built in the suit schedule property. As per the Ex.P.1 Joint Development Agreement, the developer was bound to complete the entire project and thereafter the super built up area of his share along with undivided share in the suit property was alone to be sold in favor of third party /64/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 purchasers. But in this case the developer/defendant No.1 without there being any authority and in contradiction with terms and conditions of Joint Development Agreement has sold unfinished flats in favor defendant No.2 to 9.
102. The evidence of DW.1 is contradictory in nature as in one breath DW.1 admits that he has not handed over the possession of the flats to the purchasers and at another breath he admits that he has handed over possession of the flats to the purchasers. The sale deeds do not contain any recital to show that the purchasers are put in possession over the flats they have purchased. In this case as I have already held the purchasers have not at all paid any amount to the developer and if at all they have paid they might have been paid only a meager amount. Admittedly, the rule of CAVEAT EMPTOR applies to the case on hand. The purchaser should beware of the purchase made by them. The purchaser always should be vigilant while purchasing the immovable properties. All the purchasers are well educated and no person is a rustic villager. No prudent person will purchase incomplete and unfinished flats from the developer.
/65/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
103. It is pertinent to take note of the admissions of DW.2 who has deposed on behalf of defendant No.3 to 9. The DW.2 has clearly admitted that as per terms of Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney the defendant No.1 was entitled to enter into an agreement to sell and construction agreement in respect of prospective construction. This admission is sufficient to hold that defendant No.1 was not entitled to enter into sale deed without constructing the building in full. The DW.2 feigned her ignorance regarding the amount paid as advance under the agreement to sell and the amount paid as cost of construction under construction Agreements. In case of any purchase of immovable property by any prudent man normally they would keep the account statement with them. In this case the DW.2 deposed that she is not aware of the amount paid, it means she has not at all paid any amount as per the terms of agreement of sale. Admittedly, the copies of agreement of sale are not at all produced by DW.2. The DW.2 also admitted that she did not measure the schedule flats before getting the sale deed in her name. The DW.2 further admits that as on the date of sale deed except physical construction of the structure there was no flooring, electrical fittings, windows and doors were not fixed and no /66/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 provision was made for supply of water and electricity from BWSSB and BESCOM. This admission is sufficient to hold that the building is incomplete and unfinished. If really defendant No.2 to 9 have paid amount to defendant No.1 they would have initiated legal action against him. However, DW.2 admits that they have not initiated any legal action against DW.1 till date. Even during the course of cross- examination by defendant No.1, the DW.2 admits that only 80% of the construction work has been completed. It means the building is not completely finished and it remained incomplete but still the defendant No.2 to 9 purchased the flats. Hence, in my opinion the defendant No.2 to 9 are not the bonafide purchasers and therefore the registered sale deeds standing in the name of defendant No.2 to 9 are to be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.5 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
104. Issue No.6 & 7: It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 is liable to pay ₹.18,44,000/- being compensation for the period in between 10.05.2014 and 27.08.2018 and ₹.16,43,760/- being compensation for the period from 28.08.2018 till the date of suit in all ₹.34,87,760/- along with interest @ 18% /67/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 is liable to pay damages @ ₹.60,880/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of defendant No.1 executing and registering the cancellation deeds in respect of Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney and also till the date of demolition of super structure so as to restore original status of suit schedule property.
105. As per Ex.P.1 Joint Development Agreement Clause 6 there is a recital that in the event of any delay in completion construction work and handing over possession of owner's constructed area beyond the agreed time period the developer shall compensate the owners by paying the amount equivalent to monthly rental in respect of each flat allotted to the share of the owners which shall not be lesser than ₹.8/- per Sq.ft for each month's delay. Keeping in mind the above recital I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation of ₹.60,880/- p. m. from the date of 10.05.2014 till this date along with accrued interest @ 18% p.a within one month from the date of this order.
/68/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
106. During the course of arguments the plaintiffs counsel submitted that the refundable amount of ₹.12,00,000/- can be adjusted towards the compensation payable by the defendant No.1. However, in my opinion as per the Clause 19.2 the owners are bound to refund the security deposit amount only after completion of the project by the defendant No.1. As in this case the project is not yet complete. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not bound to refund the security amount to the defendant No.1. The said amount cannot be even adjusted to the compensation amount payable by the defendant No.1 in favor of the plaintiffs. Admittedly the transaction in between both the parties is for a commercial profit. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for 18% interest from 10.05.2014 till today. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.6 & 7 Partly in the Affirmative.
107. Issue No.8. It is the specific case of the defendant No.1 that on account of conduct of plaintiff he could not complete the project as per Joint Development Agreement. However, in this case the notice sent by defendant No.1 vide Ex.P.6 itself sufficient to hold that the delay is due to the fault of defendant No.1 himself. In the /69/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 said notice the defendant No.1 has clearly admitted that he could not complete the project due to demonetization, downfall and sluggish real estate market etc., The evidence which have been discussed in the above paragraphs also makes it clear that it is only due to the fault of defendant No.1 the project could not be completed within the prescribed period. In this case there is no record to hold that the plaintiffs have ever obstructed the defendant No.1 in completing the project. If really the plaintiffs had obstructed then there was no impediment to defendant No.1 to approach the Courts seeking necessary reliefs. Hence, I am of the opinion that the delay in construction is due to the fault of defendant No.1 alone. Accordingly, I answer point No.8 NEGATIVE.
108. Issue No.9: It is the specific case of the defendants in their written statement that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. In the written statement there is no pleading as to under which Article the suit filed by plaintiff is barred by limitation. However, during the course of arguments the counsel for defendants argued that since the project was required to be completed in the year 2014, the suit ought to have been filed within 3 /70/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 years from 2014 as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act. However, in this case the Article 58 of the Limitation Act is not at all applicable as the suit is filed for rescission of contract. As per Article 59 of the Limitation Act the time to file the suit is 3 years when the facts entitling the plaintiffs to have the instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or contract rescinded becomes known to him.
109. In this case admittedly, the plaintiffs got a legal notice from the defendant No.1 only in the Month of August 2018. Therefore in my opinion the limitation to file the suit begins and ends from August 2018 till August 2021. There is no dispute that the present suit is filed on 05.12.2020 i.e., within the period of 3 years from the date of issuance of notice. The recurring cause of action to file the suit arose to the plaintiff in the year 2012 and also in the year 2018 the date of issuance of notice by the defendant No.1 and also on subsequent dates on which date the defendant No.2 to 9 have illegally purchased the flats from defendant No.1. Hence, in my opinion the suit is well within the prescribed time. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.9 in NEGATIVE.
/71/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
110. Issue No.10: It is the specific case of the defendants No.3 to 9 that the sale deeds executed and registered in their favor are binding upon the plaintiffs. On the other hand the plaintiffs have contended that all the sale deeds in the name of defendant No.2 to 9 respectively are null and void.
111. In view of the reasons assigned by me while discussing Issue No.5, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have successfully proved that all the registered sale deeds in the name of defendant No.2 to 9 are null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. Hence, I answer Issue No.10 in the NEGATIVE.
112. Issue No.11: The plaintiffs have prayed to restrain the defendants, their representatives, agents and any person claiming interest or authority under the defendants in any manner from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by the plaintiffs and also restraining the defendants from creating third party rights in respect of suit property by way of order of permanent injunction. In view of the discussions on the above issues, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have got /72/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 apprehension in their mind that the defendants taking advantage of registered documents may interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. The defendants may also create third party right over the suit property by taking undue advantage of the registered documents in their name. Therefore, the defendants have to be restrained as prayed by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.11 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
113. Issue No.12: In this case the plaintiffs have sought for the relief of declaration declaring the Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney dated 10.05.2012 as terminated and cancelled. In view of the reasons assigned by me in Issue No.1, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled for the said reliefs. However, as the registered documents have been cancelled by this Court, there is no need to direct the defendant No.1 to execute and register the Deed of Cancellation.
114. In this case the plaintiffs have successfully proved that they are entitled to demolish the incomplete structure on the schedule property and to bring the suit property to its original status at the cost of the defendant /73/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 No.1. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to the said reliefs.
115. In this case the plaintiffs successfully made out their case to claim compensation of ₹.60,880/- from 10.05.2014 till this date with accrued interest @ 18%p.a.
116. The plaintiffs have also proved that the registered sale deeds entered in between the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 to 9 are null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. However, there is no need to send the copy of the decree by this Court to the Office of Sub-Registrar to make a note of cancellation of Sale Deeds. The plaintiffs are at liberty to approach the competent authority and to get the required entries in the revenue records. Hence, the plaintiffs are partly entitled for the reliefs as prayed for. Accordingly I answer Issue No.12 Partly in the Affirmative.
117. Issue No.13: In view of my findings on Issue No:1 to 12, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit filed by plaintiffs is hereby decreed in part with cost of ₹.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only).
/74/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 The Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney dated 10.05.2012 stands terminated and cancelled.
The plaintiffs are hereby entitled to demolish the incomplete structure on the schedule property and restore to its original status at the cost of defendant No.1 within a period of one month from the date of this Order.
The defendant No.1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of ₹.60,880/- pm (Rupees Sixty thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Only) as compensation to the plaintiffs from 10.05.2014 till date along with accrued interest @ 18% p.a within one month from the date of this Order.
The defendant No.1 is hereby directed to hand over the custody of all the original documents to the plaintiffs.
It is hereby declared that the Registered Sale Deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favor of the defendant No.2 dated 16.04.2016, in favor of defendant No.3 and 4 dated 02.02.2019, in favor of defendant No.5 and 6 /75/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 dated 02.02.2019, in favor of defendant No.7 and 8 dated 02.02.2019, in favor of defendant No.9 dated 02.02.2019 and in favor of defendant No.3 to 9 dated 02.02.2019 are null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs.
The defendants, their representatives, agents and any person claiming interest or authority under the defendants in any manner are hereby restrained by an order of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property and they are further restrained from creating any third party rights in respect of suit property.
Draw decree accordingly.
The office is hereby directed to send a copy of the judgment to the plaintiffs and the /76/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 defendants through e-mail as per Order XX Rule 1 CPC as amended by Section 16 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
(Directly dictated to the Stenographer on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of September 2024).
(K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR) LXXXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-90) ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 N.Srinivas List of documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff:
Sl. Particulars of documents No.
1. Certified copy of joint development Ex.P.1 agreement dated: 10.05.2012
2. Certified copy of General Power of Ex.P.2 Attorney dated: 10.05.2012 executed by plaintiff in favour of Deft No.1.
3. Certified copy of sanctioned plan Ex.P.3
4. Sharing agreement dated: 13.06.2012. Ex.P.4 /77/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020
5. Photographs (12 No.s) and one C.D. Ex.P.5(1) to Ex.P.5(13)
6. Office copy of the legal notice dated: Ex.P.6 08.08.2018
7. Reply notice dated: 27.08.2018 Ex.P.7
8. Rejoinder dated: 14.09.2018 Ex.P.8
9. Encumbrance certificate from 01.04.2012 Ex.P.9 to 16.11.2020.
10. Certified copy of Sale Deed dated: Ex.P.10 16.04.2016.
11. Certified copy of Sale Deed dated: Ex.P.11 02.02.2019. (Mrs.Shalini Vaikuntanath)
12. Certified copy of Sale Deed dated: Ex.P.12 02.02.2019. (Mrs.D.Suchithra)
13. Certified copy of Sale Deed dated: Ex.P.13 02.02.2019. (Mrs.Suchitra Subramanian)
14. Certified copy of Sale Deed dated: Ex.P.14 02.02.2019. (Krishna Sumanth)
15. Certified copy of Sale Deed dated: Ex.P.15 02.02.2019. (Suchitra Subramanian and others) List of witnesses examined for the defendant/s:
DW.1: Sri.Shyam Sundar DW.2: Smt.D.Suchitra /78/ Com.O.S.No.381/2020 List of documents marked for the defendant/s:
Sl.No. Particulars of documents Ex.D.
1. The photo copy of the wood material, Ex.D.1 plumbing material, electric pipes and sand stored in the suit property
2. The CD Ex.D.2
3. The original copy of the plan sanction Ex.D.3 pertaining to the building in the suit property
4. The another photo of the incomplete Ex.D.4 building in the suit property List of witnesses examined as Court Commissioner:
CW.1: Sri.S.Ramesh List of documents marked for Court Comissioner:
Sl.No. Particulars of documents
1. Report dated 06.11.2023 Ex.C.1
2. 15 photos along with CD Ex.C.2
(K.M.RAJENDRA KUMAR)
LXXXIX Addl.City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
(CCH-90)
****