Bangalore District Court
Sri.C.Joseph vs The Archdiocese Of Bangalore on 5 December, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT
BANGALORE CITY. [CCH.NO.10]
Dated this day the 5th December 2020
PRESENT
Sri.SADANANDA NAGAPPA NAIK, B.A.L., LL.B.
XVIII Addl.City Civil Judge.
O.S.No.2851/2012
Plaintiff Sri.C.Joseph,
Since Dead by Lrs.
1. C.J.James,
S/o Late C.Joseph,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at No.42/1, ITC Colony,
Jeevanahalli, Cox Town,
Bangalore - 560 005.
2. C.J.Alphonse,
S/o Late C.Joseph,
Aged about 62 years,
R/at No.41, ITC Colony,
Jeevanahalli, Cox Town,
Bangalore - 560 005.
3. J.Chinnappa,
S/o Late C.Joseph,
Aged about 60 years,
R.at No.42, ITC Colony,
Jeevanahalli, Cox Town,
Bangalore - 560 005.
2
OS.No.2851/2012
4. J.Thobias,
S/o Late C.Joseph,
Aged about 58 years,
R/at No.41, ITC Colony,
Jeevanahalli, Cox Town,
Bangalore - 560 005.
5. J.Shantha Mary,
D/o Late C.Joseph,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at No.119, Chinnappa Road,
Komanahalli, Bangalore - 84.
6. J.Sahaya Marie,
D/o Late C.Joseph,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No.97, St.John's Church Road,
C-301, II Floor, Rosary Apartment,
Bangalore - 560 005.
7. J.Vanitha,
D/o Late C.Joseph,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at No.114, HBR 2nd Stage,
Venkateshpuram,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
8. J.Rose Mary,
D/o Late C.Joseph,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at No.6/25, Nehru Street,
Venkateshpuram,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore - 560 045.
[Rep.By.Sri. Ashwatha.M., Advocate]
/VS/
3
OS.No.2851/2012
Defendants: 1.The Archdiocese of Bangalore.
Archbishop's House,
No.75, Miller's Road,
Benson Town,
Bangalore - 560 046.
Reptd. By the Archbishop of
Bangalore, Presently
The Most Rev. Dr.Bernard Moras,
2.Goldline Projects Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956,
Having its office at No.999/5, 5AC,
HRBR 1st Block, Kalyananagar,
Bangalore - 560 043.
Reptd. By its Managing Director,
Mr.G.Lalanatha Reddy(G.L.Reddy)
[By Sri.J.M.Rajanna Setty, Adv.
For D1, Sri.L.P.A., Adv., for D2.]
Date of institution of 16.04.2012
suit
Nature of the suit Declaration & permanent
(suit on pronote, suit injunction
for declaration and
possession suit for
injunction,) etc.
Date of the 06.08.2014
commencement of
recording of the
evidence.
Date on which the 05.12.2020
Judgment was
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s day/s
4
OS.No.2851/2012
Total duration: 08 07 19
(SADANANDA NAGAPPA NAIK)
XVIII Addl.City Civil Judge,
Bangalore.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants for declaration of cancellation of gift deed and permanent injunction with costs.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the material facts as contended in the plaint are as follows:
It is the contention of plaintiff that he had purchased property bearing Sy.No.50/1, measuring 1 acre 33 guntas of Kammanahalli Hamlet, Kacharkanahalli village, Bangalore North Taluk ie., suit schedule A property under registered sale deed dtd.26.11.1957 and the katha was effected in his name. It is further contended that plaintiff belongs to a Catholic and attached to St.Pius X Church. The said Church is situated towards Eastern side of property bearing Sy.No.50/1. The father of the Church wanted to extend the church building and also to made use of the A Schedule Property of the plaintiff. As such plaintiff made a Gift Deed dtd.13.3.1958 in respect of A Schedule 5 OS.No.2851/2012 property to the church only for the religious purpose and the said property is not converted by the Deputy Commissioner u/s.95 of Land Revenue Act and still continued as agricultural property. In the gift deed, it was made clear that to put up building appurtenant to the Church for the benefit of Catholics residing in and around Kammanahalli. The said clause is very clear that the property shall not be put to any commercial activities, other than for the benefit and welfare of Catholics and towards the activities of the Church, and in the event of acting contrary to the desire of the Donor, the donor is having every right for revocation. It is further contended that the 1st defendant has parted with the portion of A schedule property 38,000sq. Feet ie., 1 acre 33 guntas in favour of 2nd defendant for construction of commercial complex. The same is against the wish of the donor and contrary to the wish, intention and purpose of the gift. The portion of the property leased to the 2 nd defendant is described as Schedule B. It is further contended that the 1 st defendant has executed a lease deed in favour of 2 nd defendant on 14.2.2012 for the period of 40 years, for putting up commercial complex in the gifted land belongs the plaintiff. It is further contended that plaintiff has issued legal notice by revoking the gift deed dtd.13.3.1958 6 OS.No.2851/2012 calling upon the defendants not to act upon the lease deed dtd.14.2.2012, and the same was duly served on the defendants. It is further contended that the 2 nd defendant having money, men and machinery, wanted to knock off the valuable property of the plaintiff which was donated for the benefit and better cause of entire catholic community and the 2nd defendant and his henchmen came near the property on 7.4.2012 and started to dig in the portion of schedule property and the plaintiff has resisted the same. Hence, prayed to declare that the Gift Deed dtd.13.3.1958, registered as document No.06574, Book-1, Vol.No.1676 at page 114 to 119, before the Sub-
registrar, Bangalore North Taluk executed by the plaintiff in favour of 1st defendant is stands cancelled and it reverts back all the rights, title, interest and possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, servants or anybody acting under or through them, from changing the nature and character of the B Schedule Property.
3. Defendant No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsels and filed their written statements.
In the written statement, the 1st defendant has contended that the Catholics of Kammanahalli had filed OS.No.1671/2012 on the file of City Civil Court, 7 OS.No.2851/2012 Bangalore and the same has been withdrawn on 31.3.2012. They have filed OS.No.1747/2012 before City Civil Court and the same is pending. In OS.No.1747/2012, plaintiffs in that suit took out an advertisement in local newspaper announcing in the said representative suit, inviting interested persons to join as parties to the suit. However, the plaintiff in this suit, did not so join. Hence, the relief claimed in this suit, was available to them, therefore, the present suit is barred under Order 2 rule 2 of CPC. It is contended that the subject matter is covered under section 92 of CPC. The present suit filed by a single person and without first seeking permission of this court. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. It is further contended that the plaintiff has gifted agricultural land to an extent of 1 acre 33 guntas on 13.3.1958. No such agricultural land in the mentioned extent with the said boundaries exits today as it comes under the jurisdiction of BBMP. All the lands owned by 1st defendant which was originally comprised different pieces, now bears a single PID No/89-4-225 and total extent is 82,764 sq. feet and has different boundaries than stated in schedule A of the plaint. Plaintiff is incapable of identifying in today's topography or documents.
8OS.No.2851/2012 It is further contended that the plaintiff has gifted the Schedule A property on 13.3.1958. But denied that he has gifted the property to the Church. It was gifted to the Archbishop who has received the gift as a trustee and continues to this day, to hold the property and portion of it, still remains in his possession only in such capacity of trustee, for the purpose of the public, charitable and religious trust. A recital in the gift deed states that the gift deed is executed for the purpose of extending the church compound adjoining the schedule plot on the East and to enable the donor to put up thereon building appurtenant to the church, for the benefit of catholics residing in and around Kammanahalli. This recital only set the tone as background to the gift, but it in no way defined the purpose of the gift. The schedule A property was gifted as an absolute transfer without any conditions. They have admitted that the land is not converted. No revocation of the gift was ever contemplated by the plaintiff, nor is possible under any provision of law. It is further contended by the 1 st defendant that it is a public, charitable, religious trust holding properties of the trust in the districts of Bangalore Urban, Bangalore Rural, Chickballapur, Kolar, Tumkur and Ramanagara. In some localities, the trust receives more income than is locally necessary, while 9 OS.No.2851/2012 St other localities are deficient. 1 defendant uses the properties and the income for the purpose of the trust, as per the local need, without favour or distinction as to the area which generates the income.
It is further contended that as the church in Kammanahalli was too small to house a growing population, since 2007, the 1st defendant has undertaken construction of a larger new church, which construction provides for parking in the basement and the church on the ground level. The construction has now reached the roof level. Primarily to raise money for the completion of the church construction and also to serve the deficient localities under its jurisdiction on 14.2.2012 leased 38,000 sq. feet to its composite property on Kammanahalli Main Road, to 2nd defendant for 40 years for him to develop and manage the same commercially. The lease was a culmination of a process of consultation both with the advisory committees of the 1 st defendant and the popularly elected committee of the Catholics of Kammanahalli, the intermediary for all communication being the Parish Priest of Kammanahalli. This is a process which has taken nearly 4 years. The property gifted by the plaintiff or whatever portion of its which still remains in the hands of the 1 st defendant and thus been used solely for the purposes of the trust following the 10 OS.No.2851/2012 procedure prescribed by the tenets of the Catholic Church and the regulations of the Trust. Thus 1st defendant denied that it has parted with the land and said property is leased. It is further contended that subsequent to the commencement of lease deed, it was not implemented due to an on account of protest, strikes etc., by the local people and parishioners of Kammanahalli to the proposed scheme of development of a commercial complex and hence the lease deed has been terminated on 31.5.2012 and has been surrendered on 9.9.2015. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff has become infructuous. The clauses in the lease deed ensure that the religious services in the St.Pius X Church are not disturbed by any activity whatsoever of the commercial complex to be developed on the demised land. Among these and other grounds prays for dismissal of the suit.
4. The 2nd defendant in its written statement denied the plaint averments. It has admitted that 1 st defendant has entered into lease deed with them on 14.2.2012 for the period of 40 years, for putting up the commercial complex. It is further contended that plaintiff has gifted the land bearing Sy.No.50/1 of Kammanahalli village in favour of 1st defendant and 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and all the revenue documents discloses its name and it is 11 OS.No.2851/2012 paying taxes to BBMP. The first defendant has applied for conversion of land measuring 38000 sq.feet for commercial purpose. Since the land now included with the jurisdiction of BBMP, the government has passed orders for change of land use. Further contended that the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and section 92 of CPC and contended that the suit could have been filed by two or more persons only and with the permission of the court. The suit filed by single person without seeking permission from the court is not maintainable. On the above grounds prays for dismissal of the suit.
5. The plaintiffs in their reply to the amended written statement of 1st defendant contended that the contentions thereon are time barred as it is filed after lapse of four years from the date of suit. The said contentions of the defendants do changes the nature and character of their defence and both are self-destructive with each other and hence, prayed to decree the suit.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings my predecessor in office has framed the following issues:
12OS.No.2851/2012
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the Gift Deed dtd.13.3.1958 is conditional gift deed?
(REFRAMED on 16.9.2020)
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged interference by the defendants in respect of suit Schedule B property?
3. Whether the 1st defendant proves that the suit filed by the single person ie., the original plaintiff is not maintainable as contemplated under Sec.92 of CPC?
4. Whether the defendant No.1 further proves that the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC?
5. Whether the defendant No.1 further proves that the suit is not maintainable since the plaintiff is incapable of identifying the suit schedule property as per the topography of the land, as contended in para 3 of the written statement?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed?
7. What decree or order?
Addl.Issues:
1. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that lease deed dtd.14.2.2012 has been terminated and surrendered as contended, as such, suit of the plaintiff is infructuous?13
OS.No.2851/2012
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant No.1 has violated the conditions of gift deed?
7. The plaintiffs got examined plaintiff No.3 as PW1, got marked Ex.P1 to P22 and closed their side. On the other hand, the Power of Attorney Holder of defendant No.1 is examined as DW1, got marked Ex.D1 to D7 and closed its side.
8. I have gone through the records meticulously and have given my careful consideration to the contentions of Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 & 2 which are put forward at the time of Argument.
9. The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs have relied on following cases:
1) LAWS(PVC) 1935 11 171 - Harish Chandra Vs. Hindu Dharma Sevak Mandal.
2) AIR 1974(1) SCC 446 -State of U.P. Vs. Bansidhar and others
3) ILR 1980 KAR 1175- Govindamma Vs. Secretary, Municipal First Grade College, Chintamani.
4) AIR 1930 PC 242 - Rajendra Prasad Bose & another Vs. Gopal Prasad Sen
5) 2004 (2) SCC 504 - F.M. Devaru Ganapathi Bhat Vs. Prabhakar Ganapathi Bhat) 14 OS.No.2851/2012
6) 1979 SCC (3) 226 - Shakuntala Etc., Vs. State of Haryana.
7) (2006) 6 SCC 293 - State Bank of India & another Vs. Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
8) AIR 1966 SC 323 - Ram Charan Das Vs. Girjanandini Devi & others)
9) AIR 1985 HP 109 - Shakuntla Devi Vs. Smt. Amar Devi
10) 1997(2) SCC 255 - Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker Vs. Pranjivandas Manganlal Thakker.
11) 1955 (1) SCR 174 - Pandit Chunchun Jha Vs. Sheikh Ebadat Ali & another
12) (2009) 5 SCC 678 - Madhya Pradesh Housing Board Vs. Rogressive Writers and publishers.
13) 2005 (7) SCC 667 - Joseph Severance and others Vs. Benny Mathew and others
14) 1975(1) SCC 199 - Godhra Electricity Co.Ltd and another Vs. The State of Gujarath and another.
15) (2002) 1 SCC 134- Veerayee Ammal
Vs.Seeni Ammal.
10. The learned counsel for the Defendant No.1 has cited the following cases:15
OS.No.2851/2012
1) MANU/TN/0252/1952 - Lakshmindra Theertha Swamiar and others Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowment, Madras & others.
2) MANU/AP/0099/1979 - Rudraraju Durgaraju & Ors. Vs. Sagiraju Dadda Venkataraju and others.
3) AIR 1974 SC 1084 - State of U.P. Vs. Bansi Dhar and others.
4) Appeal(Civil) 6972 of 1999 Supreme Court of India in Thakur Raghunath Ji Maharaj Vs. Ramesh Chandra In fact, the law pronounced on these judgments have become axiomatic and the same has been applied by me in the appreciation of the relevant material on record.
11. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the negative
Issue No.2: In the negative
Issue No.3: In the negative
Issue No.4: In the negative
Issue No.5: In the negative
Issue No.6: In the negative
Issue No.7: As per final order,
Addl.Issue No.1:In the negative
Addl.Issue No.2: Does not arise for consideration For the following:
16OS.No.2851/2012 R EAS O N S
12. Reframed Issue No.1 and Addl Issue No.2:-
As these issues are interlinked, I have taken up together for discussion as these issues goes to the root of the matter and if decided against the plaintiffs, there would be no need to go into the other issues, as these issues would eclipse them, making them non-est.
13. There is no separate legislation or custom that governs the gift of immovable properties among Christians.According to Bible: 2 Corinthians: Chapter 9:Verse 6: "Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously." ie., Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
14. It is a settled principle of law that Gift is one of the form of an agreement. Though an agreement without consideration is void, Sec.25(1) of the Indian Contract Act, makes the Gift as an exception to such Rule as the Gift is a transfer of property that has been gratuitously given to any person without any consideration.
17OS.No.2851/2012
15. It is also a settled principle of law that in order to constitute valid gift, there must be a transfer of ownership, the ownership must relate to a property in existence, the transfer must be without consideration, it must have been made voluntarily, the donor must be a competent person and lastly the transferee must accept the gift.
16. Keeping in view the above settled principles, if we examine the circumstances of the present case on hand, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that deceased plaintiff C.Joseph purchased the land measuring 1 acre 33 guntas in Sy.No.50/1 situated at Kammanahalli, under registered sale deed dtd.26.11.1957 ie., Schedule A property. He was a Christian, Parishoner of St.Pius X Church earlier which was in existence towards Eastern side of the schedule property. To develop the Church and to the benefit of Catholics Community, he has gifted the Schedule A property under registered gift deed dtd. 13.3.1958 in favour of 1 st defendant. It is further contended that plaintiff in his gift made his intention very clear to construct houses for the parishioners of the said church and also that the schedule property shall not be used for any other purpose other than the intention clearly expressed without any ambiguity. It is 18 OS.No.2851/2012 further contended that the defendant No.1 secretly entered into development of a portion of the said property with 2nd defendant putting up commercial complex and received huge amount of Rs.5 crores towards the development by executing a lease deed dtd.14.2.2012 and registered special power of attorney to enable the 2 nd defendant to put up commercial complex and thereby violated the conditions embodied in the gift deed.
17. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has proved the issue by placing Ex.P2 Gift Deed and plaintiff in his evidence deposed about the conditions embodied in the said gift deed. This part of the evidence of plaintiff has not been questioned by the 1 st defendant neither by direct question nor by suggestions. In order to strengthen the fact of violation by the 1 st defendant, plaintiff in his evidence has placed on record Ex.D5 lease deed dtd.14.2.2012 which is executed infavor of 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant. First defendant has leased the vacant B portion as figured but in the commissioner report and by refunding a sum of Rs.4,40,00,000/- and odd has taken back the possession of whole schedule property of 38000 sq.ft.area. Ex.D6 is the joint memo also vouches regarding the settlement of defendant No.1 & 2 before the Arbitration Tribunal for 19 OS.No.2851/2012 having taken back the possession. It is further argued that nowhere in the written statement 1st defendant has taken up a plea by way of defence regarding fulfillment of condition of the gift deed. The Ex.P22 to P28 photographs and newspaper report would go to show public outcry on this issues. It is further argued that the 1st defendant in para 3(c) of the written statement has admitted about the execution of the gift deed and contended that the same was executed without any condition. This defence is against the Ex.P2 gift deed. On bear reading of Ex.P2 gift deed, it would go to show the desire and purpose of deceased plaintiff in executing the same is apparent and without any doubt at all. In the cross examination part, the DW1 would rather emphatically about Ex.P2 without any conditions. It is not the case of 1st defendant that they had carried out or fulfilled the conditions emanating from Ex.P2 either partially or wholly. Therefore, Ex.P2 becomes void in view of non-fulfillment of conditions by the 1 st defendant. The deceased plaintiff has come out rightly in presenting the suit seeking revocation of gift deed and recovery of possession. Therefore, requested this court to hold the issue no.1 and additional issue No.2 as proved by the plaintiff and in the affirmative.
20OS.No.2851/2012
18. Percontra, the counsel for defendant No.1 has argued that the 1st defendant is a public charitable trust. Plaintiff had gifted the suit schedule property to 1 st defendant. Thereafter, the 1st defendant had entered into lease deed with 2nd defendant. The same was got terminated due to the agitation of the public. It is argued that the plaintiff had transferred the suit schedule property absolutely to the 1 st defendant by way of gift deed. There is no condition embodied in the said gift deed. Even if it can be considered that the gift deed is the conditional one, there is no violation of the terms of the gift deed, as the lease deed executed by 1 st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant was cancelled. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit.
19. I have gone through the records meticulously and have given my careful consideration to the contentions of Shri.Ashwatha.M. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff and Shri.J.M.Rajanna Setty, Learned Counsel for the defendant No.1.
20. In the above circumstances, whether the plaintiff has established that Gift Deed is conditional and the Defendant has violated the conditions, we may refer to the relevant provision of law and the case laws on the 21 OS.No.2851/2012 subject. The relevant provision of law and case laws are extracted hereunder for ready reference.
Sec.10 Condition restraining alienation.-- Where property is transferred subject to a condition or limitation absolutely restraining the transferee or any person claiming under him from parting with or disposing of his interest in the property, the condition or limitation is void, except in the case of a lease where the condition is for the benefit of the lessor or those claiming under him: provided that property may be transferred to or for the benefit of a women (not being a Hindu, Muhammadan or Buddhist), so that she shall not have power during her marriage to transfer or charge the same or her beneficial interest therein.
Sec.25 Conditional transfer.--An interest created on a transfer of property and dependent upon a condition fails if the fulfilment of the condition is impossible, or is forbidden by law, or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or is fraudulent, or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another, or the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy.
Sec.25 Transfer conditional on performance of act, no time being specified for performance.--Where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created subject to a condition that the person taking it shall perform a certain act, but no time is specified for the performance of the act, the condition is broken when he renders impossible, 22 OS.No.2851/2012 permanently or for an indefinite period, the performance of the act.
Sec.122. "Gift" defined.--"Gift" is the transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.
Acceptance when to be made.--Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.
Section 123 "Transfer how effected" "For the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses."
Sec.126. When gift may be suspended or revoked.--The donor and donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor a gift shall be suspended or revoked; but a gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere will of the donor, is void wholly or in part, as the case may be. A gift may also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of consideration) in which, if it were a contract, it might be rescinded. Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the rights of transferee for consideration without notice.
23OS.No.2851/2012 In the case of Asokan Vs. Lakshmikuty, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 210 A father executed a registered deed of gift in favour of his son. He had done it because of love and affection for the son and also to enable him to live a peaceful life. There was no proof of undue influence. The donee remained out of India for a long time. In the meantime, the gift deed remained with the donor and he also kept paying taxes. There was no mutation for that period in the revenue records. The Supreme Court held that these circumstances were not sufficient in themselves to show that the execution of the gift deed was not voluntary. The deed could not be rescinded on the premise that it was an onerous gift and that the donee had failed to fulfill the condition for the gift of contributing towards the marriage of the donee's sister the specified sum. Once a gift is complete, it cannot be rescinded for any reason.
In 'Kalyanasundaram Pillai v. Karuppa Moopanar', reported in AIR 1927 PC 42 It has been held that if after the execution of the deed of gift, the deed was delivered to the donee, but the registration of the document took place later, the acceptance of the deed after the execution would complete the gift and make it irrevocable. The Privy Council has further held that where the donor of an 24 OS.No.2851/2012 immovable property has handed over to the donee an instrument of gift duly executed and attested, and the gift has been accepted by the donee, the donor has no power to revoke the gift prior to the registration of the instrument.
In 'Venkati Rama Reddi Vs. Pillaty Rama Reddi', reported in AIR 1917 Mad 27 (FB) It was pointed out that "required a qualification viz., that the acceptance of the gift by the donee must be during the lifetime of the donor. It therefore follows that if there is acceptance of the gift after execution of the deed, even though the registration was postponed, to a later date, the gift would become irrevocable.
In Naramadaben Maganlal Thakker v. Pranjivandas Maganial Thakker, reported in 1(997) 2 SCC 255 : 1997 SAR 118, the Apex Court has held as follows: para 7:
7. It would thus be clear that the execution of a registered Gift Deed, acceptance of the gift and delivery of the property, together make the gift complete. Thereafter, the donor is divested of his title and the donee becomes the absolute owner of the property.
In Sajan Dass and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2002 SCC Online Del.1499 case the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held once the gift is 25 OS.No.2851/2012 complete, the donor has no option to change his mind and cannot revoke the gift.
In case of Nakka Parthasarathy v. Nakka Krishnaveni, reported in 2013 SCC Online 688 wherein held that when once the gift deed is voluntarily made without there being any coercion or undue influence, the acceptance of the gift by the donee would be complete even though the deed of gift is not delivered to the donee and the gift property continues to be in the donors possession.
In Venkat Subba Srinivas Hegde v. Subba Rama Hegde, reported in AIR 1928 PC 86. In that case, the deed under consideration was a gift deed. It was executed and delivered on a particular date but it was not registered until certain events subsequently happened. Those events included the grantor himself changing his mind and bringing a suit containing an application for injunction against the registration by the donee of the deed of gift. It was held that once a gift deed was executed and had been delivered to the donee, the donor cannot revoke the gift even before its registration on the ground that the gift is not completed until the deed is registered.
26OS.No.2851/2012 In Venkatasubbiah v. Subbamma reported in A.I.R. 1956 A.P. 195 : In that case, it has been held that a gift subject to the condition that the donee should maintain the donor cannot be revoked under section 126 of the transfer of property act, for failure of the donee to maintain the donor firstly for the reason that there is no agreement between the parties that the gift should be either suspended or revoked; and secondly this should not depend on the will of the donor. It has been held that the failure of the donee to maintain the donor as undertaken by him in the document is not a contingency which could defeat the gift. All that could be said is that the default of the donee in that behalf amounts to want of consideration. It is held that it is not open to a settlor to revoke a settlement at his will and pleasure and he has to get it set aside in a Court of law by putting forward such pleas relating to the invalidity of gift deed.
In Ranikuntla Rajamma Vs. K.Saswanamma case reported in 2014(9) SCC 445 held that gift of immoveble property reserving life interest in property of donor is valid. Hence the revocation of gift deed was not permitted.
In Jambulingayya Hiremat Vs. Akkamahadevi and others reported in ILR 2020 KAR 2045 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that there cannot be an 27 OS.No.2851/2012 unilateral revocation of gift unless it falls within the ambit of Sec.126 of Transfer of Property Act. In the above case there was no evidence to show that the donor and donee had agreed that on happening of any specified event, independent of the will of the donor the gift would be revoked.
In Smt. Gaurju v. Tarachand reported in AIR 1963 HP 4 , the donor alleging that she had gifted the suit land on the condition that the donee would maintain her during her lifetime sought the cancellation of the gift on the ground that the donee had ceased to maintain her. The Court held that the donee had ceased to maintain her. The Court held that the gift was an unconditional gift. On a perusal of the facts of that case, it is seen that there was no express provision for cancellation or suspension of the gift.
In Gangadhara Iyer v. K.S. Iyer reported in A.I.R. 1952 Trav. Cochin 47, where it has been held that when once the gift becomes complete, it cannot be revoked unless there is an express reservation in that behalf in the deed of gift itself.
In the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. The International Airport Authority Of India, reported in AIR 1979 (3) SCC 489, their Lordships observed:
28OS.No.2851/2012 "It is a well settled rule of interpretation applicable alike to documents as to statutes that, save for compelling necessity, the Court should not be prompt to ascribe superfluity to the language of a document "and should be rather at the outset inclined to suppose every word intended to have some effect or be of some use. To reject words as insensible should be the last resort of judicial interpretation, for it is an elementary rule based on common sense that no author of a formal document intended to be acted upon by the others should be presumed to use words without a meaning. The Court must, as far as possible, avoid a construction which would render the words used by the author of the document meaningless and futile or reduce to silence any part of the document and make it altogether inapplicable."
In Cochrane v. Moore reportedin (1890), 25 Q.B.D. 57, at p. 76, Lord Esher M.R., gives the definition of a gift as follows:
"It is a transaction consisting of two contemporaneous acts, which at once complete the transaction, so that there is nothing more to be done by either party. The act done by one is that he gives; the act done by the other is that he accepts. These contemporaneous acts being done, neither party has anything more to do."
The essential elements of a gift then, according to these definitions, are that one gives, that there is delivery of 29 OS.No.2851/2012 the gift and that the person to whom the gift has been made accepts.
In Hill Vs. Wilson, reported in (1873) 8 Ch A 888 at P. 896 Sir G. Mellish L. J. said that "it requires the assent of both minds to make a gift as it does to make a contract".
21. On Combined reading of Sec.122 and 123 it shows that the following requirements have to be fulfilled for the valid gift deed.
1. Subject matter: There must be property - existing movable or immovable capable of being transferred;
2. There must be two parties: donor and donee;
3. Transfer of property of a Donor to which he is the absolute owner;
4. Donor should be competent to Transfer;
5. Without consideration;
6. It has to be voluntary;
7. It must be accepted by donee during life time of the Donor;
8. By Registered instrument if immovable property;
9. It must be Attested by atleast 2 witnesses.
Keeping in view the above settled principles, if this court examine the circumstances of the present case on hand, absolutely there is no dispute as to the above said essential ingredients to constitute a Gift Deed. The lis 30 OS.No.2851/2012 between parties are at narrow compass as to decide whether the Gift Deed is conditional. If conditional, whether the Defendant No.1 (Donee) has violated the conditions.
22. It is specifically contended by the plaintiff in his plaint that the Gift Deed was conditional and the same was executed for the specific purpose of extending the Church and to construct houses of parishioners of the Church.
23. The Plaintiff has also got examined one J.Chinnappa as PW1 (Son of Donor) and in his evidence reiterated the plaint averments and it is admitted by him that his father was around 90 years at the time of his death and had gifted the Suit Schedule A property in favour of the Church vide Gift Deed in 13.3.1958. It is also admitted that plaintiff did not gift the property personally in favour of Archbishop of Bangalore. However, he has stated that the said property was gifted for the religious purpose. He do not know that there was a small old church on the Eastern Side of the Suit Schedule A property. He has admitted that old structure is demolished and new church building was constructed and thereafter, the said building was also demolished 31 OS.No.2851/2012 and a huge church building is now constructed. Witness has denied the suggestion that new church building is built on property gifted by his father but he has volunteered to state that portion of the property is used for construction of the church building. PW-1 has stated that he has not gone through the Gift Deed executed by his father in favour of defendant no.1 and he do not know the lease deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 has now been cancelled. It is also admitted that the Suit Schedule Property is no longer an agriculture property and now comes within BBMP limits.
24. On the other side, one Rev.Fr.Deva Dass power of attorney of 1st defendant got examined himself as DW1 and has reiterated the written statement averments and it is their specific contention that the Gift Deed has not contained any conditions. Even if the recitals can be considered as conditions, there is no violation of the conditions as the lease deed executed by 1 st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant is surrendered. He has further stated that the previous Archbishop has retired on 31.05.2018 and thereafter, he has become the new Archbishop and stated that the previous Archbishop has not authorized him to give evidence. He has not produced 32 OS.No.2851/2012 any documents in connection with OS No.1671/2012 and O.S.No. 1747/2012. He has further stated Property gifted in favour of the 1st defendant measured 1 acre 33 gunta. Schedule B property was leased out in favour of defendant No.2 for a term lease of 40 years vide Lease Deed dated 12.2.2012. He has admitted the suggestion that the Lease Deed dated 12.2.2012 got cancelled by means of surrender of lease deed dated 9.9.2014 due to agitation. He has further admitted the suggestion that if a gift deed is made, it is not for the personal use of Archbishop. But it is for the benefit of entire Church. He has denied the suggestion that the gift deed Ex.P2 is made for religious purpose. He has admitted the recitals in the gift deed that "and whereas for the purpose of extending the church compound adjoining the schedule property on the East and to enable the donee of put up thereon building appurtenant to the church for the benefit of catholics residing in and around Kammanahalli". The same was marked as Ex.P2(a) . He has also admitted that the old church was demolished and new church was built. He has denied the suggestion that by leasing out the property the terms and conditions of the Gift deed are violated. He has also denied the suggestion that desire of the donor is defeated on account of putting up a construction. He has admitted 33 OS.No.2851/2012 that lease infavour of defendant no.2 is revoked in 2012 on account of objections raised by devotees of the church.
25. Considering the Pleadings of both the parties, documents, depositions, and arguments of both the parties, in fact, there is a force in the argument of the Plaintiff that Gifts are made for some purpose. There is no Gift without a purpose. However, argument of the learned counsel for the Plaintiff that these purpose are itself the conditions cannot be accepted. In fact, a condition is a premise upon which the fulfillment of the agreement depends or it is a provision making the effect of a legal instrument contingent upon an uncertain event. However, the purpose is something set up as an object or an end to be attained. Both are completely different. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the purpose itself are the conditions of the gift cannot be accepted.
26. Applying the required ingredients to constitute the gift deed as stated above, if we anlayse the Gift Deed Ex.P2 on hand, parties to the Gift deed are shown as C.Joseph plaintiff(donor) and defendant No.1 Most. Rev.Dr.Thomas Pothacumany Archbishop of 34 OS.No.2851/2012 Bangalore(Donee). Subject matter of the Property is Plot One Acre thirty three guntas i.e Suit Schedule Property. Gift Deed also states how the donor became the owner. It also shows that it has been duly accepted by Defendant No.1. Hence, it constitutes valid contract for all the requirements to be fulfilled for the Gift Deed. However, the execution of the Gift deed is not at all at issue. Infact, these ingredients itself are not sufficient to decide whether the Gift Deed is conditional or unconditional. To make out whether gift deed is conditional Sec.126 has to be applied. Though Sec.10 of Transfer of Property Act states that condition restraining alienation or parting with interest in the property as void Sec.126 of Transfer of Property Act is an exception to such Rule. According to the Sec.126, a gift can be revoked by agreement between the donor and the donee on the happening of any specified event; but the same cannot be revoked by the mere will of the donor. Therefore, the donor and donee in the gift deed itself or by way of a separate agreement can agree on conditions for revocation of the gift deed.
27. It is settled principle that mere the words absolute found in the Gift Deed does not make the Gift Deed as absolute transfer. Mere the words found conditional also do not make the Gift deed Conditional.
35OS.No.2851/2012 The entire document has to be read as a whole to decide on the intention of the parties to the documents. On meticulous perusal of the Gift deed, it shows that the transferor/Donor intended to make absolute transfer of the suit schedule property by way of Gift Deed. The relevant recitals of the Gift Deed is extracted as below:
1. This deed of Absolute Gift Deed. (First line of the gift deed)
2. The Donor is desirous of making an absolute Gift Deed of Schedule Plot.
3. Donor doth hereby convey, assign, transfer to the Donee, the Schedule Plot absolutely by way of Gift.
4. To have and hold the same as his absolute property.
5. Absolute authority to give, grant dispose.
28. Reading of this Gift Deed perse reveals that the Donor wanted to transfer the property absolutely to Donee. It does not show the intention of the Donor to revoke the transfer upon happening of any event. Moreover, on perusal of the Gift Deed, it shows that the request to receive the property has come from the Donor himself to receive the property as Gift for the purpose of extending church compound. i.e. "The donor is desirous of making absolute Gift deed of the Schedule Plot to the donee and has requested the Donee to accept the gift of the schedule plot and whereas the donee has consented to accept the gift of the schedule plot from the donor."
36OS.No.2851/2012 This can also be gathered from the fact that the Donor being the staunch devotee of Jesus, he was intended to transfer the property to a Church without consideration. Though the purpose has been stated as it was gifted for the purpose of extending the church compound adjoining the schedule property and to enable the donee to put up building appurtenant to church for the benefit of parishioners of the Catholics residing in the Kammnahalli, nowhere it is shown in the Gift Deed that the Donee has agreed to these purposes. Even there seems to be no impediment for both parties to include at least a recital that the Gift is subject to such conditions. There is also no oral or written agreements as to such conditions. If at all there was no conditions there was no impediment for a donor to seek for rectification of gift deed over a period of 54 years. Even on reading entire Gift deed, it won't show that the acceptance of the Gift is subject to such intention. Therefore, it can only be termed as mere statement or intention of the Donor. For example if a father gifts a property to son with the purpose of building the house, if son transfers the property, this will not render the transfer void. Even father cannot revoke the property stating he had transferred the property with such purpose, unless the condition in the Gift deed is specific and unambiguous 37 OS.No.2851/2012 that the Donee had accepted the Gift Deed with such conditions.
29. When there is no conditions in the Gift deed itself, fulfilling unknown conditions does not arise and the argument of the Plaintiff that the Gift Deed was conditional cannot be accepted. Moreover, in the present case, the Gift deed itself states that the property is transferred without any conditions. The relevant para has been extracted as below:
"In pursuance of the aforesaid request made by the donor and it is acceptance by the donee, the donor hereby doth convey, assign and transfer to the donee, the schedule plot absolutely by way of gift and to have and to hold the same as his absolute property free from all encumbrance, charges, conditions and claims whatsoever made by the donor or any one claiming through him."
When the donor himself has made the recital in the gift deed that the gift is free from conditions, the contention of the Plaintiff that it is conditional cannot be accepted. Even in the cross examination of the defendant, though the plaintiff was able to mark the portion of the statement in the Gift Deed that whereas for the purpose of extending the church compound adjoining the 38 OS.No.2851/2012 schedule property on the East and to enable to donor of put up thereon building appurtenant to the church for the benefit of catholics residing in and around Kammanahalli, the Plaintiff is not able to elicit from the mouth of the Defendant no.1 (Donee) that these were the conditions that were agreed between the Parties. Moreover, the entire materials on record does not show that the Donor ever contacted the donee in relation with the purpose of the Gift Deed in a period of 54 years of time. On reading of the gift deed, it shows that though there is no legal obligation on the Donee/defendant no.1 to utilize the Suit schedule property for purposes as stated in the Gift Deed, it is the discretion and moral obligation cast upon the Defendant no.1/donee to utilize the property for any purpose welfare and development of the Church as stated in the Gift Deed.
30. On perusal of Sec.126, it states that the donor and donee may agree that on happening of any specified event, the gift shall be revoked or suspended. On perusal of the gift deed Ex.P2, the Gift Deed does not disclose the purpose as one of the specific event that has to be fulfilled by the Donee and non fulfillment of the same makes the Gift Deed as void or revocable. Moreover, it may not be proper for any donor to revoke the gift when 39 OS.No.2851/2012 the property is gifted wholeheartedly. Gift deed cannot be revoked on mere change of mind. If at all the Gift Deed was conditional, the donor was being a well educated, there was no impediment for him to make the Gift Deed recital very specific that the Gift Deed is conditional and can be revoked upon happening of the event.
31. There is no dispute that the plaintiff was a staunch devotee of Jesus and attached to St. Pius X Church. Though it is specifically averred that the father of the church wanted to extend the church building and also to made use of the A schedule Property of the Plaintiff for the benefit of Catholics residing in and around Kammanahalli, on meticulous perusal of the entire gift deed, it doesn't not spell out that the father of the church wanted the schedule property extend the church building and also to make use of the A schedule Property of the Plaintiff for the benefit of Catholics residing in and around Kammanahalli. However, it is stated in the Gift Deed that the Plaintiff is gifting the property for the purpose of extension the church building and also to make use of the A schedule Property of the Plaintiff for the benefit of Catholics residing in and around Kammanahalli. Merely because the plaintiff wanted the property to be gifted for the specific purpose, 40 OS.No.2851/2012 it cannot be construed as that the defendant also wanted to make use of the property for such purpose only.
32. It is also specifically stated in para 4 of the plaint that the clause in the Gift deed is very clear that the property shall not be put to any commercial activities other than for the benefit and welfare of the Catholics and towards the activities of the church and they have been of acting contrary to the desire of the donor, the donor is having every right under the provisions of the T.P.Act for revocation. The said revocation can be done on the happening of a specified event which is against the wish of the donor as recited in the Gift Deed. On meticulous perusal of the Gift Deed, gift deed do not reflect the pleadings as stated in para 4 of the plaint. There is no specific recitals in the entire pleading that the Suit schedule property should not be used for any commercial purpose. There is also no recitals in the gift deed that on the happening of event, the plaintiff is having right to revoke the Gift Deed. Hence, the contention of the plaintiff that the Gift deed is conditional cannot be accepted. Even perusal of the lease deed dtd.15.11.1954 Ex.D2, original lease is dated 1.7.1961 Ex.D3 and lease deed dtd.21.11.1984 Ex.D4, it shows that 1st defendant was in habit of leasing the church 41 OS.No.2851/2012 property on lease for using the rent collected for the charitable purpose. Therefore, this court is of the firm opinion that the Gift deed is not a conditional gift Deed. Therefore, question of violation of Gift Deed does not arise for consideration.
33. Even for the sake of discussion, it can be considered that the Gift Deed was conditional, it is specifically pleaded in para 5 of the plaint that the first defendant has parted with the Suit Schedule Property ie., 38,000 square feet Schedule A by entering into lease deed dtd.14.2.2012 for purpose of construction of commercial complex with 2nd defendant. The same was not disputed by the Defendant no.1. However, it is the contention of the defendant no.1 in Para 7 (e) of the Written statement that the property is still remained in their hand. Therefore, it cannot be termed as the defendant No.1 has parted with the property. It is also specifically stated in the Para 7 (f)(1) of the Written Statement that lease deed has been terminated on 31.5.2012 and the same has been surrendered on 9.9.2015. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff has become infructuous. The defendants have also relied on Lease Deed Ex.D5 the same would reveal that the lease deed had been entered between the first defendant and the 2 nd 42 OS.No.2851/2012 defendant for the purpose of construction of the commercial complex and thereafter, on protest from the public, the same has been cancelled. The subsequent developments after the execution of the Lease deed by the Defendant no.1/Donee with the Defendant No.2 is not disputed by the Plaintiff. Therefore, this court is of the firm opinion that when the Plaintiff has pleaded in Para 4 of the plaint that the gift is liable to be revoked on happening of specified event i.e violation of condition, since the event of lease deed likely would have happened has not happened as it was cancelled and surrendered, it can be deemed that no event has happened and there is no violation of the conditions. Even on perusal of the Ex.D6 personal copy of the joint memo filed before the Arbitration Tribunal by the defendant 1 & 2 and Ex.D7 memo of proceedings dtd.12.9.2014 before the Arbitration Tribunal it shows that the dispute between the defendant 1 & 2 is resolved and the property is still in possession of 1st defendant.
34. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. When both the parties have led the evidence, the question of onus fades into oblivion and the entire evidence has been appreciated as a whole. While appreciating the evidence, it is the duty of the Court to 43 OS.No.2851/2012 sift the grain from the chaff. The court has to appreciate the evidence in its total gist and not to pick one some scattered sentences, else one may miss the wood for the trees. The final picture that has emerged on the basis of the entire evidence, and testing the same on the altar of preponderance of probabilities that Ex.P2 is an absolute Gift Deed and the Gift Deed is not conditional. When the Gift Deed is not conditional, the violation of Gift Deed does not arise for consideration. Even if it is considered as conditional, there is no event that has taken place to render the Gift Deed as Void. Therefore, issue No.1 is answered in the negative and Addl. Issue No.2 does not arise for consideration,
35. Issue No.2: It is the contention of the plaintiff that 1st defendant by leasing out the property to 2nd defendant, has interfered with the suit schedule B property, therefore sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature and character of B schedule property. Inview of the finding on issue No.1 and additional Issue No.2, the present issue does not arise for consideration.
36. Issue No.3 to 5: The defendants in this case have contented that the suit is not maintainable as the defendant No.1 is a representative of a Trust and 44 OS.No.2851/2012 proceedure under section 92 has not been followed. No leave is sought from the court. Percontra, it is the contention of the plaintiff that it is the deceased plaintiff who has come before court as an individual person in filing the suit questioning the execution of gift deed Ex.P2 is void on the ground of non-fulfillment of condition as embodied in the Gift. Plaintiff has not filed a suit in capacity as a trustee nor in any other manner of his relationship with the trust as filed the suit. Therefore Sec.92 is not attracted to the present case on hand.
37. On meticulous perusal of Section 92 of CPC shows that it is the procedure what has to be followed in case, the suit is filed against the Public Trust/ Public Charties. Admittedly, present suit is filed by the Plaintiff/Donor himself against the Donee/Defendant No.1. Therefore, compliance of Section 92 does not arise for consideration.
38. It is the contention of the 1st defendant that there was a representative suit filed by the Catholics of Kammanahalli in OS.No.1671/2012 on the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore and the same has been withdrawn on 31.3.2012. They have filed OS.No.1747/2012 before City Civil Court and the same is pending. In OS.No.1747/2012, plaintiffs in that suit took out an 45 OS.No.2851/2012 advertisement in local newspaper announcing in the said representative suit, inviting interested persons to join as parties to the suit. However, the plaintiff in this suit, did not so join. Hence, the relief claimed in this suit, was available to them. Therefore, the present suit is barred under Order 2 rule 2 of CPC. On meticulous perusal of Order 2 rule 2, it shows that when the person files a suit, he needs to include all the claims arising out of the same transaction against the defendants and he cannot maintain a separate suit without the leave of the court on the basis of the same transaction. As per the written statement averments of the 1st defendant, it is the representative suit filed by the catholics residents of Kammanahalli. The defendant No.1 has not shown that the plaintiff is also a party to the said suit. Therefore, the contention of the defendant No.1 that plaintiff would have claimed the same relief in the representative suit itself and present suit is not maintainable cannot be accepted.
39. The defendants in their written statement have stated that the suit schedule property has been converted to non-agricultural property and it is no longer an agricultural property, the boundaries mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint cannot be identified, therefore, the present suit is not maintainable. The said contention 46 OS.No.2851/2012 of the defendants cannot be accepted as both parties in the suit have not disputed the existence of the property and the boundaries thereof. In the above circumstances, I answer issue No.3 to 5 in the negative.
40. Issue No.6: Inview of above discussions, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief declaration to declare the gift deed is cancelled and permanent injunction as prayed. Hence, I answer issue No.6 in the negative.
41. Addl.Issue No.1: It is the contention of the defendant No.1 that the gift deed Ex.D2 did not contain any conditions, as such the violation of conditions does not arise for consideration. Even if this court considers that it is a conditional gift deed, the defendant No.1 has already terminated the lease deed dtd.14.2.2012, and the possession of the property is still remain with the defendant No.1 and he has not parted with the suit schedule property, therefore the present suit is infructuous. Inview of my finding on issue No.1 and addl.issue no.2, the present issue does not arise for consideration. Hence, I hold the above issue in the negative.
42. Issue No.7: In the result, I pass the following:
47OS.No.2851/2012 ORD ER Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the judgment writer directly on computer, computarised by him, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court dated this day the 5th December, 2020] [SADANANDA NAGAPPA NAIK] XVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. No. of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:
PW1 : J.Chinnappa
2. No. of documents marked on behalf of plaintiff:
Ex.P1: CC of sale deed dtd.26.11.1957 Ex.P2,2(a) : CC of Gift Deed and its typed copy Ex.P3 to 15:CC of RTC Extracts Ex.P16 : Office copy of legal notice Ex.P16(a) to(c): Postal receipts & Ack.Card Ex.P17 : Three Photographs Ex.P18 : CD Ex.P19 : News paper (Times of India) Ex.P20 & 21: Monthly papers Ex.P22 : CC of lease deed
3. No. of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants:
DW1 : Rev.Fr.Deva Dass 48 OS.No.2851/2012
4. No. of documents marked on behalf of defendants:
Ex.D1 :
Special Power of Attorney dtd.18.6.2014 Ex.D2 :
Original Lease Deed dtd.15.11.1957 Ex.D3 :
Lease Deed dtd.1.7.1961 Ex.D4 :
Lease Deed dtd.21.11.1984 Ex.D5 :
Surrender of Lease Deed Ex.D6 :
Personal copy of Joint Memo filed before Arbitral Tribunal Ex.D7 : Minutes of proceedings dtd.12.9.2014 before Arbitral Tribunal XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore City.49
OS.No.2851/2012 Judgment pronounced in the open court as per separate judgment. Operative portion of judgment is as follows:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore City.