Bangalore District Court
Supriya Apaertments Owners ... vs Gowda D S on 4 June, 2025
KABC010127972009
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-26).
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2025.
Present
Sri Vijaya Kumar Rai, B.Com., LL.B.,
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.2879/2009
Plaintiffs: 1) Supriya Apartment Owners Association
A Society registered under the Karnataka
Societies Registration Act, 1960, No.132
6th 'A' Cross, 9th Main, Raja Mahal Vilas
Extension, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru
represented by its Secretary
Sri S.K. Srinivasan.
2(a) Mr.H.P. Mallikarjuna
(Dead by his Lrs)
2(b) Mrs.Leela Mallikarjuna
w/o Late H.P. Mallikarjuna
r/atE-208, Brigade Gateway
Malleswaram West
Bengaluru-55.
2(c) Mr.Manish Mallikarjuna
s/o Late H.P. Mallikarjuna
aged about 43 years
r/at No.22, Dunn Drive
Marlboro, NJ07746, USA.
2(d) Smt.Mahima Mallikarjuna
d/o Late H.P. Mallikarjuna
aged about 41 years
r/at No.3616, Stonehege Way
San Ramon, CA94582, USA.
2 O.S.No.2879/2009
3(a) Smt.Sarita Ahuja
w/o Sandeep Roiara
aged about 41 years
r/at No.E8, Saket, New Delhi-17
3(b) Mrs.Sheetal Ahuja
w/o Naveen T. Lunda
Aged about 33 years
Hari Om Nivas, No.80
Bhashya Karlu Road
R.S.Puram West
Coimbatore-02.
3(c) Mrs.Reema Ahuja
w/o Srihari
Aged about 34 years
r/at No.466, 4th Main
7th Cross, R.M.V. II Stage
Bengaluru-94.
3(d) Mrs.Smitha Ahuja
w/o Arun Lakshminarayanan
Aged about 32 years
r/at H.42 Carrabean Coast
Phase III, Tung Chung
Hong Kong.
Plaintiffs No.3(a) to 3(d) are represented
by power of attorney Holder
Smt.Viveka S. Ahuja
w/o Late Sunder K. Ahuja
aged about 62 years, No.101
No.132, 6th 'A' Cross, 9th Main
Rajamahal Vilas Extension
Bangalore-80.
4) Mr.Swaminathan Kumar
s/o Late P.N. Swamynathan
Aged about 47 years
r/at Flat No.102, 'B' Wing
Ground Floor, No.132, 6th 'A' Cross
9th Main, Rajamahal Vilas Extension
Bangalore-80, represented by his
PA Holder, Sri Anil Bhandary
aged about 51 years.
3 O.S.No.2879/2009
5) Mr.Suresh Kumar Raheja
s/o Ramchand Raheja
Aged about 50 years
r/at Flat No.203, No.132(A-101)
6th 'A' Cross, 9th Main, Rajamahal Vilas
Extension, Bangalore-80.
6) Mrs.Geetha Karthikeya Asin
w/o Amin Karthikeya Asin
Aged about 60 years
r/at Flat No.201, No.132
6th 'A' Cross, 9th Main, Rajamahal Vilas
Extension, Bangalore-80.
Represented by her PA Holder
Sri Vittal, K.S., aged about 55 years.
7(a) Mr.Shiva Kumar Sreenivasan
(Dead by his Lrs)
7(a)(1) Smt.Asha Sreenivasan
w/o Late Shiva Kumar Srinivasan
aged about 80 years
r/at No.776/777, 1st 'A' Main
Chinnanna Layout
Kaval Byrasandra
Bengaluru-560032.
7(b) Mrs.Indumati Sampath Kumar
w/o Sri Sampath Kumar
Aged about 68 years
presently r/at No.B-202
No.132, 6th 'A' Cross
9th Main, Rajamahal Vilas Extension
Bangalore-80.
8) Dr.Prem Nath
s/o Sri Dwarika Nath
Aged about 72 years
Flat No.303, No.132
6th 'A' Cross, 9th Main
Rajamahal Vilas Extension
Bangalore-80.
9) M/s.Devilog Infra Structure (P) Ltd.
represented by its Managing Director
4 O.S.No.2879/2009
Harbans Thukral
Flat No.301, No.132, 6th 'A' Cross
9th Main, Rajamahal Vilas Extension
Bangalore-80.
10) M/s Prasad Productions (P) Ltd.
Having its office at Thyagarajanagar
Chennai, represented by its Managing
Director, A. Ramesh, Flat No.302
No.132, 6th 'A' Cross, 9th Main
Rajamahal Vilas Extension
Bangalore-80.
(By Sri S.K.V. Chalapathi, learned senior
counsel for Sri V. Ramesha Babu, Adv.)
Vs.
Defendants: 1) Sri D.S. Gowda
s/o Late Dhanadappa
Aged about 70 years
2) Smt.Kenchamma S Gowda
w/o D.S. Gowda
Aged about 60 years
3) Smt.Bharathi S Gowda
d/o D.S. Gowda
Aged about 30 years
4) Sri S.N.Sudhanva
s/o D.S. Gowda
Aged about 31 years
All are r/at No.389, Judges Colony
R.T.Nagar, Bangalore-32.
5) Hamir K Asher
Aged about 38 years
C/o Offices & Homes G3
Parshwa Dharsan, 10
Lajpatrai Road, Vile Parle(w)
Mumbai-400 056
presently based in Dubai
5 O.S.No.2879/2009
P.O.Box No.118163, Dubai, UAE.
(By Sri S. Subramanya, Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit 22.04.2009
Nature of the suit For specific performance of
contract
Date of the commencement 15.03.2016
of recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 04.06.2025
Pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
08 01 12
(Vijaya Kumar Rai)
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs to direct the defendants to execute a deed of sale conveying to the first plaintiff society, the schedule 'A' property by way of absolute sale deed and also to direct the defendants to execute separate sale deeds in respect of item Nos.1 to 9 of suit 'A' schedule apartments in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10 as per the sale deeds executed in their favour.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as hereunder:- 6 O.S.No.2879/2009
The first defendant Sri D.S.Gowda is the owner of suit 'A' schedule property bearing No.132, 6th 'A' Cross, 9th Main, RMV Extension, Sadashiva Nagar, Bangalore-80, which is described as suit 'A' schedule property. He had entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 30.04.1981 with one Mr.K.T. Asher, who was carrying on business under the name and style M/s Asher and Associates. Under the said joint development agreement, the first defendant authorised the said Mr.K.T. Asher to develop the schedule 'A' property by constructing residential apartments there on. As on the date of the joint development agreement, the suit schedule property was consisted certain structures and late Sri K.T. Asher was authorised to put up additional floors on the existing structures by putting up residential apartments. As per clause (i) of joint development agreement, the first defendant being the owner of the schedule property specifically authorised late Mr.K.T. Asher to sell, dispose of and transfer the flats/apartments that may be constructed on the property upon such terms and conditions the developer deems fit by receiving the consideration amount. Though clause No.11 had imposed a condition that the developer was obliged to appropriate the sale proceeds firstly for payment of the loan availed by the defendant No.1 by mortgaging 'A' schedule property and secondly for payment of the balance amount due to 7 O.S.No.2879/2009 the first defendant and thereafter to share the net profits along with the first defendant in equal share, it did not place any restrictions on the power of late Mr.K.T. Asher to sell the flats/ apartments directly by receiving the sale proceeds. The authorisation given by defendant No.1 included for the sale of flats/units including car parking space. As per Clause-17, it was agreed that the prospective buyers of the apartments should form a co-operative society or any other body or association or Limited company of the acquirers of the flats/units/car parking space and the first defendant had agreed to execute the deed of conveyance or transfer or such other document in favour of developer or the acquirers including to the society or body or association or limited company of acquirers. Pursuant to the joint development agreement, Mr.K.T. Asher commenced the construction work and had entered into nine separate sale agreements in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10 on 08.05.1982, 11.01.1982, 11.03.1985, 10.10.1981, 11.10.1981, 08.10.1981, 08.06.1983, 29.05.1987 and 22.06.1984, agreeing to sell the flats No.103, 101, 102, 203, 201, 202, 303, 301 and 302 respectively in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10 for the consideration amounts narrated in the plaint.
The plaintiffs No.2 to 10 have paid the consideration amount except a portion of balance by plaintiffs No.3, 5 & 9. They have been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract by 8 O.S.No.2879/2009 paying the balance consideration amount at the time of execution of the sale deed and to get the sale deed registered in their favour.
3. The developer Mr.K.T. Asher altogether constructed 11 flats/apartments in the building put up on the suit schedule property out of which 9 flats have been sold to plaintiffs No.2 to
10. One flat in the 3rd floor is taken by Mr.Kini who has not joined the plaintiff in the suit but he has joined in the formation of the first plaintiff Society. One flat in the third floor remained unsold and kept with Mr.K.T. Asher. There is an agreement between K.T. Asher and Associates and plaintiffs No.2 to 10. Clause-44 of those agreements provided that conveyance of the suit schedule property is to be made in favour of the society to be formed and the conveyance is to be made after all the flats in the condominium are sold and society is formed. Plaintiffs No.2 to 10 who have purchased flats were waiting for the 11th apartment also to be sold so that they can form the society and seek conveyance of the schedule property to the society to be formed. However, in the meanwhile, Mr.K.T. Asher died and his son Mr.Hamir K. Asher, the fifth defendant herein approached the plaintiffs No.2 to 11 and stated that he is not interested in selling the said flat and will join in the formation of the society. Accordingly, plaintiffs No.2 to 10 along with 5th defendant and Mr.Kini formed and registered 9 O.S.No.2879/2009 the first plaintiff Society under certificate BLU S 79/2007-08 dated 10.04.2007. After formation of the society as aforesaid, the first defendant was under obligation to convey the schedule property to the first plaintiff Society. Though the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 have approached him on several occasions to execute the sale deed in terms of the JDA dated 30.04.1981, he had represented that there is difference between him and K.T. Asher in the matter of receipt of consideration from Mr.K.T. Asher, as such, he did not complete the conveyance unless and until receive the entire sale consideration from K.T. Asher. However, subsequently, the first defendant took possession of 11th apartment in the 3rd floor which remained unsold and intimated the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 that he has taken possession of the said flat in full satisfaction of his claims against Mr.K.T. Asher. Having taken possession of the 11th apartment in the 3rd floor in full satisfaction of the claim there was no justification for the first defendant to delay the execution of the conveyance of the sale deed and therefore he was bound to execute the conveyance in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10. Even if the developer did not fulfill the obligations of the JDA, the right of plaintiffs No.2 to 10 to get the sale deed executed in their favour is not dependent or contingent upon the first defendant to receive the consideration amount from K.T. Asher. The plaintiffs have been ready and willing to perform their part of obligations and as 10 O.S.No.2879/2009 the possession of the flats were delivered the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 they are in possession of their respective flats. Subsequently, the defendant No.1 went on promising that he will take appropriate action in the matter, but never completed the conveyance of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs have issued a notice dated 27.05.2008 demanding the defendant No.1 to convey the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs for which he has sent an untenable reply dated 18.06.2008. In the said reply, the first defendant for the first time intimated that he had gifted the schedule property in favour of his wife Smt.Kenchamma S Gowda the second defendant, Smt.Bharathi S Gowda the third defendant and Sri S.N. Sudhanva the fourth defendant, who are his wife and children who were residing together. There was no limitation on the right of the developer to enter into the sale agreements. As the defendant No.1 has failed to execute the registered sale deed, without option, the present suit is filed seeking the above reliefs.
4. Pursuant to the suit summons issued by this Court, the defendants entered appearance and defendant No.1 filed written statement. Other defendants have adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1. In the written statement filed by the defendant No.1, he has admitted about the execution of joint development agreement between him and late K.T. Asher. 11 O.S.No.2879/2009 But, it is contended that as per the terms of the said agreement, the developer had to put up construction consisting of ground, first and second floor and he had to abide the conditions provided in the agreement. It is contended by defendant No.1 that the developer has committed breach of the conditions mentioned in the joint development agreement and he has failed to repay the loan. It is specifically contented that as per the terms of the agreement, the developer has to first discharge the mortgage amount with the bank, secondly he has to pay the balance amount to the owner and thereafter he has to realise the profit. It is pleaded that knowing fully well that defendant No.1 had raised loan of ₹5 lakhs from Corporation bank and as on the date of the agreement, the due amount was ₹12 Lakhs, the developer has not at all paid any amount to the bank. It is his contention that unless the plaintiffs are able to establish that the developer has fulfilled his part of the contract and obligation, the plaintiffs have no right to seek specific performance of the agreement executed between them and late K.T. Asher. It is also contended that the agreements relied upon by the plaintiffs are of different dates in respect of different properties and as such plaintiffs cannot club all the matters in a single suit and take a common cause of action for the different agreements between different parties. It is contended that the plaintiffs should have filed separate individual 12 O.S.No.2879/2009 suits. It is also contended that as the developer has committed the breach of the contract, he had no right to enter into sale agreement and transfer the property to any person.
5. The defendant No.1 has specifically pleaded that the first plaintiff society is a non-existing body as there is no owners to the apartment, as such the question of forming owners association does not arise at all. It is also contended that the first plaintiff society is not formed in accordance with law and it cannot seek specific performance of the sale agreement. It is also pleaded that the rights of the developer to alienate the apartments to be constructed are subject to the recital contained in the agreement and as the developer did not comply the conditions therein, the sale agreements are not binding on the defendant No.1 and he is not liable to execute the sale deed.
6. The defendant No.1 has contended that he is in possession of all the flats and the developer has not even obtained occupancy certificate. It is also contended that the developer has not paid the corporation taxes and when the parties have not paid proper stamp duty on the agreements, they cannot rely on it. The Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is called as insufficient. He has also pleaded about the gift deed executed in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 in respect of the suit schedule 13 O.S.No.2879/2009 apartments and sought for a dismissal of the suit contending that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings this Court has framed the following issues:-
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that 1st defendant had entered into an agreement dated 30.04.1981 with late K.T. Asher and pursuant to the said agreement late K.T. Asher was authorized to enter into agreement of sale with the plaintiffs in respect of the apartments constructed in the suit 'A' schedule property?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that late K.T. Asher had executed sale agreements dated 08.05.1982, 11.01.1982, 11.03.1995, 10.10.1981, 11.10.1981,
08.10.1981, 08.06.1983, 29.05.1987 and 22.06.1984 in favour of plaintiffs in respect of item No.1 to 9 of the suit schedule properties?
3) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 1st defendant is liable to execute the sale deed in respect of item No.1 to 9 of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs?
4) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have been ready and willing to perform their part of contract?
5) Whether the defendants No.1 to 4 prove that the 1st plaintiff society is not formed in accordance with law?
14 O.S.No.2879/2009
6) Whether the suit is filed within the period of limitation?
7) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action?
8) Whether the plaintiffs have paid proper court fee?
9) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to seek the relief of specific performance?
10) What order or decree?
8. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, they are examined as PW1 to 11 and marked Ex.P1 to 55 documents. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.2 is examined as DW1 and produced Ex.D1 to 60 documents.
9. Heard the arguments of learned senior counsel Sri S.K.V. Chalapathi for the plaintiffs and Sri S. Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for the defendants. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs filed written submissions. Subsequently, on 02.06.2025, learned counsel appearing for defendants No.1 to 4 has submitted written arguments.
10. Findings of this Court on the above issues are as hereunder:-
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative
15 O.S.No.2879/2009
Issue No.4 : In the affirmative
Issue No.5 : In the negative
Issue No.6 : In the affirmative
Issue No.7 : In the negative
Issue No.8: In the affirmative
Issue No.9: In the affirmative
Issue No.10: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
11. Issue No.1:- It is not in dispute that the defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit 'A' schedule property bearing No.132/4 (old No.36, new No.4) situated at Raja Mahal Vilas extension, Bengaluru measuring east-west 1178.6 feet and north- south 78 feet in all 9165 sq.ft. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the defendant No.1 being the owner of the said property entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 30.04.1981 with one Mr.K.T.Asher, who was carrying on business under the name and style M/s Asher and Associates for the purpose of construction of residential apartments in the suit 'A' schedule property. In the written statement filed by the defendants, they have not specifically denied the joint development agreement dated 30.04.1981 executed between defendant No.1 and late Mr.K.T. Asher. On the other hand, defendants have admitted in para No.17 of the written statement about the execution of the agreement with late K.T. Asher without referring to the date of the 16 O.S.No.2879/2009 agreement. The plaintiffs have produced this agreement at Ex.P25. Execution of joint development agreement as per Ex.P25 is not denied in the cross-examination of PW1 to 11. The copy of the same is also produced by the defendants at Ex.D2. Added to this, when defendant No.2 is examined as DW1, in her chief examination, she has admitted the execution of the joint development agreement by defendant No.1 with late K.T. Asher.
12. The plaintiffs have relied upon Ex.P1 to 8 and Ex.P20 sale agreements said to be executed by developer late K.T.Asher agreeing to sell flats No.103, 101, 102, 203, 201, 202, 303, 301 and 302 in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10 respectively. The right of developer late K.T. Asher to execute these sale agreements is not admitted by the defendants in their written statement. Learned counsel appearing for defendants has also specifically pointed out that the sale agreements cannot be enforced by the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 as the agreement does not confer any individual rights to the acquirers. He has argued that the only right conferred to the acquirers is to become the members of the co-op. Society or limited company and therefore right to hold the property is vested with the representative body of the plaintiffs and hence, they are not entitled to enforce the contract. In this regard, he has specifically pointed out Clause-26 of Ex.P.1 sale agreement and similar clauses contmplated in other sale agreements and argued 17 O.S.No.2879/2009 that the court cannot rewrite a contract nor it can make a new contract.
13. Ex.P25 joint development agreement indicates that though defendant No.1 had initially started construction of an apartment building consisting of a ground and one upper floor in suit 'A' schedule property, as there was financial scarcity to complete the construction, he has entered into this joint development agreement to construct additional floors on the structure already constructed. The terms of Ex.P25 joint development agreement specifically provides that the defendant No.1 has permitted the developer Mr.K.T. Asher to sell, dispose of and transfer the flats/units thereon in the discretion of the developer and receive consideration amount. The agreement has also authorised the developer late K.T. Asher to dispose even car parking spaces on ownership basis or any other basis permissible in law as the developer may deem fit and proper and by executing the agreements required for the purpose of transfer of flats/units/car parking spaces and to receive the sale proceeds. In this regard, the specific clauses provided in Ex.P25 joint development agreement is extracted for ready reference:-
"1. The owner hereby agrees to permit and records having permitted and granted to the Developers sole, exclusive and uninterrupted right to develop the said property more particularly 18 O.S.No.2879/2009 described in the schedule hereunder written, by constructing additional floors on the said structure already constructed by the Owner on the said property upon the terms and conditions hereinafter contained. The Owner further records having granted to and permitted the Developers the right to complete the structure already constructed on the said property and to sell, dispose of and/or transfer the flats/units therein for such terms and upon such terms and conditions as the Developers may deem fit and proper in their absolute discretion and to receive and appropriate the consideration amount received and/or receivable in respect thereof. ..................
11. It is specifically agreed that on the execution hereof, the Developers shall be entitled to complete the existing structure already constructed on the said property in all respects and to sell or dispose of flats/units therein for such consideration and upon such terms and conditions as the Developers may deem fit and proper and appropriate the sale proceeds thereof firstly for the payment and discharge of the aforesaid mortgage debt of the Owner and secondly in the payment of the balance consideration amount to the Owner and thereafter the balance of the net profit out of such sale of flats/units in the future construction of the second 19 O.S.No.2879/2009 and third floor be shared between the Developers and the Owner equally. .................
16. In consideration of the premises, it is agreed by and between the parties that the Developers shall be entitled to sell, dispose of and/ or transfer flats/units/car parking spaces in the building already constructed on the said property or further construction to be carried out on the said property as mentioned hereinabove, on what is known as "Ownership basis" or on any other basis permissible in law and upon such terms and conditions as the Developers may deem fit and proper and the Developers shall also be entitled to enter into and/or execute such agreement/ agreements as may be required for the purpose of sale and/or transfer of such flats/units/car parking spaces and to appropriate, after payment of the consideration amount in the manner aforesaid, the sale proceeds in respect thereof for their own use and benefit".
14. The above clauses enumerated in the joint development agreement has given absolute discretion to the developer Mr.K.T. Asher to execute the sale agreements to the prospective purchasers of the flats/apartments/units/parking spaces. Therefore, in Ex.P25 JDA, the right of the developer to execute the sale agreement is inbuilt. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for defendants, Clause-26 of Ex.P.1 20 O.S.No.2879/2009 sale agreement indicates that the conveyance shall be made in favour of the Society or limited company. But, while considering the covenants the contracts they are required to be considered as a whole. If the sale agreements and JDA are read together, the object is to execute the sale deed in respect of undivided area to the representative body and confer title in respect of individual apartments to the buyers. It is important to note that in order to protect the interest of the buyers of individual apartment, the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act 1972 is introduced by the State. The statement of objections and reasons of this Act makes it clear that the object is that each apartment should for all purposes constitute a heritable and transferable immovable property and thereby to give exclusive ownership to the owner of the each apartment. Section 5 of this Act clearly provides that each apartment owner shall be entitled to the exclusive ownership and possession of his apartment. Section 24 of this Act speaks about the binding effect. Similarly the Karnataka Ownership Flats Act 1972 also introduced in the year 1972 in the interest of intending purchaser who advanced funds and to regulate the construction and sale of apartments. Section 17 of this Act provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to the provisions of Transfer of Property Act 1882 and shall take effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any 21 O.S.No.2879/2009 contract. Therefore, the terms of Ex.P25 JDA and sale agreements are required to be read along with the statutory rights conferred to the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 under the above statutes.
15. In addition to that, the plaintiffs have also produced the copy of power of attorney executed by defendant No.1 in favour of Late K.T. Asher at Ex.P29. The execution of the power of attorney as per Ex.P29 is admitted by defendant No.1 in Ex.P11 and Ex.P.12 notices and also in para No.18 of the written statement. The only contention raised by the defendants is that though the developer had the power of attorney executed by defendant No.1, the developer had utterly failed to defend the suit filed by the bank. Though it is argued on behalf the defendants that the power of attorney is cancelled, no document is produced to that effect. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants has contended that even if there was power of attorney, it was not in respect of the suit schedule flats and subject to fulfillment of the obligations of the developer. The recital of the power of attorney clearly indicates that late K.T. Asher was authorised to execute all deeds of conveyance in respect of the flats constructed in the suit 'A' schedule property. Ex.P.29 power of attorney reflects drawing up of a line upon it. But, when the execution of the power of attorney is admitted by the defendants and as it was not cancelled, the plaintiffs were justified in relying upon the said 22 O.S.No.2879/2009 power of attorney for the purpose of obtaining sale agreement and payment of consideration amount.
16. The main contention urged on behalf of the defendants is that the joint development agreement and the power of attorney are subject to the conditions contained in the said agreement and the developer having committed breach of those conditions, he was not authorised to execute the sale agreements and therefore the defendants are not liable to execute conveyance deeds on the basis of sale agreements. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants has also taken up a contention that the JDA is not acted upon. The plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that pursuant to the JDA, the developer altogether constructed 11 flats/apartments. In the written statement, the defendants have generally denied it without pleading anything about the extent of construction carried out by late K.T. Asher. The defendants have not even pleaded that the half constructed building existed at the time of execution of JDA was completed by the defendants. In the course of evidence of defendant No.2, she has tried to project that late K.T. Asher has not at all carried out any construction and the entire construction is carried out by defendant No.1 only. But, this contention of the defendants appears to be apparently false as the defendant No.2 and defendant No.4 have specifically admitted in the previous suit filed in O.S.No.229/1993 instituted 23 O.S.No.2879/2009 by defendant No.4 who was a minor represented by defendant No.2 Smt.Kenchamma S. Gowda. The certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.229/1993 is admitted by defendant No.2 during her cross-examination and marked as Ex.P.54. The recitals of the said plaint in para No.8 clearly reflects that late K.T. Ahser had entered into agreement with plaintiffs No.2 to 10, collected consideration amount and constructed 2nd and 3rd floor constructions in the suit schedule property. In this regard, the relevant portion of pleading of defendant No.4 submitted through defendant No.2 in O.S.No.229/1993 is extracted for ready reference:-
"The plaintiff respectfully submit that II defendant did not spend any money for the construction of the II and III floor in the RMV Extension, being collected the moneys by entering into agreement from defendants 3,4,6,7,9 and 10 and out of such collections, he has put up the II and III floors as the original construction planned to take such load".
17. The above admission of defendants 2 & 4 which was not disputed by the defendant No.1, not only indicates that late K.T. Asher had carried out construction of 2 nd and 3rd floors as per Ex.P.25 JDA by executing sale agreements in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10 and also by receiving the consideration amount from them, but, also clearly indicates that the defendants were fully 24 O.S.No.2879/2009 aware of the sale agreements executed between K.T. Asher and plaintiffs No.2 to 10. Even after knowing the above sale transactions held between late K.T. Asher and plaintiffs No.2 to 10, the defendants have not chosen to question the sale agreements and the possession of plaintiffs No.2 to 10 even till the filing of this suit.
18. The defendants have also contended that it was the obligation of the developer to discharge the mortgage amount first, secondly pay the agreed amount to the defendant No.1 and later only he can realise the profits. As rightly contended on behalf of the defendants, Clause 11 provides that the developer was obliged to appropriate the sale proceeds firstly for the payment and discharge of the mortgage debt of the owner, secondly, for payment of balance consideration amount to the owner and thereafter the balance of the net profit out of such sale of flats shall be shared between the developers and owners equally. The point for determination is whether the condition so imposed is a condition precedent for the execution of the sale agreement or it is an obligation of the developer after the execution of the sale agreement. The various clauses in the joint development agreement including clause-11 shows that the developer was authorised to execute the necessary documents in favour of the prospective buyers to sell the flats/units/apartments 25 O.S.No.2879/2009 and execute the necessary documents including sale agreements by receiving the consideration amount. The terms of the JDA makes it clear that it is only after receipt of the consideration amount, the obligation of the developer starts to appropriate the amount to the mortgage debt and other liabilities. Therefore, the obligations imposed on the developer was subsequent to the execution of the sale agreements and receipt of consideration amount. The obligation so imposed was not a condition precedent to enter into sale agreement and to receive the consideration amount. Therefore, the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 being the buyers, there was no obligation on their part to see whether the developer had paid the mortgage debt and other liabilities before execution of the sale agreement.
19. It is also relevant to note that as per Clause 27 of J.D.A., the project was agreed to be completed within the period of three years. Though the defendants have taken up a contention that the developer has not complied the conditions of JDA and committed breach, admittedly the defendant No.1 has not cancelled the Ex.P.25-JDA even till today. Hence, based on the joint development agreement, the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 have entered into the sale agreements and paid consideration amount in good faith to the developer. Therefore, the defendants are estopped from contending that late K.T. Asher was not authorized 26 O.S.No.2879/2009 to execute the sale agreements. If the developer has committed a subsequent default in appropriating the consideration amount, the plaintiffs cannot be held responsible. If the developer had committed such a breach, the defendant No.1 should have sued him for the fulfillment of the obligations imposed in the agreement. Admittedly, the defendants have not even issued a notice to K.T. Asher demanding the fulfillment of obligations imposed in the JDA. Therefore, by executing Ex.P25 joint development agreement, the defendant No.1 had authorised late K.T.Asher to execute the sale agreements in favour of the plaintiffs and receive the consideration amount in respect of the apartments constructed in the suit 'A' schedule property. The defendants have failed to show that the developer has committed breach of contract and therefore he was not authorized to act on the basis of the power of attorney produced before the Court as per Ex.P.29. Therefore, issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
20. Issue No.2:- The plaintiffs have pleaded that late K.T. Asher, being the developer of the apartment in suit 'A' schedule property has executed the sale agreements dated 08.05.1982, 11.01.1982, 11.03.1985, 10.10.1981, 11.10.1981, 08.10.1981, 08.06.1983, 29.05.1987 and 22.06.1984 in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10, agreeing to sell flats No.103, 101, 102, 203, 201, 202, 303, 301 & 302 respectively in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10, 27 O.S.No.2879/2009 which are described as items No.1 to 9 respectively in suit 'A' schedule property. The details of various sale agreements executed by developer K.T. Asher in favour of the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 are summarized as hereunder:-
Sl Date of Exhibit Suit Apart Purchaser Amount paid .N agreement s item ment Rs.
o. No. No.
1. 08.05.1982 Ex.P.1 No.1 103 Plaintiff 2,66,875-00
No.2 (a)(b)
2. 11.01.1982 Ex.P.2 No.2 101 Plaintiff 3,42,300-00
No.3(a) to (balance
(d) consideration of
Rs.25,000/-
deposited before
this Court on
15.03.2025)
3. 11.03.1985 Ex.P.3 No.3 102 Plaintiff 2,65,000-00
No.4
4. 10.10.1981 Ex.P.4 No.4 203 Plaintiff 3,28,000-00
10.04.1981 No.5 (balance
consideration of
Rs.25,000/-
deposited before
this Court on
15.03.2025)
5. 11.10.1981 Ex.P5 No.5 201 Plaintiff 3,70,875-00
No.6
6. 08.10.1981 Ex.P6 No.6 202 Father & 2,54,000-00
mother of
Plaintiff
No.7(a)(b)
7. 08.06.1983 Ex.P7 No.7 C-303 Plaintiff 4,78,500-00
No.8
8. 29.05.1987 Ex.P20 No.8 301 Plaintiff 4,39,695-00
No.9 (balance
consideration of
Rs.64,695/-
deposited before
this Court on
15.03.2025)
28 O.S.No.2879/2009
9. 22.06.1984 Ex.P8 No.9 302 Plaintiff 2,65,000-00
No.10
21. In support of this contention, the plaintiffs have produced these sale agreements at Ex.P1 to 8 and Ex.P20.
Though the execution of these sale agreements is not specifically admitted by the defendants in their written statement and in the course of chief-examination of defendant No.2, she has taken up a contention that no proper proof is provided for the payment of consideration amount mentioned therein, the evidence given by PW1 to 11 clearly supports the case of the plaintiffs with regard to execution of these sale agreements as well as payment of consideration amount. The execution of the sale agreements are neither denied by late K.T. Asher during his lifetime nor by his son Mr.Hamir Asher, who is arrayed as defendant No.5. On the other hand, the evidence on record shows that defendant No.5 joined with the plaintiffs for the formation and registration of plaintiff No.1 Society. Apart from this, the execution of the sale agreements is admitted by the defendants in the suits filed by them against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4572/2011, OS No.4573/2011, OS No.4574/2011, OS No.4575/2011, O.S.No.4576/2011, O.S.No.4577/2011, OS No.4578/2011, OS No.4597/2011 and OS No.4598/2011 for ejectment of the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 from the respective apartments in which they are in occupation. The 29 O.S.No.2879/2009 defendants themselves have produced the certified copies of the plaints in these nine suits at Ex.D50, 52 and 54 to 60. In all these plaints, the defendants have admitted that late K.T. Asher has executed agreement of sale in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10 in respect of the apartments and based on the said agreement, plaintiffs No.2 to 10 are in occupation of the apartments referred to above. In this regard, the pleading of the defendants No.1 & 3 in OS No.4572/2011 produced at Ex.D50 is extracted for ready reference:-
"When the things stood thus, the defendant has entered into an illegal agreement with the said K.T. Asher in his individual capacity to put up construction and in the said agreement there is a recital that the plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the property. Therefore, the defendant ought to have enquired with the plaintiff No.1 as prudent firm before entering into agreement regarding the actual state of affairs with respect to the property. The said K.T. Asher is not the owner of the property and he has no right to enter into any agreement and as such the alleged agreement is enforceable in law and based on the said agreement, defendant is in unauthorised occupation of the apartment in the second floor of the apartment which is more fully described in the schedule 'C' hereunder"30 O.S.No.2879/2009
22. The defendants have admitted the execution of agreement with the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 in all the aforesaid suits filed by them as per Ex.P52 and 54 to 60 in the same words. Further, in the suit filed by defendant No.4 through defendant No.2 in O.S.No.229/1993 also the defendants 2 & 4 have admitted the execution of sale agreement by late K.T. Asher in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10 and receipt of consideration amount in para No.8 of the plaint exhibited in this case as Ex.P.54. The above admissions are the admissions made in the pleading. Therefore, those admissions itself is sufficient to establish the execution of the sale agreements. Hence, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that late K.T. Asher has executed the sale agreements agreeing to sell the apartments in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10 as per Ex.P1 to 8 and 20. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
23. Issue No.4:- This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for the specific performance of the sale agreements executed in their favour. Therefore, as per Section 16-C of Specific Relief Act 1963, the plaintiffs are required to plead and prove that they have been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiffs have pleaded the same in the plaint. Insofar as readiness is concerned, while answering issue No.2, this court has held that the sale agreements executed by late K.T. Asher in 31 O.S.No.2879/2009 favour of the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 is established. Neither late K.T. Asher nor his son Hamir K. Asher have disputed the payment of consideration amount mentioned in the sale agreement. The defendants have also not specifically denied in their written statement about payment of consideration amounts mentioned in the sale agreements. In the chief-examination of DW1, she has made an attempt to dispute the passing of consideration amount. But, while answering issue No.2, this court has held that payment of consideration mentioned in the sale agreements stands established. There was a due amount of ₹25,000/- each in respect of Ex.P2 & 4 sale agreements and an amount of Rs.64,695/- in respect of Ex.P20 sale agreement executed in favour of plaintiff No.9. These plaintiffs have deposited these balance consideration amounts before the court on 15.03.2025. Even otherwise financial capacity of these plaintiffs to pay those balance consideration amount was not disputed by the defendants at any point of time. Admittedly, the defendants have not demanded balance consideration amount from them. Therefore, the financial capacity of the plaintiffs in respect of readiness to get the sale deed executed in their favour is proved.
24. The next question is with regard to the willingness to get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs. Admittedly, there was no time stipulation to get the sale deed executed in 32 O.S.No.2879/2009 favour of the plaintiffs. The execution of deed of conveyance was dependent upon happening of certain events as pleaded by the plaintiffs. In this regard in para No.19 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have pleaded that as per clause 44 of Ex.P25 JDA, conveyance of the schedule property was agreed to be made in favour of the society to be formed after all the flats in the condominium are sold and the society is formed. It is also stated that in the 11 flats/apartments constructed by late K.T. Asher, 9 flats have been sold to plaintiffs No.2 to 10 and one flat in the third floor was sold to one Mr.Kini, who has not joined the plaintiffs in the suit, but he had joined in formation of plaintiff No.1 Society. It is also pleaded that one flat in the third floor unsold and kept with Mr.K.T. Asher. It is also pleaded that as one of the flat was remained unsold the society could not be formed and in the meantime, Mr.K.T. Asher died and his son Hamir K. Asher, the fifth defendant herein approached the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 and informed that he is not interested to sell the flat and he will join the formation of the society and therefore plaintiff No.1 Society is formed and registered. It is further stated that thereafter when the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 approached the defendant No.1 on several occasions, he represented that there are differences between him and K.T. Asher in the matter of receipt of consideration amount and he cannot complete the conveyance unless and until he receives the 33 O.S.No.2879/2009 entire sale consideration from late K.T. Asher. It is also pleaded that subsequently defendant No.1 took possession of the 11th unsold flat in the third floor and intimated the plaintiffs that he had taken possession of it on full satisfaction of the claim against K.T. Asher and even thereafter the defendant No.1 had postponed the execution of the conveyance deed and hence, issued the notice and filed the present suit.
25. Ex.P25 is the original document through which the terms of the sale agreement can be gathered. In clause 17 of Ex.P25, it was agreed between late K.T.Asher and defendant No.1 that the developers have represented that they may form a cooperative society or any other body or association or a limited company of the acquirers of flats/units/car parking spaces in the building to be constructed and thereafter, the owner shall execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the developers or their nominee or nominees including Society, body, association or limited company of enquirers. In this regard, the specific clause No.17 is extracted for ready reference:-
"The Developers have represented to the Owners that they may form a Co-operative Society or any other body or association or a limited company of the acquirers of flats/units/car parking spaces in the building to be constructed and completed on the said property and the 34 O.S.No.2879/2009 Owner agrees to execute a Deed of Conveyance or transfer or such other documents and assurances in favour of the Developers or their nominee or nominees including such Society or body or association or limited company of acquirers".
26. The above clause makes it clear that it was the obligation of the developer to form a co-operative society or company or any other Association of acquirers. It is an admitted fact that one of the flat remained unsold and even till today it is unsold and is in the possession of defendant No.1. Therefore, until the sale of all the flats, there was no opportunity to form the society. Hence in the sale agreements executed in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10 there is specific recital that the society will be formed only after all the flats in the said building are sold by the developers and receipt of the entire consideration amount. In this regard, clause 44 of Ex.P1 sale agreement is extracted for ready reference and similar clause is incorporated in all the sale agreements executed in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10:-
"After the building is completed and ready and fit for occupation and after the society or the limited company is registered and only after all the flats in the said building and/or buildings to be constructed by the builders as aforesaid have been sold and disposed off by the Developers and the Developers have received all dues payable to 35 O.S.No.2879/2009 them under the terms of the agreements with various Acquirers, the Developers shall cause to be executed a Deed of Conveyance in favour of the said society or a limited company as herein above provided".
27. Therefore, it was a contract between the parties that a co-operative society, a company or any other body will be formed only after the sale of all the apartments. Further, it was the contractual as well as statutory obligation of developer or the owner to form the society. This statutory obligation is specifically provided in section 10 of the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1972 also. Needless to mention that the developer is engaged by the defendant No.1. Therefore, it was the obligation on the part of defendant No.1 as well as the developer to take steps for the formation of the society. This is not done by them. Therefore, the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 cannot be blamed for the inaction on the part of developer and defendant No.1 in formation of the society.
28. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants by relying upon the admission of PW3 to the effect that the developer K.T. Asher died in the year 2003, has strongly contended that when the period for completion of the construction was fixed for three years from the year 1981 and the sale 36 O.S.No.2879/2009 agreements are stated to have executed long back, the inaction of the plaintiffs number 2 to 10 not only indicates lack of willingness on their part, but also the suit is barred by limitation. He has also contended that when the defendant No.1 has refused to execute the sale deed more particularly by issuing notice as per Ex.P12 on 21.06.1993 to Smt. Ahuja Sundar, who was one of the agreement holder, the suit is barred by limitation and the suit is also liable to be dismissed for want of willingness on the part of the plaintiffs to get the sale deed executed in their favour. The question of limitation will be considered while answering issue No.6. In so far as willingness of the plaintiffs is concerned, it is important to note that the present case stands on a different footing from any other individual sale agreement executed between vendor and purchaser. The reason is that sale agreements are executed in favour of 9 plaintiffs. These plaintiffs were not in a position to form the Association/Society independently. Each of them were depending on other buyers as well as the developer and also the owner. Therefore, the plaintiffs in their individual capacity were not in a position to pursue the matter separately to get the sale deed. It is a matter of common experience that it is highly difficult to co-ordinate with the other purchasers including the developer and owner. This is one of the most hercules task which is very difficult to be performed in the 37 O.S.No.2879/2009 normal course. Therefore, when the plaintiffs were not in a position to take decision independently, court is required to take a liberal view with regard to the proof of readiness and willingness as they were depending upon the decisions of other buyers, developer and owner.
29. One of the important aspect that is required to be considered is the possession of suit schedule flats are delivered to plaintiffs No.2 to 10 by the developer pursuant to the sale agreements. Though the learned counsel appearing for the defendants has taken up a contention that the possession of the flats was not delivered pursuant to the sale agreements, some of the sale agreements were executed before the completion of the construction and therefore, there was no opportunity to deliver the possession at the time of execution of the sale agreements. Therefore, as admitted by the defendants in their suits filed for eviction against plaintiffs No.2 to 10 at Ex.D50, 52 and 54 to 60, the possession was delivered to plaintiffs No.2 to 10 pursuant to the sale agreements after the completion of the construction. It is true that even if possession of the property agreed to be sold are delivered to the purchasers, still the plaintiffs are required to prove the willingness. But, when the possession is delivered, it is an indication of part performance of the contract. In the present case, the evidence on record shows that the possession of the 38 O.S.No.2879/2009 suit schedule apartments is delivered immediately after the completion of the construction somewhere in the year 1984. The possession of the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 continued even till today without any obstruction until the filing of this suit. The defendants have not demanded delivery of possession from plaintiffs No.2 to 10 even till the year 2011 until filing of the suit for eviction. As observed above, 7 plaintiffs has paid complete sale consideration amount at the time of sale agreement. Though a minor portion of sale consideration was not paid by three of the plaintiffs, it is deposited before the court during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs No.2 to 10 have continuied in possession of their respective flats for more than 25 years even before the filing of the suit by the defendants. As on now their possession is for about 40 years. Having regard to these aspects, when possession is delivered and complete consideration amount is paid, the courts are expected to give a liberal approach in respect of willingness. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of T. Mohan v/s Kannammal and another (ILR 2003 KARNATAKA 3533) wherein in para-10 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as hereunder:-
"Coming to the question of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform her part of 39 O.S.No.2879/2009 the contract, it was so averred in the plaint and reiterated in the notice dated 18/19.05.1981 and also in the evidence of the plaintiff. Further, the question of readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration money is not of much importance in view of the admitted factual position that the vendor had parted with possession of the property in favour of the purchaser even before expiry of the period stipulated in the agreement. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the finding of the High Court that the plaintiff duly satisfied the requirement of law of readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract".
As observed above, when the developer and owner has failed to form the society, there was no opportunity to get the sale deed in their favour. Still they have formed the society in the year 2007. Therefore, the willingness of the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 to get the sale deed executed in their favour is evident on record.
30. While considering the question of readiness and willingness, the conduct of the parties is also relevant. In this regard, the conduct of the defendants is found more blameworthy than the plaintiffs. The defendants have failed to disclose the true facts before the court on several aspects. The defendants have admitted the construction carried out by the developer in their earlier suit in O.S.No.229/1993. But, in the present suit, the 40 O.S.No.2879/2009 defendants have tried to suppress the same and defendant No.2 who is examined before the court as DW1 has repeatedly deposed before the court that developer has not carried out any construction and the defendant No.1 only has carried out the construction. This evidence given by D.W1 found to be apparently false. Secondly, the defendants have admitted in their suits filed against the plaintiffs for ejectment at Ex.P50, 52, 54 to 60 that developer has delivered the possession of all the nine apartments in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10 pursuant to the sale agreements long back. But, in the written statement, the defendants have taken up a false contention that the possession of the flats are still with them. This is the another falsehood pleaded by the defendants. Thirdly, the defendant No.1 has executed three gift deeds in respect of these flats in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 as per Ex.D1, D3 and D4 in the year 2008. Though they were stated to be executed on 28.02.2008, the documents were released only in the year 2011, wherein the defendant No.1 has falsely averred that he is in possession of these flats. The defendants No.2 to 4 are also parties to these gift deeds. They have mutually averred in the gift deed that the possession of these flats were delivered to defendants No.2 to 4. This is quite contrary to their own stand taken in the suit filed by them against the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 for ejectment. Therefore, apparent false 41 O.S.No.2879/2009 recitals are made in these Ex.D1, D3 and D4 gift deeds. The defendants have also not produced the separate agreement executed between defendant No.1 and K.T. Asher during September 1983 referred to by defendant No.1 in Ex.P12 notice. All these evidence available on record clearly shows that due to the blameworthy conduct of the defendants, deed of conveyance was not executed in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10 pursuant to the sale agreements executed in their favour. Though the defendants have taken up a contention that developer has not paid the amount as agreed in the JDA, the total inaction of defendants to sue him do not inspire confidence about this stand taken by the defendants. Having regard to all these aspects, in the considered opinion of this court, plaintiffs are able to show that they have been ready and willing to perform their part of contract. Consequently, issue No.4 is answered in the affirmative.
31. Issue No.5:- As per the terms of Ex.P25-JDA, it was agreed that the developer is required to form a Co-operative society or any other body or association or a limited company of the acquirers of the flats/units/car parking spaces in the building to be constructed and the defendant No.1 is required to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the developer or their nominee or nominees including the society or a body or Association or Limited company of acquirers so formed. Similarly, 42 O.S.No.2879/2009 as per the terms of the sale agreement executed from plaintiffs No.2 to 10, the deed of conveyance shall be executed in favour of the Co-operative Society or a Limited company formed by the acquirers of the different flats. Therefore, the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 along with another flat owner by name Mr.Kini have formed plaintiff No.1 Association. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that as per the JDA, the suit 'A' schedule property should be conveyed by the defendant No.1 to the society formed by the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 which is their representative body instead of each acquirer getting an undivided right in the land they are required to form this representative body to represent them to whom the land is to be conveyed and separate sale deeds are required to be executed in favour of the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 in respect of the apartments purchased by them.
32. Ex.D47 is the copy of certificate of the registration of the society. It indicates that it was registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1960. Ex.D49 is the memorandum of association. In the written statement filed by the defendants, the defendants have taken up a contention that plaintiff No.1 society is a non-existing body and it is not in accordance with the JDA as well as sale agreement. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that a society registered under Karnataka Societies Act, 1960 can only be a welfare 43 O.S.No.2879/2009 Society and it cannot acquire and hold any property and therefore, the sale deed cannot be executed in favour of plaintiff No.1. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi v/s State of Delhi (AIR 1962 SC 458) and in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (India) v/s Army Welfare Housing Organization and others (2010)9 SCC 354 contended that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act is not a corporation constituting a separate legal entity, but it will have the characteristics of a quasi Corporation. He has also contended that first plaintiff society is not an independent legal entity different from acquirers of the property, but it is a representative body representing the acquirers and therefore it can hold the property. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the defendants strongly placed reliance on the division bench decision of our Hon'ble High Court rendered in the case of VDB Celadon Apartment Owners' Association v/s Mr.Praveen Prakash and others [Writ Appeal No.974 of 2019 (GM- KSR) and Writ Appeal Nos.1206- 1211/2019 (GM-KSR)] dated 06.11.2019 wherein the division bench of our Hon'ble High Court confirmed the cancellation of registration of a society of flat owners registered under the 44 O.S.No.2879/2009 Karnataka Societies Act 1960 holding that a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Act 1960 cannot administer or maintain or run the building and apartments including common facilities and common services and manage day-to-day activities of the apartments. While upholding the cancellation of registration, division bench of the our Hon'ble High Court has held as hereunder:-
"Even according to the case of the appellant, the dominant object for the formation of the appellant Association is to administer, maintain and run the building and apartments. Clauses 5.1 and 5.2 are, even according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the dominant objects of the Association, and they read thus:
5.1 To administer, maintain and run the building and apartments known as VDB Celadon No.23/3, 23/4, 26/1, Shivanahalli Hobli, Jakkur Road, Yelahanka, Bangalore - 560064.
5.2 To Carry on the Day-to-day work relating to all aspects of the building, apartments, common areas, common facilities and common services therein;
On a plain reading of Section 3 of the said Act of 1960, it is clear that the object of administering, maintaining and running the buildings and apartments and to carry on the day- to-day work relating to all the aspects of the buildings/apartments, common areas and 45 O.S.No.2879/2009 common facilities will not be covered by any of the clauses (a) to (g) of Section 3 of the said Act of 1960. Even according to the case of the appellant, Clauses 5.1 and 5.2 are its dominant objects. In fact, on the earlier date, we had granted time to the appellant to take instructions whether it proposes to apply for deletion of certain objects which are a part of the bye-laws of the appellant Association.
Today, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on instructions, states that if the said two objects are deleted, the registration of the appellant under the said Act of 1960 cannot be maintained.
Thus, the main object of the appellant was to do something which could have been done by an Association formed in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 1972. In fact, the documents of sale executed by the developer in respect of the flat/apartment contain a stipulation that the purchasers of the flats shall form an Association/Society/Condominium in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 1972. That is how the learned Single Judge by modifying the impugned order dated 15th February, 2019, has clarified that steps can be taken to register the appellant Association under the provisions of the said Act of 1972.
Thus, after having perused the dominant objects of the appellant Association, we find that 46 O.S.No.2879/2009 the said objects are not covered by Section 3 of the said Act of 1960, and therefore, the appellant could not have been registered under the said Act. We find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge when he had proceeded to cancel registration of the appellant.
As observed by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order as well as this order will not prevent the persons who are members of the appellant Association from taking steps for formation and registration of an Association/Condominium under the provisions of the said Act of 1972 inasmuch as the sale deeds executed in favour of the apartment owners contemplate formation of such Association".
33. As observed above, as per the joint development agreement as well as the sale agreements executed in favour of the plaintiffs No.2 to 10, the agreement was to register a co- operative society or any other body or association or a limited company of acquirers of flats/units/car parking spaces of the building. The purpose of registration of an association under the Karnataka Societies Act 1960 is specifically defined under section 3 of the Karnataka Societies Act 1960. It makes it clear that society can be registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1960 only for the purpose of promotion of charity, education, science, arts, sports, conservation of natural resources, 47 O.S.No.2879/2009 inventions, etc,. An Association of apartment owners is required to administer, maintain and manage the apartments, common areas, common facilities and common services. A Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Act 1960 cannot do it. These functions are outside the scope of society registered under Karnataka Societies Act, 1960. Therefore, Section 10 of the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1972 specifically provides that it is the obligation of the promoter to take steps for formation of cooperative Society or as the case may be of a company. The disability of a society registered under Karnataka Societies Act 1960 is reiterated in several subsequent decisions. In the recent decision of our Hon'ble High Court rendered in the case of Mrs. Saraswathi Prakash and others v/s State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.3779/2023 (CS-RES)) dated 28.02.2025, the Hon'ble High Court has held that a society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Scoieties Act 1959 also cannot manage and administer the common areas and facilities of an apartment complex and restrained the promoter from registering such a society under Karnataka Co-op. Socieities Act 1959. In the case of Shantharam Prabhu and others v/s K. Dayanand Rai and others, (CRP No.96/2021 dated 08.09.2021), the Hon'ble High Court has elaborately dealt with the matter and 48 O.S.No.2879/2009 held that it would be appropriate to form an association and register it under The Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act 1972 for the management and maintenance of apartment complex. In the decision of our Hon'ble High Court rendered in the case of Mr.Sunil Babu J.B. v/s State of Karnataka and others (WP No.11833/2022 dated 03.11.2022), the Hon'ble High Court has made it clear that a society registered under The Karnataka Societies Act 1960 cannot even collect maintenance charges from the apartment owners. Hence, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants, plaintiff No.1 society being registered under the Karnataka Societies Act, 1960 cannot acquire, hold, manage and maintain the common areas and facilities of the apartments. Therefore, when the dominant purpose of a society registered under Karnataka Societies Act, 1960 is only for the purposes enumerated under section 3 of the said Act, this Court cannot recognise the plaintiff No.1 Society for the purpose of acquiring, holding and also managing the common areas and facilities of the apartments.
34. The next question for consideration is whether the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 can be non-suited merely on the ground that the registration of the association of the apartment owners is not in accordance with law. It is important to note that in the written statement filed by the defendants though it is pleaded that the 49 O.S.No.2879/2009 plaintiff No.1 is a non-existing body and not in accordance with law, the defendants have not specifically pleaded as to why plaintiff No.1 cannot sue. It is not even pleaded that the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 should have formed an association under The Karnataka Apartment Ownerships Act 1972 or under Karnataka Co-op. Societies Act 1959 or registered the association under the Companies Act or any other body which is capable of acquiring and holding the properties and managing the apartments. Initially, the plaintiffs have issued a notice to the defendant No.1 calling upon him to execute the sale deed as per Ex.P.10. It is replied by the defendant No.1 as per Ex.P.11. In the reply also, it was merely stated that plaintiff No.1 was a non existing body. It is not even contended by defendant No.1 that if an appropriate association is formed and registered he is ready to execute the conveyance deeds. It is well settled law that the purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case he has to meet. Provisions relating to pleadings are meant to give each side intimation of the case of the others so that it may be met and therefore, in order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should state the defence in clear terms so that other party may not be taken by surprise. If the defendants have disclosed as to why sale deed cannot be executed in favour of plaintiff No.1 50 O.S.No.2879/2009 society, probably the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 would have registered the association in accordance with law.
35. Needless to mention that while interpreting a document the intention of the parties are decisive and purposive interpretation is required to be adopted. Therefore, even if the plaintiff No.1 society is not formed in accordance with law, a new society or body of association can be formed to enable the parties to fulfill the obligations of the contract. The law do not prohibit the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 from registering a fresh body in accordance with law. Merely because plaintiff No.1 society is not in accordance with law, the defendants cannot refuse to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.2 to 10. The legal lacuna in the formation of plaintiff No.1 Society will not infringe any of the rights of the defendants or prejudice their rights. In other words, if the court holds that defendants are liable to execute a sale deed, they are liable to execute the sale deed, either in the name of plaintiffs No.2 to 10 or in the name of a representative body registered in accordance with law. The defendants can refuse to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs only if it affects their rights in anyway. The right of the defendants in no way affect if the sale deed is executed either in the name of the plaintiffs or a fresh body or association or company that is registered by the 51 O.S.No.2879/2009 plaintiffs No.2 to 10 in accordance with the statutory and legal requirement.
36. The court has already observed that it was the obligation of the developer and owner to take steps for the formation of co-operative society, any other body or a company. It is also a statutory obligation imposed upon the promoter as per Section 10 Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1972. The Court cannot ignored the fact that until very recently there was a general confusion in Karnataka about the legislation under which apartment owners' association must be registered. It is settled only in the year 2019 by our Hon'ble High Court. The legal intercacies cannot be allowed to defeat the right of a party. Hence, merely because there was an error in registering the society, that will not enure to the benefit of the defendants to deny the execution of the sale deed. It will not make any difference to the defendants to execute the sale deed either in the name of plaintiffs No.2 to 10 or in the name of a fresh body that would be registered in accordance with the legal requirement. Any other interpretation will not be in conformity with the object of the contract and ends of justice.
37. In view of the reasons stated above, in the considered opinion of this court, it is improper to direct the defendants to 52 O.S.No.2879/2009 execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.1. Alternatively, the court can mould the relief and direct the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 to take steps for the formation of an association and its registration under Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act 1972 or under any other permissible legislation which can acquire, hold, administer, maintain and run the apartments and its common facilities and services. There may be technical issues while forming such an association. But statute imposes obligation upon each apartment owner to join with the association for the purpose of maintenance of the apartment. Such an obligation is imposed on each of the apartment owners under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 and also under The Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer Act) 1972. Therefore, each of the apartment owners are required to join to form a new representative body of apartment owners without fail. The plaintiffs No.2 to 10 are given liberty to take steps for the formation such body of apartment owners by issuing prior written intimation/notice to all the apartment owners of suit schedule 'A' condominium to join the formation and registration of the body and if any of them did not come forward, the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 are at liberty to register the association in accordance with law and it shall be binding on all 53 O.S.No.2879/2009 the apartment owners. On these observations, issue No.5 is answered in the negative.
38. Issue No.6:- The defendants have also taken up a contention that the suit is barred by limitation. It is the contention of the defendants that when the time limit of three years was fixed as per Clause-27 of Ex.P25- JDA for the completion of the construction by the developer, the suit filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2009 is totally barred by limitation. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs by interpreting Article 54 of the Limitation Act 1963 contended that the refusal to perform the contract can be considered as a starting point for the limitation only if no date is fixed for the performance of the contract. He has contended that when the event of sale of all the apartments and formation of society or company is agreed for the execution of deed of conveyance, it shall be construed that a date was fixed for the performance of the contract and therefore, first part of Article 54 of Limitation Act is not applicable to the present case and second part is applicable. It is his contention that the period of three years begins to run from the date fixed for performance and the refusal to perform the contract will not give cause of action to sue, as a specific event is fixed for the performance of the contract. Article 54 of Limitation Act 1963 reads as hereunder:-
54 O.S.No.2879/2009
54. For specific Three years The date fixed for the performance of a performance, or, if no such contract date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.
39. The above Article consists of two parts. The first part provides that the limitation period begins to run from the date fixed for the performance. The second part provides that the limitation begins to run when the plaintiff has a notice that performance is refused. But, the second part can be considered as a starting point for the limitation only if no such date was fixed for the performance. In the present case, the question for consideration is whether a date was fixed for the performance of the contract. In this regard, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has contended that date fixed for performance need not be ascertained in the face of the contract deed and the sale can be ascertained on the happening of a certain contingent event in the contract. In support of this contention, the learned senior counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ramzan v/s Hussaini (1990)1 SCC 104 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as hereunder:-
"The question is whether a date was 'fixed' for the performance of the agreement and in our view the answer is in the affirmative. lt is true that a particular date from the calendar was not 55 O.S.No.2879/2009 mentioned in the document and the date was not ascertainable originally, but as soon as the plaintiff redeemed the mortgage, it became an ascertained date. If the plaintiff had, immediately after the redemption, filed the suit, could it be thrown out on the ground that she was not entitled to the specific performance asked for? We do not think so. She would have been within her rights to assert that she had performed her part of the contract and was entitled to insist that her brother should complete his part. The agreement is a typical illustration of a contingent contract within the meaning of Section-31. of the Indian Contract Act, I872 and became enforceable as soon as the event of redemption (by the plaintiff herself) happened. We agree with the view of the Madras High Court in R. Muniswami Goundar v. B.M. Shamanna Gouda expressed in slightly different circumstances. The doctrine of id certum est quod certum reddy potest is clearly applicable to the case before us which in the language of Herbert Broom (in his book dealing with legal maxims) is that certainty need not be ascertained at the time, for if, in the fluxion of time, a day will arrive which will make it certain, that is sufficient".
40. The above legal position makes it clear that even if a specific date is not mentioned, the date can be ascertainable upon happening of a contingent event. In the present case, the contingent events were sale of all the apartments and formation 56 O.S.No.2879/2009 of society or company. Admittedly, all the flats were not sold even till today. According to the plaintiffs, it is only when defendant No.5 has expressed that he is not willing to sell the 11 th flat, the defendant No.1 took the possession of it and later a society is formed and registered on 10.04.2007. The present suit is filed within three years from 10.04.2007. Hence, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, the period would begin to run from the date of refusal only if no such date is fixed for the performance of the contract. In the present case, by the contract of the parties, event is fixed for the performance of the contract. Therefore, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation. It is true that though the society was registered on 10.04.2007, the present suit came to be filed on 22.04.2009. But, while answering issue No.4 this Court has already recorded a finding with regard to readiness and willingness, which do not require repetition. Therefore, suit is filed within the period of limitation. Accordingly, issue No.6 is answered in the affirmative.
41. Issue No.7:- In the present case, the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 having entered into separate sale agreements with late K.T. Asher, who is the developer instituted a single suit, seeking the above reliefs which is seriously objected by the defendants contending that as the sale agreements are different transactions 57 O.S.No.2879/2009 on different dates, it is mis-joinder of cause of actions and therefore a single suit is not maintainable. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants, sale agreements were entered on different dates between different buyers. But, as rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs Order I Rule 1 CPC prescribe as to who may be joined as plaintiffs. It provides that all persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs if any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction or series of facts or transaction is alleged to exist in such persons whether jointly severally or in the alternative and if such persons institute separate suits any common question of law or fact to rise. In the present case, though different sale agreements are executed in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10, they were executed by late K.T. Asher and not by defendants No.1 to 4. Event specified for the execution of the sale deed is formation of a co-operative society or company or body of association after the sale of all the flats . It was the obligation of the developer and owner to form the representative body. Even according to the defendants, the sale deed cannot be executed in the individual names of the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 in the absence of of a representative body or co- operative Society or company. Therefore, all the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 are required to join together to register a Society and only after 58 O.S.No.2879/2009 registering the society, the common areas can be conveyed in favour of the society. Insofar as 'A' schedule property is concerned, it should be conveyed by the defendants to the society only as per Clause-17 of Ex.P25 JDA and hence the plaintiffs have instituted this suit along with the society for the execution of the sale deed instead of each acquirer getting an undivided right, title and interest in the land. In view of these reasons, more particularly when the defendants have not specifically disputed the execution of any of the sale agreements and considering the fact that the undivided right is required to be executed only in favour of a society, it cannot be said that there is mis-joinder of causes of action. Further, though there are several sale agreements, common question of fact and law are involved and therefore the suit is not bad for mis-joinder of causes of action. Accordingly, issue No.7 is answered in the negative.
42. Issue No.8:- The plaintiffs have valued the suit schedule property at Rs.30,24,745/- and paid the court fee of Rs.1,48,000/-. The valuation is made on the basis of the consideration amount under section 41 of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. It is an accordance with the provisions of Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and therefore the defendants are not right in taking a contention that the court fee paid is not proper. Hence, issue No.8 is answered in the affirmative. 59 O.S.No.2879/2009
43. Issue No.3, 9 & 10:- While answering issue No.1, 2 & 4, this court has held that the defendant No.1 entered into a joint development agreement dated 30.04.1981 and as per the joint development agreement late K.T. Asher was authorised to enter into sale agreements in favour of the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 in respect of the apartments constructed in the suit schedule property. While answering issue No.2, this court has held that late K.T. Asher has executed all the nine sale agreements in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10. The court has further held that the plaintiffs have able to show that they have been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The entire sale consideration amount is paid by depositing the balance consideration amount which was payable in three agreements.
44. It is true that the relief for specific performance of the contract is a discretionary relief. But the possession of apartments are delivered to plaintiffs No.2 to 10 for about 4 decades back. The main contention of the defendants is that the developer did not pay the loan amount and amount agreed to be paid to defendant No.1. Even if the developer did not fulfill the obligations imposed upon in the JDA, the plaintiffs cannot be made responsible for it and punished for that. If the developer did not pay the amount as agreed in the joint development agreement, the defendant No.1 should have sued him. It is a 60 O.S.No.2879/2009 matter of record that defendant No.1 has not even issued any notice to the developer demanding his claim. Therefore, defendants cannot take shelter on the ground that the developer has not fulfilled the obligations. Further, there is no evidence to show that the developer did not fulfill the obligations and the omission of the defendants to sue him speaks otherwise. At this stage, after more than 40 years, it is highly improper to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs No.2 to 10, who were parted with the possession on the basis of the sale agreements. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of specific performance of the sale agreements executed in their favour.
45. While answering issue No.5, this court has held that the formation of the society is not in accordance with law, but while answering that issue, this court has assigned several reasons and held that the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 can form a fresh representative body in accordance with law and get the sale deed executed in their favour as sought in the suit. On these observations, issue No.3 & 9 are answered in the affirmative. But, while decreeing the suit, it is not proper to direct the defendants to pay costs as issue No.5 is answered against the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit is liable to be decreed without cost. Accordingly, following order is passed:-
61 O.S.No.2879/2009
ORDER Suit is decreed.
Plaintiffs No.2 to 10 are given liberty to form an Association and register it under The Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act 1972 or any other permissible legislation which is capable of acquiring, holding, administering and managing the apartments, constructed in the suit 'A' schedule condominium, its common areas and facilities by giving prior intimation in writing to the defendants and other apartment owners/buyers.
The defendants are directed to co-operate for the formation of association and its registration as above. If the defendants and other apartment owners/buyers did not cooperate, the plaintiffs No.2 to 10 are permitted to register the association as aforesaid even in the absence of other apartment owners/buyers.
On registration of the Association as aforesaid, the defendants are directed to execute a registered sale deed in respect of suit 'A' schedule property in the name of the registered Association.
Further, the defendants are directed to execute separate sale deeds in respect of suit 'A' schedule items No.1 to 9 apartments as per Ex.P1 to 8 and 20 sale agreements in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 10 or their legal heirs or nominees.62 O.S.No.2879/2009
Draw decree accordingly.
(Judgment prepared through Speech to Text App with the assistance of Senior Sheristedar, carried out corrections, print out taken and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 4th day of June, 2025) (Vijaya Kumar Rai) X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs:
PW.1 : Shivakumar Sreenivasan PW.2 : Smt.Viveka S. Ahuja PW.3 : Anil Bhandary PW.4 : Suresh Kumar Raheja PW.5 : Vittal K.S. PW.6 : Prem Nath PW.7 : Madhu Thukral PW.8 : A. Keshava PW.9 : Leela Mallikarjuna PW.10 : Geetha K. Amin PW.11 : Indumathi Sampath Kumar List of documents exhibited for plaintiffs: Ex.P1 : Original articles of agreement dated 08.05.1982 Ex.P2 : Agreement dated 11.01.1982 Ex.P3 : Agreement dated 11.03.1985 Ex.P4 : Agreement dated 10.10.1981 Ex.P5 : Articles of agreement dated 11.10.1981 Ex.P6 : Articles of agreement dated 08.10.1981 Ex.P7 : Articles of agreement dated 08.06.1983 Ex.P8 : Articles of agreement dated 22.06.1984 Ex.P9 : GPA dated 09.12.2008 Ex.P10 : GPA dated 27.05.2008 63 O.S.No.2879/2009 Ex.P11: Reply notice Ex.P12 : Legal notice dtd.21.06.1993 Ex.P13 & 14: 2 GPAs Ex.P15: Power of attorney Ex.P15(a) to (f): Signatures of Swaminathan Ex.P16 : Copy of notice Ex.P17: Society registration certificate Ex.P18: Society bye-law copy Ex.P19: Endorsement Ex.P20 : Sale agreement Ex.P21 : Certified copy of board meeting extract Ex.P22 : Certified copy of company master data extract Ex.P23 : A/A and M/A Ex.P24 : IT returns Ex.P25 : Zerox copy of JDA Ex.P26 : Authorization letter Ex.P27 : Bank endorsement Ex.P28 : GPA dated 18.12.2006 Ex.P29 : Copy of GPA dated 11.06.1981 Ex.P30 : Photocopy of JDA dated 30.04.1981 Ex.P31 Death certificate of K.T. Arsher father of the 5th defendant Ex.P32 Tax paid receipts &P33 Ex.P34 Tax paid status Ex.P35 Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act to Ex.P32 to P34 Ex.P36 Personal accounts statement, balance sheet for the assessment year 2000-01 Ex.P37 Personal accounts statement, balance sheet for the assessment year 2001-02 Ex.P38 Accounts statement, balance sheet of Ahuja Textiles for the assessment year 2002-03 64 O.S.No.2879/2009 Ex.P39 Personal accounts statement, balance sheet for the assessment year 2003-04 Ex.P40 Personal accounts statement, balance sheet for the assessment year 2004-05 Ex.P41 Income tax returns for the assessment year 2006-07 along with the certificates and balance sheet Ex.P42 Income tax returns for the assessment year 2007-08 along with enclosures Ex.P43 Income tax returns for the assessment year 2008-09 along with enclosures Ex.P44 Income tax returns for the assessment year 2013-14 Ex.P45 Income tax returns for the assessment year 2015-16 Ex.P46 Income tax returns for the assessment year 2017-18 Ex.P47 Income tax returns for the assessment year 2018-19 Ex.P48 Income tax returns for the assessment year 2019-20 Ex.P49 Income tax returns for the assessment year 2020-21 Ex.P50 Income tax returns for the assessment year 2021-22 Ex.P51 Income tax returns for the assessment year 2022-23 Ex.P52 Income tax returns for the assessment year 2023-24 Ex.P53 Income tax returns for the assessment year 2023-24 Ex.P54 C/c of plaint in O.S.No.229/1993 Ex.P54( Signature of defendant No.2
a) Ex.P55 C/c of order sheet in OS No.229/1993 List of witnesses examined for the defendants:
D.W1 : Kenchamma S. Gowda List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D1 Certified copy of the registered gift deed dtd.28.02.2008 Ex.D2 Article of agreement dtd.30.04.1981 Ex.D3 Certified copy of the gift deed dtd.28.02.2008 Ex.D4 Certified copy of the gift deed dtd.28.02.2008 Ex.D5 Legal notice dtd.27.05.2008 Ex.D6 Reply dtd.18.06.2008 Ex.D7 Certified copy of khatha certificate 65 O.S.No.2879/2009 Ex.D8 Certified copy of khatha extract Ex.D9 Certified copy of khatha certificate Ex.D10 Certified copy of khatha extracts & D11 Ex.D12 Certified copy of khatha certificate Ex.D13 Certified copy of khatha extract Ex.D14 Certified copy of khatha certificate Ex.D15 Certified copy of khatha extract Ex.D16 Certified copy khatha certificate Ex.D17 Certified copy of khatha extract Ex.D18 Certified copy khatha certificate Ex.D19 Certified copy of khatha extract Ex.D20 Certified copy khatha certificate Ex.D21 Certified copy of khatha extract Ex.D22 Certified copy khatha certificate Ex.D23 Certified copy of khatha extract Ex.D24 Certified copy khatha certificate Ex.D25 Certified copy of khatha extract Ex.D26 Certified copy khatha certificate Ex.D27 Certified copy of khatha extract Ex.D28 Certified copy khatha certificate Ex.D29 Certified copy of khatha extract Ex.D30 Certified copy of khatha extract Ex.D31 Certified copy khatha certificate Ex.D32 Certified copy of notices to D40 Ex.D41 Certified copy of the sale deed dtd.20.11.1973 Ex.D42 Memo issued by CITB & D43 Ex.D44 Certified copy of the sanction plan Ex.D45 Certified copy of the articles of agreement dtd.08.05.1982 Ex.D46 Certified copy of the articles of agreement dtd.11.01.1982 Ex.D47 Certified copy of the certificate of registration of society Ex.D48 Office note 66 O.S.No.2879/2009 Ex.D49 Copy of letter along with memorandum of association of the society Ex.D50 Copy of the plaint in OS 4572/2011 Ex.D51 Certified copy of the additional written statement in OS 4572/2011 Ex.D52 Certified copy of amended plaint in OS 4573/2011 Ex.D53 Certified copy of additional written statement in OS 4573/2011 Ex.D54 Certified copy of plaint in OS 4574/2011 Ex.D55 Certified copy of the plaint in OS 4575/2011 Ex.D56 Certified copy of plaint in OS 4576/2011 Ex.D57 Certified copy of plaint in OS 4577/2011 Ex.D58 Certified copy of the plaint in OS 4578/2011 Ex.D59 Certified copy of the plaint in OS 4597/2011 Ex.D60 Certified copy of the plaint in OS 4598/2011 X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.