the suit property was said to be forming part of the area of 7 lacs sq. yards agreed to be sold by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3 under the agreement for sale of 1975. He took me through the various paragraphs of the plaint to show that not only was the suit property, which was comprised within Swami Samarth layout, said to be included within the original 7 lacs sq. yards agreed to be sold under the agreement of 1975, but that the Plaintiff's claim of having paid the entire consideration for the suit property was on the basis of payment of consideration in respect of 6 lacs sq. yards of land covered by the original agreement. If one reads the plaint as a whole, however, it does emerge that the Plaintiff has in fact pleaded that the suit property, namely, Plot No.124 came about as a result of reconstituting the plots originally designated as CTS Nos. 1/50, 1/65, 1/77 and 1/81 on account of amendment of the layout from time to time and finally as Plot No.124 after the sanction of the layout of February 2009. The Plaintiff has demonstrated from the various plans of the larger area of Survey No.41, which included the suit property, that a part of the suit property was comprised within the 6 lacs sq. yards agreed to be sold under the agreement of 1975 read with the first modification, whereas a part of the suit property was under the D.P. Road and came into being as a result of shifting thereof. In any event, the agreement of 1975 and the supplementary agreement of 1982 do not form separate transactions but constitute one agreement concerning a large area of land, which was modified twice and varied further by the supplementary agreement.
