Dismissed

Smt.Narayanamma v. M/S the Prince Builders and Developers

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2024CRP/205/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging refusal to reject a plaint in a specific performance suit. The court held that impleading non-party plaintiffs did not make the suit unmaintainable and that limitation ran from completion of preconditions in the agreement, not its date. Petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt.Narayanamma Vs M/S the Prince Builders and… — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10815 CRP No. 205 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 205 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, W/O LATE. G. HANUMANTHAPPA,

¶9

SRI B H SHIVANANDA AGED 51 YEARS, S/O LATE G HANUMANTHAPPA,

¶10

SRI B.S. LAKSHMINARAYANA NEHARU AGED 28 YEARS, S/O B H SHIVANANDA,

¶11

SHRI B.S. RADHAKRISHNA GANDHI AGED 26 YEARS, S/O B H SHIVANANDA,

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SHRI. JAYAPRAKASH NARAYANA SUBHASHCHANDRA BOSH AGED 24 YEARS, S/O B H SHIVANANDA,

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT NO.13, SRUSTI LAYOUT, VIJAYA BANK COLONY, NEAR OM SHAKTHI TEMPLE, VIRGONAGAR, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560036.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. DANAPPA PRADHANAPPA PANIBHATE., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

M/S THE PRINCE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS A SOLE PROPRIETARY CONCERN HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.D-6, D-BLOCK, IST FLOOR, UNITY BUILDINGS,

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10815 CRP No. 205 of 2023

¶20

JC ROAD, BANGALORE-560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SHRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR B.

¶21

M/S SRAVANTHI INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PAVANI ROYALE, 1^ST CROSS, GREEN GARDEN LAYOUT, KUNDANAHALLI GATE, BANGALORE-560037. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SHRI P V RAGHAVA RAO.

¶22

SHRI K.C. VENKATACHALAPATHI AGED 48 YEARS, S/O A.V. CHANNAPPA, R/AT ATHIGIR KOPPA VILLAGE, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2023 PASSED ON IA.NO.III IN O.S.NO.6764/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This petition is filed challenging the refusal of the

¶28

Trial Court to reject the plaint as requested by the petitioner.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:10815 CRP No. 205 of 2023

¶31

The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs seeking specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 11.06.2019, which was also registered before the SubRegistrar, whereby it was stated that the defendants had agreed to sell the plaint ‘B’ schedule property to plaintiff No.3.

¶32

The plaintiffs also sought for specific performance of the agreement contending that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.12.2018 stated to have been executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff No.1 in respect of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and for directing the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs without seeking any the balance consideration, in view of the mutual agreement of sale dated 23.06.2002, which had been entered into amongst the plaintiffs. Thus, essentially, the suit was fled to enforce the agreement of sale dated 11.06.2019 whereby

¶33

the defendants were stated to have executed an agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff No.3.

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10815 CRP No. 205 of 2023

¶35

The defendants in said suit filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11-D of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 had no right to seek the prayers in the suit and that the defendants had not executed the agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2.

¶36

It was however admitted that the defendants executed the sale agreement in favour of plaintiff No.3, but had not received any consideration nor received any any advance amount from plaintiff No.1. They, therefore, stated that the suit was not maintainable on the premise that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were not parties to the agreement of sale and they have not received the amount from plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. It was also stated that plaintiff No.3 had not filed the suit within the stipulated period and the suit was barred by limitation.

¶37

It was also sought to be urged that sufficient court fee had not been paid, since the suit property was valued at more than Rs.10,00,00,000/-

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10815 CRP No. 205 of 2023

¶39

As could be seen from the application, the averments regarding rejection of the plaint were only on the ground that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were not the parties to the agreement of sale and the agreement, which was admitted to have executed by plaintiff No.3, could not be enforced as it was time barred.

¶40

As already stated above, the prayer in the plaint was to execute a sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.3 as per the agreement of sale dated 11.06.2019, which the defendants admitted in their application. Merely because plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were also impleaded ostensibly on the ground that they had also secured certain documents from plaintiff No.3, the prayer in the suit would not be rendered not maintainable, since, fundamentally, the prayer was to enforce admitted the admitted agreement of sale executed in favour of plaintiff No.3.

¶41

The argument that the suit was barred by limitation would also not be acceptable since the agreement was dated 11.06.2019 and the time fixed for performance of

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10815 CRP No. 205 of 2023

¶43

the agreement of sale was six months from the date of obtaining the 11E sketch, Phodi, boundary and all other relevant revenue documents in favour of the vendor’s name and completing after clearing the civil and revenue authority cases and completing the legal work of the schedule property.

¶44

It was, therefore, clear that the time fixed of six months would commence only after the requirements in Clause (4) of the agreement of sale was complied with.

¶45

It is not the case of the defendants that said requirements of the clause had been compiled with, in the sense, 11E sketch had been obtained and from that date, three years had lapsed.

¶46

The entire argument was that the suit had been fled beyond three years from the date of agreement sale i.e., on 19.10.2022. As already stated above, the time fixed for performance was not from the date of the agreement, but from the date of occurrence of a particular event. The

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10815 CRP No. 205 of 2023

¶48

plaint also indicates that a notice was issued to the defendants and since there was no reply, a suit had been filed.

¶49

In light of the above, it is clear that the argument that the suit was time barred, would also not be tenable.

¶50

Consequently, the Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order refusing to reject the plaint. I see no infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court and the

¶51

petition is therefore dismissed .

¶52

Sd/JUDGE RK CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Smt.Narayanamma v. M/S the Prince Builders and Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt.Narayanamma v. M/S the Prince Builders and Developers

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varun Atreya Vs Mr. Fayaz

Sri a Thimmappa Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri Keshavmurthy Vs Sri P Rajanna

Smt Jayamma Vs Sri Vikas S Reddy

Sri. Venkatappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Rajesh Vs Sri. Andress.R