FUTURE SECTOR LAND DEVELOPERS LLP & ANR. VERSUS BAGMANE DEVELOPERS P. LTD. & ORS. ETC.

FUTURE SECTOR LAND DEVELOPERS LLP & ANR. VERSUS BAGMANE DEVELOPERS P. LTD. & ORS. ETC. 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS…………………………OF 2023
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 4018-19 of 2023)
FUTURE SECTOR LAND DEVELOPERS
LLP & ANR. … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BAGMANE DEVELOPERS P. LTD. &
ORS. ETC. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of a common order passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, allowing two revision
applications that were directed against two separate orders passed
on the same day by the 9th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune,
respectively in the applications filed under Order VII Rule 10 and
Order VII Rule 11 CPC by some of the defendants in a suit.
3. We have heard Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants and Shri Mukul Rohatgi,
Shri K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents who were the civil revision applicants before the High
2
Court. Shri Vikram Hegde, learned counsel accepts notice for
defendant No.117 who was the applicant in the petition under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
4. The appellants herein filed a civil suit on the file of the 9th
Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, against 141 defendants
seeking various reliefs.
5. After service of summons, defendant Nos. 66, 67, 139 and
117 filed separate applications under Order VII Rule 10 CPC
seeking the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper
court, on the ground that the suit schedule properties are situate
within the jurisdiction of the appropriate courts in Bengaluru.
6. Defendant No.117 filed one more application under Order VII
Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint, contending
that the court in Pune does not have territorial jurisdiction to grant
reliefs in respect of immovable properties situate within the
jurisdiction of the courts in Bengaluru and also that the suit is
barred by the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013.
7. By two independent orders passed on the same date, namely,
22.4.2022, the Trial Court dismissed all the applications, filed both
under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
3
8. Defendant Nos. 138 and 117 challenged the said orders of the
Trial Court before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in two
civil revision applications.
9. By a common order dated 23.1.2023, the High Court allowed
both the civil revision applications. It is against these orders that
the plaintiffs have come up with the above appeals.
10. The appeal arising out of that portion of the impugned order
where Civil Revision Application No.5 of 2023 filed by defendant
No.117 was allowed, is capable of being disposed of without much
ado. This is for the reason that the entire discussion and analysis
in the impugned order, which commence from paragraph 12,
revolve only around the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC. But
in the penultimate paragraph, the High Court has allowed both the
civil revision applications. This has resulted in something which is
a contradiction in terms. Once an application under Order VII Rule
11 is allowed, the plaint stands rejected and hence the question of
presenting the same plaint before the appropriate court does not
arise. Under Order VII Rule 13, the rejection of plaint on the
grounds stated in the preceding Rules, shall not of its own force,
preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of
the same cause of action. Therefore, if a plaint is rejected under
4
Order VII Rule 11, the only remedy is to file a fresh plaint within
the parameters of Order VII Rule 13 and the question of presenting
the same plaint before the appropriate court does not arise.
11. But as it sometimes happens, the High Court has overlooked
the obvious and allowed both the applications under Order VII
Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11 at one stroke. That the High Court
did not have the intention to reject the plaint, is obvious from a
reading of the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order,
where the High Court has granted liberty to the plaintiffs to present
the suit before the appropriate civil court at Bengaluru. But if the
appellants-plaintiffs try to do that, a technical objection may be
raised that the application under Order VII Rule 11 also stood
allowed. This is apart from the fact that there is no discussion on
Order VII Rule 11 in the impugned order. Therefore, that portion
of the impugned order which states that both the civil revision
applications stand allowed, requires modification.
12. That takes us to the more contentious issue revolving around
Order VII Rule 10 CPC. As we have seen earlier, the foundation on
which an application under Order VII Rule 10 was filed, was that
the suit schedule property is situate within the jurisdiction of the
City Civil Court, Bengaluru and that though the reliefs claimed are
5
substantially in respect of the immovable property, they are
couched in a language, by clever drafting, to appear as though the
reliefs relate to enforcement of rights in personam. Therefore, it is
claimed that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the
proper court.
13. The impugned order is assailed by Shri Shyam Divan, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellants-plaintiffs, primarily on
the grounds: (i) that what is sought to be enforced in the suit are
only contractual rights against the defendants; (ii) that the
agreement between parties contain a recital conferring exclusive
jurisdiction upon the civil courts in Pune; and (iii) that the
appellants have been granted leave by the Trial Court under Order
II Rule 2(3) CPC for seeking larger reliefs in respect of the suit
properties at a later point of time. Therefore, he contends that the
impugned orders of the High Court returning the plaint is clearly
erroneous.
14. For finding an answer to the issue on hand, it may be
necessary first to have a look at the plaint filed by the appellants
herein. The gist of the averments contained in the plaint can be
summarized as follows:
i. That in November 2018, defendant Nos. 1 to 136
approached the plaintiffs with a proposal to sell two
6
different sets of properties, one of which is situate at
village Doddanekkundi, Varthur Hubli, Bangalore (East)
Taluk, Bangalore Urban District and the other situate in
village Mahadevapura, K.R. Puram, Hubli, Bangalore
(East) Taluk, Bangalore Urban District;
ii. That at the time of making the proposal, the ownerdefendants (defendant Nos.1 to 136) represented that
Bangalore Gorakshana Shala Society, which is defendant
No.137 have been making claims over these properties on
the strength of a transfer deed dated 7.4.1941 but the said
transfer deed setup by defendant No.137 was sham and
bogus;
iii. That the suit schedule properties described in Schedule-A
and B to the plaint were purchased by one Giridharlal
under registered sale deeds during the period from 1930
to 1939;
iv. That the said Giridharlal was survived by his only son
Anraj, who died on 17.8.1960 leaving behind seven sons
and a daughter;
v. That the purchase of these properties by Giridharlal was
much before the formation of the Bangalore Gorakshana
Shala Society;
vi. That according to the owner-defendants, defendant
No.137 illegally executed two Memorandums of
Understanding dated 30.8.2006 in favour of defendant
No.138 in respect of a portion of the suit schedule
properties and also received an amount of
Rs.11,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Crores only);
7
vii. That some of the owner-defendants have already filed civil
suits on the file of the appropriate courts in Bengaluru for
various reliefs including the relief of injunction and the
relief of partition;
viii. That pursuant to certain interim orders passed in one of
those suits, the Society had also deposited the amount of
Rs.11,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Crores only) in the City
Civil Court, Bengaluru;
ix. That there are two suits and one first appeal now pending
in the courts in Bengaluru;
x. That under the MoU/agreement dated 19.2.2019, the
owner-defendants offered to sell and the appellants agreed
to purchase a total extent of 87 acres and 27 Gunthas out
of the total area of 93 Acres and 48 Gunthas, for a
consideration of Rs.357,00,00,000 (Rupees Three FiftySeven Crores only);
xi. That pursuant to the said MoU/agreement, the
appellants-plaintiffs have paid, in the aggregate, an
amount of Rs.14,12,82,369 (Rupees Fourteen Crore
Twelve Lac Eighty-two Thousand Three Hundred and
Sixty-nine only), on various dates;
xii. That Clause 13.8 of the said MoU/agreement confers
exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts in Pune to settle any
claim or matter arising out of the MoU/agreement;
xiii. That contrary to the covenants contained in the
MoU/agreement, defendant Nos.44 and 49 executed a
deed of confirmation dated 12.1.2021 in favour of
Bangalore Gorakshana Shala Society, and the said deed
8
was also registered with the Office of the jurisdictional
Sub-Registrar;
xiv. That subsequently defendant No.27 executed a similar
deed of confirmation on 16.4.2021 and defendant Nos.113
to 117 executed a similar deed of confirmation dated
4.5.2021 and they were registered with the jurisdictional
Sub-Registrar;
xv. That defendant Nos.65, 78, 85, 88, 73, 75, 76, 77, 87, 74,
69, 70, 71 and 72 have also registered a deed of
confirmation dated 24.6.2020;
xvi. That until the plaintiffs file a substantive suit for specific
performance and possession, the owner-defendants are
not entitled to prejudice the rights of the plaintiffs;
xvii. That since a substantial suit for partition in O.S. No.8230
of 2007 is pending before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru,
the appellants-plaintiffs may have to await the outcome of
the said suit, to file a substantial suit claiming the relief
of possession;
xviii. That therefore until the plaintiffs could file a substantive
suit, the owner-defendants should not be allowed to deal
with the properties;
xix. That the plaintiffs received two emails on 2.7.2021
enclosing scanned copies of two letters, by which two of
the defendants claimed to have rescinded the agreement
and revoked the power of attorney; and
xx. That the deed of cancellation of power of attorney dated
11.6.2021 is unilateral and not binding on the plaintiffs
and that therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to both
9
declaratory reliefs as well as injunctive reliefs against the
defendants.
15. Before we proceed to deal with the contentions, it may be
useful to extract paragraph 50 of the plaint filed by the appellantsplaintiffs, which contains the various reliefs sought in the suit.
Paragraph 50 of the plaint reads as follows:
“50. It is, therefore, prayed that –
a) The suit may kindly be decreed.
b) It may kindly be declared that the alleged deeds of
Confirmation, dated 12/01/2021, 16/04/2021,
24/06/2020 and 04/05/2021, are illegal, null and void
and not binding on the plaintiffs and ineffective, with
respect to the suit properties and same may kindly be
cancelled and concern office of registrar may kindly be
directed to take note of such cancellation.
c) It may further be declared that the owners-defendants
are not entitled to execute such deeds of confirmation or
any other document/s with respect to the suit properties,
in favour of the defendant No. 137 and 138 and/or in
favour of any other third party, in view of execution of the
agreement dated 19/02/2019 and contrary to the terms
and conditions of the said agreement.
d) It be further declared that the Defendants No. 137 and
138 are not entitled to claim any right or ownership right
on the basis of alleged deeds of confirmation, as stated in
relief clause (a).
e) It may kindly be declared that the alleged letter dated
24th June 2021 and 25th June 2021 issued by concerned
defendants and the documents of ' cancellation of power of
attorney dated 11th June 2021, are illegal, null and void
and same are brought into existence by the concerned
defendants in collusion with each other, without the
consent and knowledge of the Plaintiffs and therefore same
are not binding on the Plaintiffs. It be further declared that
10
the such letter and document, is non-est in the eyes of law
and hence liable to be ignored.
f) The alleged documents of cancellation of power of
attorney dated 11th June 2021, may kindly be cancelled
with further directions to the concerned office of registrar,
to take note of such cancellation in their record.
g) The Defendants may kindly be restrained by decree of
Permanent Injunction from executing any documents
including Deed of Confirmation, Sale Deed, Agreement or
entering into any kind of arrangement with the defendant
No. 137 to 141 and/ or any third parties with respect to
the suit properties.
h) The Defendants, either by themselves or through their
agents, representatives or anybody claiming through them
may kindly be restrained by decree of Permanent
Injunction from transferring, alienating or creating the
third-party interest of whatsoever nature with respect to
the suit properties, or creating any right of whatsoever
nature in favour of Defendants No. 137 and 141.
i) The defendants may kindly be restrained by decree of
Permanent Injunction from using, acting upon or claiming
any rights or raising any claim of whatsoever nature, on
the basis of Deeds of Confirmation dated 12/01/2021,
16/04/2021, 4/05/2021 and 24/06/2020 or any other
agreement/s, document/s or arrangement/s that may
have been executed by the defendants inter se.
j) The defendants may kindly be restrained by decree of
Permanent Injunction from using, acting upon or claiming
any rights or raising any claim of whatsoever nature, on
the basis of the alleged letter dated 24th June 2021, 25th
June 2021 and the alleged documents of cancellation
dated 11th June 2021.
k) The defendants may kindly be restrained from taking
any steps contrary to the terms and conditions or causing
the breach of the agreement dated 19/02/2019, thereby
causing prejudice to the interest of the Plaintiffs arising
out of the agreement dated 19/02/2019.
1) The owner Defendants may kindly be restrained by
decree of permanent injunction from handing over
possession of the suit properties to third party and/or to
Defendant No. 137 to 141.
11
m) Temporary injunction in terms of prayer (g) to (1) may
kindly be granted in favour of the plaintiffs.
n) Any other just and equitable relief in the interest of
justice may kindly be passed.”
16. It may be noticed from the numerous reliefs sought by the
appellants-plaintiffs in the suit that they are in the nature of both
declaratory as well as injunctive reliefs. To be precise, the reliefs
sought in paragraph 50(b) to (e) are in the nature of declaratory
reliefs and those sought in paragraph 50(f) to (l) are in the nature
of injunctive reliefs. Out of the four declaratory reliefs sought, two
relate to certain documents such as the deeds of confirmation and
deeds of cancellation of power of attorney. The other two
declaratory reliefs are negative in nature.
17. Out of the seven prohibitory reliefs prayed for in paragraph
50(f) to (l), one is in the nature of a mandatory injunction, to direct
the concerned parties to cancel the deed of revocation of power of
attorney with a further direction to the concerned Office of the
Sub-Registrar to take consequential action. Two of the prohibitory
reliefs seek to injunct the defendants from, (i) executing any
documents; (ii) entering into any arrangement with third parties;
and (iii) transferring, alienating or creating third party interests
with respect to the suit schedule properties. Two of the prohibitory
12
reliefs seek to injunct the respondents from asserting any right on
the basis of the deeds of confirmation executed in favour of the
Bangalore Gorakshana Shala Society. One prohibitory relief seeks
to injunct the defendants from causing any breach of the
Agreement dated 19.12.2019. The last of the prohibitory reliefs
articulated in paragraph 50(l) of the plaint seeks to injunct
the owner-defendants from parting with possession of the
suit property to third parties and/or to defendant Nos.137 to
141.
18. Before we analyse the reliefs sought in this suit a little more
deeper, it is also necessary to take note of the addresses shown in
the plaint for all the 141 defendants. As per the plaint, the places
of residence of all the 141 defendants are spread over at least ten
different States of India. While 2 of the defendants are from
Madhya Pradesh, 34 defendants are from Karnataka, and about
46 defendants are from Maharashtra. Some of the defendants are
from Tamil Nadu, some from Delhi, 2 of them are from Telangana,
3 of them are from Jharkhand and 2 are from Gujarat. There are
27 defendants residing in Guwahati/Assam.
19. Therefore, it is clear that by instituting the present
proceedings at Pune for temporary reliefs and reserving the
13
right to institute a suit for substantial reliefs at Bengaluru
at a later point of time, the appellants-plaintiffs want to take
these 141 defendants residing in ten different States of India
on a Bharat Darshan from Pune to Bengaluru.
20. The appellants-plaintiffs have repeatedly asserted before the
Trial Court, the High Court as well as this Court that the reliefs
sought in the plaint do not fall under any of the categories
mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 16 CPC and that all the
reliefs can be obtained entirely through the personal obedience of
the defendants, covered by the proviso to Section16. But a careful
look at the plaint would show that the appellants-plaintiffs have
actually sought a relief in paragraph 50(l) to restrain the
defendants from handing over possession of the suit properties to
third parties or to defendant Nos.137 to 141. We have already
extracted paragraph 50 of the plaint in entirety. The prayer in
paragraph 50(l) is to restrain the owner-defendants by a
decree of permanent injunction from handing over possession
of the suit properties to third parties or to defendant
Nos.137-141.
21. Assuming that the appellants-plaintiffs succeed in getting a
decree in terms of paragraph 50(l), the same has to be executed
14
primarily in terms of Order XXI Rule 32 CPC. But this will not
enable them to recover possession of the suit schedule properties.
If the appellants-plaintiffs had to seek recovery of possession, in
the event of the decree in the present suit being disobeyed, the
appellants will necessarily have to go to the court in Bengaluru.
22. It is seen from several portions of the plaint that the
appellants have done a tight-rope walking to take refuge under
Section 20(c) CPC by carefully avoiding any relief that may
apparently appear to relate to Section 16(d) CPC. But obviously the
plaintiffs have not been successful in this tight-rope walking, as
we see quite a few falls/slips. For instance :-
(i) In paragraph 2 of the plaint, the appellants have
referred to the properties in dispute as “suit property”
and have categorically stated that, “the said properties
are the subject matter of the present suit”;
(ii) In paragraph 4, the plaintiffs assert as follows, “…and it
was further represented that, the said Society i.e.,
Defendant No.137 has no right, title, share and
interest in any portion of the suit properties…”; and
(iii) In paragraph 38 of the plaint, the appellants have
asserted that “…as per the documents on record, it is
crystal clear that the Bangalore Gorakshan Shala
Society and also Bagmane Construction Pvt. Ltd.
15
have no right, title and interest with respect to the
suit properties…”.
23. Thus it is clear, (i) that suit concerns immovable properties
which are not just described in the plaint schedule by way of
empty formality but are clearly stated to be the subject-matter of
the suit; and (ii) that the plaintiffs are actually questioning the
right, title and interest of the contesting defendants to the suit
schedule properties.
24. Therefore, the High Court, in our considered opinion was
right in holding that the suit falls under the category of one, for
the determination of any right to or interest in immovable property
covered by Section 16(d). The contention that even if Section 16
applies, the suit would be saved by the proviso to Section 16, is
completely misplaced. At least one of the reliefs which relates to
possession, may not fall under the proviso to Section 16.
25. Admittedly, there are two suits and a first appeal now
pending on the file of the courts in Bengaluru, as seen from
paragraph 7 of the plaint. Even according to the appellants, one
of the suits is a partition suit. Actually, the appellants claim in
paragraph 39 of the plaint that they would wait till the disposal of
16
the partition suit, for instituting a comprehensive suit for specific
performance and possession.
26. In other words, the present suit filed by the appellantsplaintiffs is for preserving the subject-matter of the property
through interim reliefs sought in the form of permanent injunction.
The partition suit itself is of the year 2007 and we cannot lose sight
of the ground reality that in most of the civil disputes, half the
battle is won through interim orders. We do not think that the
court should be a party to the practice of allowing a litigant to use
one court for the purpose of temporary reliefs and another court
for permanent reliefs.
27. There is one more aspect. The plaint does not even show the
particulars of the Office of the Registrar where the deeds of
confirmation were registered and the deeds of power of attorney
were registered and subsequently cancelled. Though a relief is
sought to direct the Registrar to cancel the deeds of revocation of
power of attorney, the details of the Office of the Registrar are not
provided and he is also not made a party. We do not know if the
concerned Registrar with whom the deeds of confirmation were
registered and the deeds of power of attorney and their cancellation
were registered, is at Pune or Bengaluru.
17
28. In fact, the categorical assertion of the appellants-plaintiffs
in paragraph 38 of the plaint that Bangalore Gorakshana Shala
Society and Bagmane Construction Pvt. Ltd. have no right, title
and interest over the suit properties, would make it necessary for
the court at Pune to embark upon an inquiry about the right, title
and interest of either of the parties to the suit properties.
Therefore, the High Court was right in concluding that the suit is
covered by Section 16(d) CPC.
29. It is true that the Trial Court has granted leave to the
appellants in terms of Order II Rule 2(3) CPC, to file a substantial
suit for specific performance and possession at a later point of
time. That does not mean that the rights of the defendants to seek
the return of the plaint can be curtailed.
30. In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the
High Court in the civil revision application arising out of the
applications under Order VII Rule 10 CPC does not call for any
interference. However, as we have stated earlier, one portion of the
impugned order by which the other application under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC stands allowed, perhaps by way of inadvertence, is
liable to be set aside.
18
31. Therefore, the appeals are partly allowed, setting aside that
portion of the impugned order where the application of defendant
No.117 filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC stands allowed. The
other portion of the impugned order allowing the applications of
the defendants filed under Order VII Rule 10 stands confirmed. It
is open to the appellants to represent the plaint before the
jurisdictional court at Bengaluru, within a period of four weeks.
32. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
………………...................J.
(V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN)
……..............................J.
(PANKAJ MITHAL)
New Delhi;
March 02, 2023

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India