BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KETHAMARANAHALLI HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORARY SECRETARY K.S. NANJUNDASWAMY@RESPONDEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties finally in respect of the appeal preferred lay the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 before the Trial Court in the suit filed by the respondent -plaintiff for possession of sites bearing Nos. 58, 203, 230, 257, 258, 259 and 260 from the appellants herein.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent -plaintiff being a registered Society purchased 20 acres 15 guntas of land comprising of Survey Nos. 72/1, 73/2, 73/1, 74/1, 74/2, 77/1, 77/2A, 77/2B, 77/4 and 83/3 of Saneguruvanahalli Village under the various sale deeds and the Kathas were also transferred in the name of the plaintiff -Society and there afterwards the land was got converted for the purpose of forming the sites and for distribution among the members of the Society. The plaintiff approached the first defendant -B.D.A. seeking permission to form a private layout The permission was accorded and thereafterwards the land measuring 18 acres 5 guntas bearing the abovementioned survey numbers was handed over to the B.D.A. by the plaintiff for the formation of layout at per the plan and a sum of Rs. 13,92,805/ - was paid by the plaintiff is the first defendant -B.D.A. towards the expenses for the formation of layout An agreement was entered into between the parties on 21.7.1997 and the B.D.A. formed the layout consisting of 273 sites of various dimensions in the year 1986 and released 262 sites to the plaintiff -Society for allotment to its members. In 1989, the first defendant -BDA released four more sites, but the remaining seven sites were not released despite the request made by the plaintiff -Society. In the meanwhile, there was an attempt to encroach upon the sites bearing Nos. 259 and 260 by one Krishnappa and his brothers and the Society therefore had to file a suit in O.S. No. 5727/90 against them contending that the defendants -BDA did not comply with the terms of the agreement and despite the plaintiff -Society having performed its obligation under the contract, the defendants did not deliver the vacant sites and therefore the suits became inevitable.

(3.) THE Trial Court framed the following issues