K. M. VENKATARAMANA Vs. K. SUMITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) has filed been by the defendants. The appeal arises from judgment and decree dated 04.01.2013, passed by the Trial Court by which suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 26.06.2000 has been decreed.

(2.) The subject matter of the appeal is land measuring 4 acres and 22 guntas excluding 0.13 guntas of kharab land along with buildings situate thereon measuring 125 square feet on the ground floor and about 40 square feet on the first floor of Sy.No.29 situate at Chikkabanavara, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question' for short)

(3.) The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement and possession. The plaintiffs also sought the alternative relief of refund of an amount of Rs.1,23,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% and an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of compensation as well as permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or in any manner encumbering the suit schedule property. The claim in the suit was based on the ground that plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 are known to each other from past several decades. It was pleaded that defendant No.1 approached the plaintiffs with a proposal to establish one educational institution as a joint venture. The plaintiffs thereupon initially paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards their 50% share in the joint venture to defendant No.1 to start a nursing school. It was also pleaded that plaintiff No.1 paid a further sum of Rs.16,00,000/- to purchase the land in question. However, later on plaintiffs learnt that defendant No.1 has purchased the land in question and started the school of nursing in the name and style of Raghavendra School of Nursing. It was averred that the plaintiffs learnt that defendants had formed a partnership on 08.09.1993 comprising defendants only. The plaintiffs thereupon asked the defendants to include them as partners and accordingly, a supplementary partnership deed was executed on 05.06.1995 by which the plaintiffs were inducted in the partnership along with defendants. It was also averred that plaintiffs in all, paid US $90,000 to the defendants on different occasions.