LAWS(KAR)-2024-11-107

SANJEEVINI DEVELOPERS Vs. MOHAN DAS R.

Decided On November 23, 2024
Sanjeevini Developers Appellant
V/S
Mohan Das R. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed against the order of rejection of I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC vide dtd. 1/6/2022 in O.S.No.1015/2020 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff/appellant before the Trial Court that the plaintiff and defendant/respondent have entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.6/1 situated at K Gollahalli village, Hemmigepura Dhakale, Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South taluk to the extent of 5 acres which is morefully described in the schedule of the plaint as well as in IA. The total consideration amount was Rs.10,75,00,000.00. On the date of agreement, the plaintiff paid the advance amount of Rs.1,50,00,000.00 and paid another Rs.1,00,00,000.00 by way of cash under receipt dtd. 29/11/2012. It is also contended that also paid the additional amount on different dates i.e., on 26/12/2012, 3/1/2013, 6/1/2013, 12/2/2013 and 23/3/2013 and in all made the payment of Rs.3,35,00,114.00 and also invested huge amount for the development of the property including leveling of land, formation of roads, drainage system, tanks and borewells, water lines, sewage pipes and other civic amenity installations by spending an amount of Rs.75,00,000.00. It is contended that there was a condition to get the plan approval by the defendant and though plan was sanctioned, later it was cancelled and the defendant has kept the plaintiff in dark about the cancellation of the same. When the plaintiff came to know the said fact, he had informed that the defendant had reapplied for sanction. As per the terms of the sale agreement, the plaintiff approached the defendant time and again to know the status of the layout approval and additional payment was also made, but the defendant not heeded to his request and chose to remain aloof without fulfilling his obligations of getting required approval.