LAWS(BOM)-2011-6-189

UDAISINGH WAMANRAO RANE SARDESSAI Vs. GAUTAM RAMANBAI PATEL

Decided On June 08, 2011
UDAISINGH WAMANRAO RANE SARDESSAI Appellant
V/S
GAUTAM RAMANBAI PATEL, SON OF RAMANBAI PATEL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 20/11/1999 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim in Special Civil Suit No.33/2008 by which application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C for impleadment as defendant in the suit has been rejected.

(2.) RESPONDENT no.1 filed the above suit against respondent nos.2 to 4 and six other defendants seeking the following reliefs: (a) That it may be declared that there exists a valid and binding contract between the plaintiff and the defendants nos.1 and 2 for sale of the suit plots more particularly described in paragraph 6(a) & (b) of the Plaint and that the defendant nos.1 and 2 are not entitled to in any manner terminate and or resile/back out from the same. (b) It be further declared that the purported termination contained in the said letter dated 28/4/2007 being Exhibit �1/2D�1/2 hereto is false, illegal, malafide and untenable in law and therefore deserves to be and be struck down and set aside. (c) That it may be declared and ordered that the defendant no.10 has no rights whatsoever under the said Agreements at Exhibit �1/2A�1/2 and �1/2B�1/2 hereto and that the rights to purchase the suit plots belong to and vested in plaintiff alone and that the defendant no.10 is bound and liable to disclaim his rights, if any under the said Agreements and execute necessary documents in that behalf. (d) By an order of this Hon'ble Court the defendant nos.1 to 9 and/or the defendant no.10 their servants and agents be directed to specifically perform the contract as contained in the said two Agreements at Exhibits �1/2A�1/2 and �1/2B�1/2 hereto and for that purpose the defendant nos.1 to 9 or any of them be further directed to in the first instance remove and settle all claims and encumbrances at their costs, to get the suit plots surveyed, demarcated and identified on loco, to secure clear and marketable title with vacant possession of the suit plots and thereafter to sign execute and register in favour of the plaintiff the necessary sale deed and to put the plaintiff in vacant and peaceful possession of the suit plots and handover to the plaintiff all the original documents in respect thereof so also all prescribed forms applications and writings duly signed by the defendants no.1 and 2 and or defendant nos. 3 to 9 required to be submitted to the concerned authorities for effecting transfer of the suit plots from the names of the defendants no.1 and 2 and/or their predecessors and or defendants nos. 3 to 9 to the name of the plaintiff in all registers and records of the concerned Revenue Authorities/Municipal Authorities as the case may be. (e) If and only if Specific Performance cannot be granted by this Hon'ble Court by way of an alternative relief, the defendants be jointly and severally ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiff damages in lieu of Specific performance at Rs.10,40,64,495/- (Rupees Ten Crores Forty Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand four hundred and Ninety Five only) or such other amount as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment. (f) It may further be ordered and declared that plaintiffs claim of damages as mentioned in prayer clause (e) above has first charge and security upon the suit plots. (g) Costs of the suit be provided for and (h) For such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.

(3.) ON 27/2/2009, the petitioner herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. for impleadment in the suit as defendant inter alia on the ground that he had interest by way of title in some of the properties agreed to be sold by the said Agreements. The application was opposed by defendants nos.1 and 2. The plaintiff and defendant no.10 (respondent no.4 herein) left the matter to the Court. The Trial Court by the impugned order dated 20/11/2009 dismissed the application.