ALEX KURUVILLA Vs. ORINETAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the proposed purchaser of the suit flat No. 23 with garage No. 23 in Chitrakoot Apartment, Altamount Road, Mumbai400026 belonging to the defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2 was the borrower of defendant No. 1 bank. The defendant No. 3 is the company of the plaintiff in possession of the suit flat. Defendant No. 3 has licenced the suit flat from Defendant No. 2. The plaintiff has sued for specific performance of the agreement set out in writing by defendant No. 1 bank, for transfer of the suit flat to the plaintiff and for protecting the plaintiff's possession therein. In the alternative, the plaintiff has sued for refund of the advance consideration paid by the plaintiff of Rs. 1.045 crores with interest as also the differential between the market value of the suit flat on the date of the decree and the agreed consideration for the suit flat under the agreement between the parties of Rs. 4.18 crores. The plaintiff has also sued for the usual injunctions against transfer of the suit flat by defendant No. 1 to any other party.

(2.) The plaintiff has applied for the usual injunctions in the notice of motion, appointment of Court Receiver and protection of his possession in the suit premises ie. for an order against disturbance of his possession.

(3.) What has transpired between the parties is almost wholly admitted. The admitted facts must be first enumerated to understand the respective positions of the parties. Based upon those facts the law granting the plaintiff the right, if any, to claim possession and/or title would be seen to consider the grant of reliefs to the plaintiff.