GURUDEV DEVELOPERS Vs. KURLA KONKAN NIWAS CHS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff has sued for specific performance of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the defendant society dated 18 th January, 1985 and for declaration that the termination of the agreement dated 21 st January, 1992 is illegal. The Plaintiff has also sued for damages of Rs.1,83,07,410/ in the alternative to the relief of specific performance. The Plaintiff was appointed the builder / contractor to construct the buildings of defendant society under the agreement dated 18 th January, 1985. The Plaintiff put up certain plinth work. The Plaintiff has also put up certain pillars. Thereafter no construction has been put up by the Plaintiff. The defendant society terminated the contract. The defendant gave it to another contractor.

(2.) The agreement between the parties and the correspondence that issued thereafter is admitted. The claim of the Plaintiff that he has put up construction other than the above is denied. Construction to the extent of the plinth and 27 pillars is also admitted. The case of specific performance is resisted under the ground that another contractor has constructed the buildings of the society. The case of damages is refuted. It is for the Plaintiff to prove the damages, if any, suffered. Based upon the aforesaid pleadings following issues came to be framed by Justice Ganoo on 13 th August, 2008 which are answered as follows: <p><table class = tablestyle width="91%" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="font-family:Verdana"> <tr> <td colspan="3"><div align="center"><strong>I&nbsp;S&nbsp;S&nbsp;U&nbsp;E&nbsp;S</strong></div></td> </tr> <tr> <td width="3%">1</td> <td width="85%">Do&nbsp; the&nbsp; Plaintiffs&nbsp; prove&nbsp; that&nbsp; Plaintiffs&nbsp;is&nbsp; a&nbsp; partnership firm&nbsp;registered&nbsp;under&nbsp;the&nbsp;Indian&nbsp;Partnership&nbsp;Act </td> <td width="12%"><div align="center">Yes</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2 </td> <td>If&nbsp;answer,&nbsp;to&nbsp;Issue&nbsp;No.1&nbsp;is&nbsp;in&nbsp;the&nbsp;negative&nbsp;whether&nbsp;the suit&nbsp;is&nbsp;maintainable </td> <td><div align="center">Not required to&nbsp;be answered</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3</td> <td><div align="justify">Do&nbsp;the&nbsp;Plaintiffs&nbsp;prove&nbsp;that&nbsp;the&nbsp;termination&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp;suit agreement&nbsp; by&nbsp; the&nbsp; defendants&nbsp; through&nbsp; their&nbsp; advocate's letter&nbsp;dated&nbsp;21 st &nbsp;January,&nbsp;1992&nbsp;is&nbsp;illegal </div></td> <td><div align="center">No</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4</td> <td>Do&nbsp;the&nbsp;Plaintiffs&nbsp;prove&nbsp;that&nbsp;they&nbsp;are&nbsp;entitled&nbsp;to&nbsp;specific performance&nbsp;of&nbsp;agreement&nbsp;dated&nbsp;18 th &nbsp;January,&nbsp;1985 </td> <td><div align="center">No</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td>5</td> <td>Do&nbsp;the&nbsp;Plaintiffs&nbsp;prove&nbsp;that&nbsp;they&nbsp;are&nbsp;entitled&nbsp;to&nbsp;recover damages &nbsp; to &nbsp; the &nbsp; tune &nbsp; of &nbsp; Rs.1,83,07,410/ &nbsp; from &nbsp; the defendants &nbsp; in &nbsp; the &nbsp; event &nbsp; of &nbsp; the &nbsp; Court &nbsp; coming &nbsp; to &nbsp; the conclusion&nbsp;that&nbsp;the&nbsp;plaintiffs&nbsp;are&nbsp;not&nbsp;entitled&nbsp;to&nbsp;specific performance&nbsp;of&nbsp;said&nbsp;agreement </td> <td><div align="center">No. except&nbsp;for Rs.4&nbsp;lacs.</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6</td> <td>Do&nbsp;the&nbsp;Plaintiffs&nbsp;prove&nbsp;that&nbsp;after&nbsp;the&nbsp;termination&nbsp;of&nbsp;the suit&nbsp;agreement&nbsp;defendants&nbsp;had&nbsp;awarded&nbsp;the&nbsp;construction project&nbsp;to&nbsp;M/s.&nbsp;Universal&nbsp;Developers&nbsp;on&nbsp;17 th &nbsp;September, 1994 </td> <td><div align="center">Not required to&nbsp;be answered</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td>7 </td> <td>If &nbsp; the &nbsp; answer &nbsp; to&nbsp; the &nbsp; Issue &nbsp; No.6 &nbsp; is&nbsp; in &nbsp; the &nbsp; affirmative whether &nbsp; the &nbsp; plaintiffs &nbsp; are &nbsp; entitled &nbsp; to &nbsp; specific performance&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp;suit&nbsp;agreement </td> <td><div align="center">Not required to&nbsp;be answered</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td>8</td> <td>Do&nbsp;the&nbsp;defendants&nbsp;prove&nbsp;that&nbsp;the&nbsp;suit&nbsp;is&nbsp;not&nbsp;maintainable for&nbsp;want&nbsp;of&nbsp;notice&nbsp;under&nbsp;Section&nbsp;164&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp;Maharashtra Cooperative&nbsp;Societies&nbsp;Act,&nbsp;1961 </td> <td><div align="center">No</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td>&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td>9</td> <td>What&nbsp;order </td> <td><div align="center">As&nbsp;per final order.</div></td> </tr> </table>

(3.) The Plaintiff has examined himself and another witness who has sought to corroborate the Plaintiff's evidence. The defendants have not examined any witness. It is for the Plaintiff to prove the case of damages. From the oral and documentary evidence the issues would have to be decided.