NABRAJ ANANT PRABHU; MISTER VINAYAK DATTATRAYA KAMAT; MISTER SHANTARAM D KAMAT; VINAYAK VASSANT SHANBAG; MISTER NARSINHA VASANT SHANBAG; NIZARI BUILDERS; ASHRAFALI PEERMOHAMED NIZARI; AMIRALI PEERMOHAMED NIZARI; EDNA RIBEIRO MIRANDA E SOUZA; BRUNO DIAS SO Vs. GOA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD ; NIZARI BUILDERS; ASHRAFALI PEERMOHAMED NIZARI; AMIRALI PEERMOHAMED NIZARI; EDNA RIBEIRO MIRANDA E SOUZA; BRUNO DIAS SOUZA; V T HARMALKAR & CO; LAXMAN P SHIRODKAR; SARITABAI SHIRODKAR; RATNAKAR R PRABHU; AJIT MADHAV KAMAT;

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in the above appeals.

(2.) The parties are referred to in the manner as they appear in the cause title of the Trial Court.

(3.) The plaintiff is a Co-operative Bank and succeeded its earlier bank known as 'Caixa de Previdencia de Nova Goa" and was occupying a portion of the ground floor of the building existing on the land situated at Menezes Braganza road which was thereafter demolished. It was further the case of the plaintiff that they were occupying the suit premises as a tenant since the year 1964. The land and the structure were owned, occupied and possessed by the defendant nos.4 and 5 who entered into an agreement with the defendant no.1 a partnership firm of which the defendant nos. 2 and 3 were partners. The defendant nos. 4 and 5 agreed to sell to the defendant no.1 the property inclusive of the building existing therein. It was further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 gave an undertaking that he would hand over the built up area on the ground floor of the new building having a plinth area of 84.65 metres i.e. 64.11 square metres on the ground floor and 20.45 square metres on the mezzanine floor on rental basis. An agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 and the owner on 02.12.1982 and consequently, the entire possession of the suit premises were handed over to the said defendants. It was further their case that in the month of March, 1985 a part of the area agreed to be given to the bank was prepared to be given to another person and as such, they learnt that it was also agreed to sell the said portion to one hotel by the defendant no.1. It was further their case that out of the carpet area to be given to the plaintiff, the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 have reserved only 31 square metres on the ground floor and handed over the possession to the defendant nos.6, 7 and 8 and other defendants. It was further their case that the portion allotted to the said defendants by agreement is null and void and therefore the suit was filed for specific performance of agreement dated 02.12.1982.