MEHDI HASAN ABULHASAN Vs. YOGESH KARASANDAS THAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 31.12.1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Panvel in Civil suit No.82 of 1992.

(2.) FEW facts, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are as under:- The present appellant/original plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for various relief. Firstly, he sought a declaration that the agreement dated 22.2.1987 entered between him and the respondent is terminated due to efflux of time and also by default and, therefore, he called upon the respondent to vacate the suit premises and hand over the possession of the same back to the plaintiff. The appellant/original plaintiff also sought a direction to the respondent for accounts and costs of expenses incurred by him till 28.2.1969. Incidentally, the appellant prayed for certain relief by way of injunction. It is the case of the appellant/original plaintiff that on 15.1.1982 the appellant purchased plot no.7 in City survey No. 221-A/1 and 221-A/2, admeasuring 740 sq.yards, situated within Panvel Municipality limit by a registered sale deed. Somewhere in October 1986, the respondent approached the appellant through one broker for development of the said property and it was agreed between the appellant and the respondent that the said suit property would be developed in the partnership. According to the said agreement, the respondent's mother signed a cheque of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the appellant and the said cheque was given to the appellant. On 6.11.1986, the appellant entered into a partnership with the respondent's mother for development of the suit property and the development plan of the proposed building was prepared by the /Architect, Shri Chandrakant Gorule who submitted a plan to Panvel Municipal Council under the joint signatures of the appellant and the respondent's mother. However, it appears that somewhere in January 1987, the parties decided to abandon the partnership agreement and decided that the respondent would develop the property under the development agreement and, therefore, a cheque of Rs.25,000/- given by the mother of the respondent was not encashed by the present appellant.

(3.) AFTER cancellation of the aforesaid Power of Attorney, since the appellant started obstructing with the construction work, on 19.6.1989 the respondent filed Regular Civil suit No. 50 of 1989 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panvel for injunction. In the said suit , the trial court passed the interim order of status-quo. Thereafter the appellant published public notice on 4.4.1989 and 11.4.1989 wherein the appellant stated that the development contract entered into between the appellant and the respondent was terminated by the appellant and the Power of Attorney given in favour of the appellant was also withdrawn and that the appellant is entering into an agreement with Sudhir Shetty of Karishma Builders. Thereafter, it appears that on 19.10.1989, the appellant, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, addressed one letter to the respondent by way of counter offer for the purpose of extension of time. However, the respondent had not replied the said letter. thereafter on 6.1.1990, the appellant filed the present suit, being Special Civil suit No. 5 of 1990 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag for declaration that the agreement dated 22.2.1987, Exhibit 63, be declared as terminated by efflux of time and sought possession of the suit plot from the respondent and for accounts of construction till 22.2.1989. In the aforesaid suit, the appellant also claimed certain reliefs by way of injunction. In reply to the aforesaid suit filed by the appellant, the respondent filed his written statement and challenged the various contentions made by the plaintiff.