PAWAN PROPROTIES Vs. PROHLAD RAI DHANANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment and order dated 5th August, 2014 passed by the Ld. First Court dismissing GA No. 1197 of 2014 which was an application filed by the defendant no. 10 in the suit for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the defendant no. 10 and also that the suit is barred by the laws of limitation against the defendant no. 10.

(2.) The plaintiff has instituted the instant suit claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs:

(3.) The case in the plaint is that one Ramjidass Dhanania along with his three brothers namely Dinanath (since deceased), Harkrishan Dass (since deceased) and Shankarlal (since deceased) during their lifetime were the joint owners of Premises No. 46 Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017 (hereinafter referred to 'the suit premises'), each having undivided 1/4th share in the suit premises. In or about 2002, Ramjidass claimed partition of the suit premises by filing a suit. The plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 to 9 and the proforma defendant in the instant suit are the legal heirs of Ramjidass. Ramjidass died intestate on 26th April, 2003 during the pendency of the partition suit. Upon his death his right title and interest in respect of the undivided 1/4th share in the suit premises devolved upon the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 9 and the proforma defendant each acquiring undivided 1/44th share in the suit premises. In the partition suit, on 20th January, 2005 a preliminary decree was passed by virtue whereof the plaintiff, the defendant nos. 1 to 9 and the proforma defendant each became the owner of 1/44th share in the suit premises. The partition suit is still pending. Ramjidass during his lifetime along with his three brothers had executed a power of attorney in favour of one Gouri Shankar Lohia who exceeded his authority and entered into a purported development agreement dated 13th October, 1982 in respect of the suit premises with the defendant no. 10. In October 1985, the defendant no. 10 filed a suit for specific performance of the said development agreement being CS No. 619 of 1985.