NAGAMOHAN DAS, J, J.

( 1 ) THIS Regular First Appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 27/3/2002 in O. S. No. 5309/1990 passed by the XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City dismissing the suit of plaintiff for specific performance for lease of schedule property.

( 2 ) THE appellants are the plaintiffs. Respondents are the defendants. The parties in this appeal are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.

( 3 ) FIRST defendant is a public charitable trust. Defendants 2 to 4 are the Trustees. Defendants are the owners of schedule property. Plaintiffs are engaged in developing modem building/ complexes. The defendants invited tenders in the month of May/ June 1980 for development of schedule property. Plaintiffs through their letter dated 17/6/1980 offered to develop the schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, after long correspondence, there came to be a concluded contract for development of schedule property. Since the defendants failed to perform their part of obligation and refused to lease the schedule property for development, the plaintiffs filed O. S. No. 5309/ 1990 for decree of specific performance to lease the schedule property by executing a registered lease deed. , for permanent injunction and for other reliefs. Defendants entered appearance before the trial Court, filed written statement denying the very status of plaintiffs and contended that there was no concluded contract. The defendants opposed the claim of the plaintiffs. On the basis of the pleadings the Trial Court framed the following issues: i) Do the plaintiffs prove concluded contract of agreement of lease by the defendants? ii) Whether the plaintiffs were ever ready to perform their part of contract? iii) Do the plaintiffs prove committing breach by the defendants? iv) Who will suffer greater hardship by grant of refusal of decree? v) Whether the defendant is liable to execute lease deed under Sec. 36 of the Indian Trust Act 1882? vi) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree for the specific performance? vii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the possession of the suit property?

( 4 ) BEFORE the Trial Court the parties adduced evidence and addressed arguments. The trial Court by considering the pleadings, evidence and arguments of both the parties decreed O. S. No. 5309/ 1990 vide judgment dated 10-3-1998. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree of trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal before this court in RFA No. 405/1998. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendants filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement to incorporate one additional paragraph contending that there is no agreement or contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The correspondence was with a firm by name M/s. Mahesh Centre which is a partnership concern. The draft agreement relied on by the plaintiffs was with the partnership firm and plaintiffs are not a partnership firm but the same is proprietary concern. This court allowed the amendment of written statement. Consequently, this Court vide judgment dated 21-9-2001 allowed RFA No. 405/ 1998, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and remanded the matter to the trial Count for disposal on merits.

( 5 ) AFTER remand, the plaintiffs filed an application to amend the cause title in the plaint stating that first plaintiff is a joint family firm. The trial Court vide order dated 18-1-2002 allowed the application of the plaintiffs to amend the cause title with certain observations. After amendment of pleadings, the trial Court framed the following additional issues: i) Whether the suit is maintainable? ii) Whether the sale agreement is in favour of the firm or proprietary concern? iii) Whether the defendants prove that the suit is barred by limitation? iv) Whether the defendants prove that there is no privity of contract with the plaintiffs?

( 6 ) AFTER remand, both the parties adduced additional evidence and produced additional documents. On t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document