1. This is the plaintiff's Miscellaneous First Appeal against the order dated 5.9.2013 on I.A. No. 2 in O.S. No. 1884/2013 on the file of the 5th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore city dismissing the application - I.A. No. 2 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The appellant - plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the defendant Nos.8 to 16 have no manner of right, title or interest to deal, transact or meddle in respect of the suit schedule property and for specific performance directing the defendant Nos.1 to 7 to execute a Joint Development Agreement in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule property in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 2.9.2011 and for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 16, their agents etc., from entering, alienating, dealing or otherwise encumbering the schedule property to the detriment and exclusion of the plaintiff's rights as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 2.9.2011 and for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant No.17 from interfering or developing the suit schedule property in collusion with the defendant Nos.1 to 16 and to direct the defendants to pay the costs of litigation expenses.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956 and it is a reputed builder and developer of real estate in Bangalore and certain other cities in India. The defendant Nos.2 to 7 represented to the plaintiff that one Rev. Edmund Marasden had purchased the property bearing Old No. 97, New No. 11 situated at Commissariat Road, Bangalore more fully described in the schedule to the plaint from the Government of Mysore in the year 1854 for a sale consideration of Rs.900/-. The said property was purchased to establish a place for worship known as Ebenezer Chapel and accordingly church building was constructed.

4. It is further case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.2 to 7 had also represented that 1st defendant is a registered Trust formed and established on 12.12.1867 by Pastor Rev. Edmund Marasden and the suit schedule property was transferred to the said trust and the same became the property of the Trustees. The trust deed came to be registered on 12.12.1867. It is further case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.2 to 7 had further represented that 2nd to 7th defendants are the Trustees of the 1st defendant and that the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the schedule property and the title of the 1st defendant to the suit schedule property is good, valid, subsisting, clear and marketable and that no one else has right, title or interest or share in the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.2 to 7 on behalf of defendant No.1 had further represented that they were desirous of developing the schedule property on a joint development basis and hence arrived at an understanding with the plaintiff. Consequently defendant Nos.2 to 7 offered the schedule property for joint development on a lease basis for a period of 99 years. Accordingly a resolution came to be passed on 21.8.2011 to develop the suit schedule property through the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant was authorized to act on behalf of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.3 to 7.

5. It is further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 had entered into Memorandum of Understanding ('MoU' for short) on 2.9.2011. As per clause 2(i) of the MoU dated 2.9.2011, on the execution of a Joint Development Agreement, the plaintiff shall pay an amount of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees three crores only) to the 1st defendant as interest free refundable security deposit. Out of the said Security Deposit, the plaintiff has paid Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) on 5.9.2011 by way of Pay Order and the same was acknowledged by defendant NOs.1 to 7. As per Clause 3 of the MoU, the plaintiff was entitled to take out a