The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely approval for construction, the need for clean hands in seeking equitable relief, and the significance of possession in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is defendants appeal challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 9/3/2007 passed in Regular Appeal No.275 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Mysuru, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 24/7/2004 passed in OS No.575 of 2000 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mysuru, decreeing the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties in this appeal are referred to with their ranking before the trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and as the suit schedule property was an old building, the plaintiff intended to construct a new complex in the suit schedule property and as such, the plaintiff accepted the proposal of the defendant, who offered to construct the new building in the suit schedule property and as such, the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement on 10/7/1997. The plaintiff further averred that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the western portion of the suit schedule property for Rs.5,00,000.00 shown as ABCD in the sketch enclosed to the agreement dtd. 10/7/1997 to the defendant, in which the defendant agreed to put up 12 squares construction with a condition to pay Rs.2,00,000.00 at the time of execution of the agreement and balance amount of Rs.3,00,000.00 at the time of completion of the eastern portion of the suit schedule property, which is consisting of ground floor and first floor measuring 25 squares marked as EFGH after the demolition of the existing structure and that the defendant had also agreed to leave space of six feet for common entrance between the two structures which is shown an DCEF in the agreement. Plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant had agreed to handover the vacant possession of the eastern portion of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and had agreed to complete the construction work within a period of one year from the date of agreement. The terms of agreement also specify that the plaintiff shall obtain licence for demolition and re-construction on the schedule property, from Mysuru City Corporation, Mysuru. The plaintiff further averred that the said agreement provides for resolution of dispute, if any, by an Arbitrator. It is the case of the plaintiff that for want of funds the defendant did not pay Rs.2,00,000.00 to the plaintiff as agreed, and therefore, the plaintiff rented one shop (shop No.3) to one Sri Gururaj on monthly rent of Rs.1,250.00 with an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000.00. However, the plaintiff had received security deposit of Rs.25,000.00 from the said Sri Gururaj. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant had received Rs.35,000.00 from the said Sri Gururaj and since there was no commencement of construction by the defendant, it resulted in dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant and as such, it is further averred in the plaint that the as per the advise of Sri Asgar and Dr. Kabir, who were the Arbitrators, the plaintiff and the defendant resolved the dispute as per agreement dtd. 8/1/1999, in which the defendant agreed to sell two shops of the western portion of the constructed schedule property marked as ABCD and to use the sale proceeds for the purpose of construction of the building. However, the defendant committed breach of the contractual obligation at all stages and therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to put up construction between 25th January and 27/2/1999 incurring expenditure of Rs.50,000.00 and the said construction of the building was obstructed by the defendant and as such, he lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police and thereafter, the plaintiff had filed OS No.534 of 1999 on the file of the IV Additional I Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) at Mysuru. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendant had dumped his material and locked one of the shops. It is further averred that the Arbitrators passed an award on 26/6/1999, which was signed and accepted