An unregistered document required to be registered is inadmissible in court and does not confer rights or ownership of property.

ORDER :

1. In CA No.326 of 2021, the applicants claim to be the children of late P.M. Channabasavanna and Smt. H.N. Saroja. It is stated that, father of the applicants acquired the property bearing No.2997, Temple Road, Vanivilasa Mohalla, Mysore as per registered Sale Deed dated 05.06.1982 (Annexure-A). It is further stated that, the applicants are co-owners of the aforementioned property. It is further stated that the, parents of the applicants had entered into Joint Development Agreement dated 30.06.1997 (Annexure-B) with M/s. Kirlosker Investments and Finance Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as Company in liquidation). The Company in liquidation failed to perform its obligation as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the Joint Development Agreement, and in this regard, father of the applicants addressed letter dated 28.02.1988 about the non-performance of the obligation by the Company in liquidation and also made a reference for revocation of Joint Development Agreement. In reply to the same, the Company in liquidation by reply dated 18.03.1998 expressed their inability to complete the project within stipulated period (Annexures-C and D respectively). Thereafter, legal notice dated 17.12.1999 (Annexure-E) was issued by the parents of the applicants. Father of the applicants-P.M. Channabasavanna died on 25.01.2000 and mother of the applicants-H.N. Saroja, died on 22.03.2001 and as such, the applicants succeed to the estate of the deceased parents. It is also stated that, negotiations were held with regard to construction of the building and an extent of 10045 Sq.Ft. in built up area was offered to the applicants in lieu of apartments to be constructed on the schedule property. In this regard, the Company in liquidation had paid the sale consideration of Rs.74,33,000/- to the applicants. It is the grievance of the applicants that, the Company in liquidation failed to handover the original title deeds and as such, it is contended that, no title has been transferred in favour of the Company in liquidation in terms of the unregistered Joint Development Agreement. It is further stated in the application that, on account of loss in the business, and financial crises, the Company in liquidation, suffered an order of winding up of the Company as per the order passed by this Court on 24.12.2010. Thereafter, learned Official Liquidator was appointed to look after the affairs of the company in liquidation, hence, it is the case of the applicants that as the agreements entered into between the father of the applicants with the Company under liquidation in terms of Joint Development Agreement dated 30.06.1997 was not materialised and same has not been acted upon by the parties and as such, the applicants presented CA No.326 of 2021 seeking direction to the learned Official Liquidator to return the original title deeds in respect of schedule property and also under takes to refund sum of Rs.74,33,000/- to the Company in liquidation.

2. In CA No. 419 of 2022, the applicant is learned Official Liquidator of the Company in liquidation, stated that, the parents of the applicants have entered into Joint Development Agreement dated 30.06.1997 with the Company in liquidation to develop a multi storied residential apartment and the Company was to complete the construction and handover the possession of the built up space to an extent of 33% in the Schedule Property to the parents of the applicants. In this regard, Company in liquidation entered into an agreement dated 09.09.1997 with M/s. Nadig Constructions and Company, and further contended that, the Company in liquidation unable to fulfil its obligation in handing over the share of the owners. It is also stated that bilateral negotiation has been made between the company under liquidation and owners of the schedule properties and certain adjustments were worked out as per the Exchange Agreement on 22.03.2001 in respect of schedule property. It is also stated that, this court by order dated