The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Plaintiff's failure to prove entitlement to specific performance and damages led to the dismissal of the suit, except for a limited amount as reasonable compensation for the work of construction.

1. The Plaintiff has sued for specific performance of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the defendant society dated 18th January, 1985 and for declaration that the termination of the agreement dated 21st January, 1992 is illegal. The Plaintiff has also sued for damages of Rs.1,83,07,410/- in the alternative to the relief of specific performance. The Plaintiff was appointed the builder / contractor to construct the buildings of defendant society under the agreement dated 18th January, 1985. The Plaintiff put up certain plinth work. The Plaintiff has also put up certain pillars. Thereafter no construction has been put up by the Plaintiff. The defendant society terminated the contract. The defendant gave it to another contractor. That contractor has completed the buildings of the defendant society.

2. The agreement between the parties and the correspondence that issued thereafter is admitted. The claim of the Plaintiff that he has put up construction other than the above is denied. Construction to the extent of the plinth and 27 pillars is also admitted. The case of specific performance is resisted under the ground that another contractor has constructed the buildings of the society. The case of damages is refuted. It is for the Plaintiff to prove the damages, if any, suffered. Based upon the aforesaid pleadings following issues came to be framed by Justice Ganoo on 13th August, 2008 which are answered as follows:

ISSUES

1. Do the Plaintiffs prove that Plaintiffs is a Yes

partnership firm registered under the Indian

Partnership Act?

2. If answer, to Issue No.1 is in the negative whether Not required to be

the suit is maintainable? answered

3. Do the Plaintiffs prove that the termination of the No

suit agreement by the defendants through their

advocate's letter dated 21st January, 1992 is illegal?

4. Do the Plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to No

specific performance of agreement dated 18th

January, 1985?

5. Do the Plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to No. except for Rs.4

recover damages to the tune of Rs.1,83,07,410/- lacs.

from the defendants in the event of the Court coming

to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to

specific performance of said agreement?

6. Do the Plaintiffs prove that after the termination of Not required to be

the suit agreement defendants had awarded the answered

construction project to M/s. Universal Developers on

17th September, 1994?

7. If the answer to the Issue No.6 is in the affirmative Not required to be

whether the plaintiffs are entitled to specific answered

performance of the suit agreement?

8. Do the defendants prove that the suit is not No

maintainable for want of notice under Section 164 of

the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961?

9. What order? As per final order.

3. The Plaintiff has examined himself and another witness who has sought to corroborate the Plaintiff's evidence. The defendants have not examined any witness. It is for the Plaintiff to prove the case of damages. From the oral and documentary evidence the issues would have to be decided.

ISSUE NOS. 1 & 2.

4. The Plaintiff has tendered the certified extract of the Registrar of Firms of the Plaintiff's. It is a public document. It is required to be tendered across the bar. The certification of the plaintiff firm is shown. The defendant contends that there were further partners and the entries in that in respect of were not made. The court is not concerned with all these aspects whilst considering maintainability. The court has to only see that the initial firm is registered or not. That is shown to be registered. Hence Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative. The suit is maintainable and therefore, Issue No.2 is not required to be answered.

ISSUE NOS.3 & 4.

5. The Plaintiff has sued for specific performance. Under the agreement the Plaintiff has to construct five buildings. The Plaintiff has not been able to construct. The defendants initially delayed the construction because they handed