IMPORTANT POINT
Sites sold in favour of appellants after allotment of sites in favour of beneficiaries and they not part of civic amenity area and benefit of sale made use for development of layout, provisions of S. 200 of Contract Act not applicable.

L. Narayana Swamy, J.—These regular second appeals are filed by the appellants-plaintiffs being aggrieved of the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O S Nos.275/2004, 271/2004, 273/2004, 276/2004, 274/2004 and 272/2004 on the file of IV Addl. First Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) at Mysore dated 13.10.2006 which is confirmed by the lower appellate court by the common judgment and decree dated 20.10.2010 in RA Nos.390, 391, 392, 393, 402, 403/2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court-II at Mysore. Both the courts have dismissed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction.

2. The common facts to be stated in brief are that the appellants are the absolute owners of site Nos. 24, 14, 23, 13, 21 and 20 situated at ‘D’ Block, J C Layout, Chamundi Hill Road, Nazarbad Mohalla, Mysore City having purchased the same under registered sale deeds dated 4.4.2003 for valuable consideration, executed by Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar Bahadur Awara Nivrutha Aramane Guards, Vadya Ghosti Mathu Himbalakara Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, a registered society under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, hereinafter referred to as ‘the society’.

3. Originally 51 acres of land in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli village was gifted by His Highness Maharaja of Mysore late Sri Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar Bahadur on 11.1.1971 by means of a registered gift deed in favour of his Highness Maharaja Body Guard Co-operative Society Ltd., hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent society’. The said society later named as Karnataka Armed Reserve Police Employees Co-operative Society. It is stated, the society is formed by members of the respondent society for distribution of sites among employees. The society approached the Government for permission to sell the vacant plots to third parties for want of funds, after allotment of sites to the members. M/s Chamundi Developers came forward to develop the layout by investing amount by offering tender. The society sold 8 sites to the persons nominated by M/s Chamundi Developers for having developed the layout, that is how the appellants purchased the above sites on 4.4.2003 and they were put into physical possession and enjoyment. The khata, licence and approved plan were granted by MUDA for the construction of house in the said sites. The respondents having interfered, the suits came to be filed.

4. The respondents appeared and contested the suits by filing written statement with similar contentions. It is submitted that His Highness Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar Bahadur gifted land in Sy.No.4 of Kurubarahalli to the H.H.M.C.S Society now it is called Karnataka Armed Revenue Police Employees Co-operative Society. At no point of time J.W.B.A.N.A.G.V.G.M.H.G.N. S.S.N. was in existence. The remaining land is reserved for the purpose of playground, park, templeand other basic amenities. The President of H.H.M.B.G.C.S Ltd., distributed 375 sites to the members in the year 1993. The compliance report was filed by the President of H.H.M.B.G.C.S Ltd. and also sought for extension of time to provide basic amenities. The notification dated 16.05.1998 was quashed by the government after due verification. The appellants approached this court against the order of the government to give prior notice to both parties and to pass necessary orders. There was no privity of contract between H.H.M.B.G.C.S Ltd., the 5th defendant and M/s Chamundi Developers. The appellants are not the beneficiaries under the gift deed and title cannot pass to the appellants as it is in gross violation of the terms of the order passed in Misc.No.11/1980. The identity described in the schedule to the plaint is under custody and control of society, the society has no title to raise funds on the lands, which was owned by the respondent society. There is no title vested with the society in respect of the suit schedule properties. The respondents have been the owners in common being the beneficiaries under the gift deed. Thus the