Point of Law: Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act envisages that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependant on the existence to facts which he asserts, must prove said fact and the burden of proof lies on him.

JUDGMENT :

This City Civil Court Appeal is arising against the judgment in O.S.No.3232 of 2004, dated 15.11.2010 on the file of the Court of IX Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs before the trial Court and suit is filed for directing defendant Nos.1 to 3 to render accounts of the business carried jointly by them in construction of multi-storied complex i.e. ‘Manasi Ganga complex’ inclusive of all the portions sold in the sale of the said complex in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 18. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the said suit. Being aggrieved of the said judgment, this appeal is preferred.

3. Heard both sides and perused the record.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the trial Court ought to have seen that Exs.A-3 to A-5 (registered sale deeds) show the participation of appellants in the sale transaction with respect to the properties as the appellants have invested amounts. It is further contended that as the Bank statements covered under Exs.A-1 and A-2 prove their claim, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit. It is further contended that the trial Court ought to have seen that the respondents have failed to explain under what circumstances the appellants have attested the documents and ought to have believed the version of the appellants and ought to have decreed the suit.

5. Alternatively, it is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that in case the appeal is to be dismissed, liberty may be given to the appellants to file a fresh suit for recovery of money as per Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India Electric Works Ltd. v. James Mantosh & another, 1971 (1) SCC 24.

6. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiffs are financiers carrying on business in finance and are also investing money in the real estate, involving construction of multi-storied building complex. It is averred in the plaint that defendants 1 to 3 approached the plaintiffs for investing in purchase of the house bearing Nos.15-1-636 to 15-1-640, 15-1-640/1 and 15-1-444, totally admeasuring 272 square yards, situated at Feelkhana, Hyderabad and there was mutual oral agreement between plaintiffs and defendants that the land shall be purchased in the names of defendants 1 to 3, who will have 2/3rd share and plaintiffs will have 1/3rd share in the land as well as in the constructed property. It is the further contention of plaintiffs that as per the said agreement, the land was purchased for a total consideration of Rs.30,55,000/-, out of which, the plaintiffs have contributed a sum of Rs.9,33,332/-, vide registered sale deed documents bearing Nos.268/2000 to 270/2000, dated 09.03.2000 and the said amount was paid by means of demand drafts. Further, they have also paid a sum of Rs.2,26,000/- towards purchase of stamps in the names of the defendants and thus, they invested Rs.11,59,332/-. It is further stated in the plaint that after obtaining permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, a multi-storied commercial complex was constructed with a cellar, ground and five upper floors with a sum of Rs.70,00,000/-, out of which, the plaintiffs have contributed 1/3rd share i.e. Rs.23,00,000/- and the said construction was named as ‘M/s.Manasi Ganga Developers’. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that defendants 1 to 3 have sold the property to defendants 4 to 18 and some shops in the cellar and flats in the ground and upper floors remained unsold. As the defendants have not paid any amount or shared the profits with the plaintiffs, they are constrained to file the suit for rendition of accounts in terms of the oral agreement.

7. A detailed written statement has been filed by the 1st defendant and all other defendants have adopted the written state