ORDER

The plaintiff in O.S.No.10199/2014 on the file of XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru has filed this writ petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 22.10.2018, by which the Court exercise power under Article 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and impounded the supplementary agreements and the tripartite agreements which were placed on record by the plaintiff.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The suit in O.S.No.10199/2014 was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 25.08.2012 by directing the defendants to execute a deed of absolute sale after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-. Alternatively, the plaintiff sought for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,90,00,000/- being part of the agreed consideration paid and for damages of Rs.2,00,00,000/- for the alleged breach of contract by the respondents Nos.1 to 3. The plaintiff also sought for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property.

4. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 had executed an agreement of sale dated 25.08.2012 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.4,50,00,000/- and they had received a sum of Rs.2,10,00,000/- as part of agreed sale consideration on the date of agreement. The said agreement was duly registered before the concerned Sub- registrar. In so far as, the possession of the suit schedule property is concerned, it was specifically stated as follows:

“3.3) EVICTION OF TENANTS :

That the portions of the Schedule Property are tenanted to the tenants as detailed in this Agreement. The Sellers undertake to evict the said tenants and deliver vacant possession of the Schedule Property at the time of the sale and it is a condition precedent”.

It was further stated at Clause 9 as follows:

“9) POSSESSION :

The Sellers shall deliver and put the Purchaser in actual physical vacant possession of the Schedule Property at the time of sale deed after evicting the tenants therein namely (i) Sri.R.Prasanakumar and Sri.Y.P.Shivakumar, ii) M/s.Ahee Tech and Sri.Nagendra C.S., iii) Sri.Rajkumar J, Proprietor, M/s.Ace Concrete Blocks, (iv) M/s. Golden Wood Packers, (v) M/s. S & S Surface treatments, and (vi) M/s.Aaster Paints and any other person/s in occupation”.

5. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 purportedly executed contemporaneous tripartite agreements dated 25.08.2012 in continuation of the agreement of sale dated 25.08.2012, in terms of which, the tenants in occupation of the suit schedule premises had attorned their tenancy in favour of the plaintiff and had agreed to pay the monthly rent payable to the defendant Nos.1 to 3. The plaintiff claimed that following these tripartite agreements, supplemental agreements dated 27.08.2012, 24.11.2012 and 15.03.2013 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in terms of which the defendant Nos.1 to 3 acknowledged the receipt of Rs.50,00,000/-, Rs.70,00,000/-, Rs.60,00,000/- towards the sale consideration and in all the defendant Nos.1 to 3 acknowledged the receipt of Rs.3,90,00,000/- and extended the time for conclusion of sale till six months from 24.11.2012 and thereafter by nine months from 15.03.2013. Some of the Clauses of these tripartite agreements which commonly appear in all of them reads as follows:

“WHEREAS the members of the First Party by an Agreement to Sell of this date have agreed to sell the Schedule ‘A’ Property in favour of Second Party by receiving huge advance and part payment.

WHEREAS the First Party has agreed to direct the Third Party to pay the monthly rent of Schedule ‘B’ Property to the Second Party in view of First Party having received substantial payments under the aforesaid Sale Agreement and hence required Third party to pay the monthly rent of Schedule ‘B’ Property to the Second Party by attornment of tenancy in his favour, for which the members of Third