ORAL JUDGMENT

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

Plaintiff No.1, a private limited company, claims to be the absolute owner of the schedule property and asserts that it entered into a development agreement with plaintiff No.2 for construction of a multi-storied building thereon. It is the specific case of plaintiff No.1 that it floated a scheme under which shares of the company were issued to intending purchasers and, corresponding to the shares so issued, specific commercial/residential units were agreed to be allotted. According to the plaintiffs, defendants 3 to 18, who are stated to be the office bearers of defendant No.2–Association, are merely allottees under the said scheme. It is therefore contended that such allottees can at best be treated as licensees in occupation of the respective units and cannot claim ownership, as the title to the land and superstructure is asserted to have been retained by plaintiff No