This appeal is filed by the appellants-plaintiffs under

Section 96 of CPC for setting aside the order dated

17.03.2021 on I.A No.3 filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a)

and (d) of CPC, in O.S.No.1537/2017 passed by the I

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru,

whereby the trial Court has allowed the I.A. and rejected

the plaint.

4

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

appellants and learned counsel for respondents.

3. The appellants are the plaintiffs and respondent

Nos.1 to 3 are defendant Nos.1 to 3 before the trial Court.

The rank of the parties is retained for the sake of

convenience. Respondent

No.4

-

developer

who is

impleaded would join with respondent No.3.

4. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court is

that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction

restraining defendants from interfering with suit schedule

property of the plaintiffs and restraining the defendants

from alienating northern half of land bearing Sy. No.30/2,

Kasavanahalli village, Bangalore East Taluk, formerly

Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 3 acres 25 guntas,

bounded on East by Basappa and other's land, West by

Narasamma and Chenni Reddy's and Gundappa's land,

North by remaining portion of the same survey number

and South by Chikkabalappa's land (hereinafter referred to

5

as schedule 'A' property). This schedule 'A' property is

purchased by plaintiffs' mother deceased Muniyamma from

one B.R. Muga Reddy s/o. late M. Rama Reddy under sale

deed 14.09.1964 registered in the office of the Sub-

Registrar, Bangalore city, and she was the absolute owner

of the said property.

5. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the said

Muniyamma also purchased southern half of land bearing

Sy. No.30/2, Kasavanahalli village, Bangalore East Taluk,

formerly Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 3 acres 25

guntas, bounded on East by Basappa's land, West by

Narasamma's land and North by Thoti Inamthi land and

South by remaining portion of the same survey number

(hereinafter referred to as suit schedule 'B' property). the

suit schedule 'B' property was purchased from one

Sunchappa, s/o. late Puttaiah, on 24.05.1971 of the Sub-

Registrar, Bangalore city, and she was the absolute owner

of the said property.

6

6. The defendant No.1 is M/s. Karnataka Electricity

Board Employees Cooperative Society Limited (hereinafter

referred to as 'Society'), represented by defendant No.2,

who is the Secretary of defendant No.1, entered into a sale

agreement dated 24.01.1992 with the plaintiffs with the

object of forming a residential layout for its members in

the schedule properties for total sale consideration of

Rs.9,25,000/-. The time stipulated for completion of sale

transaction

was

9

months.

Pursuant

to

the

said

agreement, the plaintiff applied for conversion of land,

which was obtained. Due to certain technicalities, the sale

could not be executed within 9 months. As such, two

more agreements in respect of schedule A and B properties

were registered on 29.10.1992 and another agreement on

dated 28.10.1992 in the office of Sub-Registrar regarding

A and B schedule properties, on continuation of earlier

agreement dated 24.01.1992.

7. The further case of the plaintiffs is that General

Power of Attorney has been executed on 29.10.1992 in

7

respect of schedule 'A' property, in favour of defendant

No.2 as representative of defendant No.1. Another General

Power of Attorney dated 28.10.1992 was executed in

respect of schedule 'B' property. As per sale agreement

dated 29.10.1992, the balance sale consideration payable

was Rs.1,19,000/- to be paid by defendant No.1 to the

plaintiffs

after

all

the

legal

formalities

completed.

Similarly, under the agreement dated 28.10.1992, the

balance consideration payable was Rs.25,000/- to be paid

by defendant No.1 to the plaintiffs after all the legal

formalities completed. It is further alleged that the

plaintiffs requested defendant Nos.1 and 2 for completing

the

legal

formalities

but

the

defendants

kept

on