S.C. Gupte JUDGMENT
S.C. Gupte, J.
1. This second appeal challenges a judgment dated 14 March 2016 passed by the District Court at Thane in Regular Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2015, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20 December 2014 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Thane, in Regular Civil Suit No. 376 of 2010. By this latter judgment and decree the Appellant's suit was dismissed by the trial court.
2. It is the case of the Appellant (original "Plaintiff") that sometime in January 2007, he, like several others, entered into a flat purchase agreement with Respondent No. 1 (original "Defendant No. 1"). The agreement referred to a layout (Layout dated 19 January 2005) showing 15 buildings to be constructed by Defendant No. 1 at site, including the building containing the Plaintiff's flat. The layout also showed various open and amenity spaces. The layout, including the buildings and open as well as amenity spaces, was part of a plan sanctioned by the local planning authority, namely, Thane Municipal Corporation, and shown to the plaintiff and other purchasers. The Plaintiff and others were also given brochures concerning the entire project, known as "Kores Nakshatra", specifying 15 numbers of buildings together with various open and amenity spaces and depicting their location as well as areas. In 2008-2009, the buildings were constructed. The buildings have since been duly occupied by the Plaintiff and other flat purchasers. Sometime in October 2009, the Plaintiff and others noted some activities suggesting a proposed construction of an additional building, viz. Building No. 16, on the suit property, i.e. the layout referred to above. The Plaintiff, through his advocate, objected to such construction. The planning authority, in response, rejected the proposal of additional construction. In December 2009, fresh plans were submitted by Defendant No. 1 through a new architect, once again, for construction of additional Building No. 16 with some changes in the plans rejected earlier. According to these new plans, the additional building was proposed to be constructed by utilizing additional FSI available to Defendant No. 1 in the suit property by way of Transfer of Development Rights ('TDR'). The plans disclosed the proposal for construction of Building No. 16 on the originally proposed area of Recreation Ground ('RG') in the suit property. Sometime in March 2010, the Corporation sanctioned the plans. Being aggrieved, the Plaintiff, along with one other flat purchaser, filed the present suit. The case of the Plaintiff before the trial court was that after having disclosed a sanctioned layout containing 15 buildings and open and amenity spaces including RG and having executed agreements for sale on the basis of such disclosure, it was impermissible for Defendant No. 1 to construct any additional building on the RG area of the layout without the consent of the flat purchasers including the Plaintiff. Pending the hearing of the suit, Defendant No. 1 was injuncted from carrying out construction of Building No. 16. Evidence was led thereafter at the trial and the suit was heard. On 20 December 2014, the trial court dismissed the suit. A civil appeal was preferred from the order of dismissal before the District Court. The appeal was dismissed on 14 March 2015. Being aggrieved, the present second appeal is filed by the Plaintiff.
3. The appeal raises the following important question of law:
Whether, after making disclosure to flat purchasers of a sanctioned layout plan showing a certain number of buildings and open and amenity spaces including Recreation Ground ('RG') and their locations as per the requirements of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act ("MOFA"), it is permissible t........