MANU/SC/1724/2009

True Court CopyTM EnglishUJ OLR

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6921 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1552 of 2007)

Decided On: 09.10.2009

Appellants: Revajeetu Builders and Developers
Vs.
Respondent: Narayanaswamy and Sons and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dalveer Bhandari and H.S. Bedi

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.9.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 36550 of 2003.

3. Brief facts in nutshell are as under:

The appellant (original plaintiff) filed an Original Suit No. 2265 of 1996 before the XXXI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore against the respondents (defendant Nos. 1 to 10) for recovery of Rs. 52,97,111/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of suit till payment. The appellant alternatively had taken the plea that if the court for any reason comes to the conclusion that a decree for a sum of Rs. 52,97,111/- cannot be passed as prayed by the appellant against respondents (original defendant Nos. 1 and 2), then the court may at least pass a decree for Rs. 19,12,500/- with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of suit till the date of realization against the respondents.

4. The appellant also claimed that it be declared absolute owner of the scheduled property on the basis of the sale deed dated 30.9.1987. The sale deed was executed by the respondents in favour of the appellant after obtaining permission from the State of Karnataka under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976.

5. A petition in public interest was filed by one S. Vasudeva which ultimately came up before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1454-56 of 1993 challenging the aforementioned transfer of land. This Court in those proceedings held that the sale deed executed by the respondent in favour of the appellant on 30.9.1987 is held to be invalid and inoperative. It may be pertinent to mention that after the institution of the suit, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has been repealed.

6. After the Act has been repealed, the appellant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `CPC') seeking leave of the trial court to add two additional paragraphs as 2(A) and (B) and few prayers and to delete certain paragraphs in the plaint and also to delete the prayer (a), (b) and (c).

Paragraphs 2(A) and (B) are set out as under:

2(A). With the enactment of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, the first defendant firm was prohibited from holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limits. As provided by the said Act, such vacant land, in excess of ceiling limits, was liable to be acquired by the State Government. Therefore, the first defendant firm applied to the State Government for exemption, under Section 20(1) of the said Act, and sought permission to hold excess vacant land to an extent admeasuring 16194 square metres. Vide Government Order dated 17.07.85, in exercise of its power under Section 20(1) of the said Act, the state government permitted the first defendant firm to hold the excess vacant land. Subsequently, as stated in para 4 hereinafter, the first defendant firm made another application to the state government to exempt the balance excess........