MEMORANDUM OF REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF COVIL PROCEDURE| Deeds & Drafts

Petitions & Pleadings

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

(MEMORANDUM OF REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 114

R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE)

R.P. NO.________/2015

Arising out of

MFA No.00/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

R.P. NO. _______ / 2015

Between: Position of the Parties

In Misc First In Review

Appeal Petition

SRI.T.ABC
S/O SRI XYZ

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

R/A

BANGALORE 560037 Appellant Petitioner

V/s

KANYAKUMARI BUILDERS PVT LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT

MUMBAI 40054

REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR

RPQ Respondent 1 Respondent 1

M.S. PQR DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER

THE COMPANIES ACT

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BANGALORE 560002

REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

SRI M.R. CED

S/O LATE SRI. DEC Respondent 2 Respondent

SRI M.R. CED
S/O LATE SRI M.S. DEC

R/A

BANGALORE 560054 Respondent 3 Respondent 3

MEMORANDUM OF REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF COVIL PROCEDURE

The petitioner most respectfully submits as under:

Address of the petitioner for the purpose of issue of Court notices, summons, etc., is as shown in the above cause title and that of his Counsel , Advocate, Bangalore 560 080

The addresses of the respondents for the similar purpose are as shown in the above cause title.

In the light of liberty granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 31/10/2014 in Special Leave to Appeal No.00/2014, this petition is filed seeking review of the final judgment and order dated 24/6/2014 passed by this court in MFA No.00/2013 whereby the Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, in the following facts and grounds. Certified copy of the final judgment and order of this Court dated 24/6/2014 in MFA No.00/2013, is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-A.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The suit property comprises Sy.No.00/P7 situated at Bangalore Sourth Taluk measuring 17.8 guntas, owned by the petitioner, he having acquired the same in a family partition as per registered partition deed dated 8/6/2000, having the following boundaries:

East : Land of T.SOD

West : Road and boundary of COD

North : Land in Sy.No.00/1A

South : BDA Ring Road.

Sketch issued by the revenue authorities showing the location of the suit property is produced as ANNEXURE-B.

It is submitted that originally Sy.No.14 of Kadubeesanahalli village measured 14 acres 36 guntas. Out of the said larger extent, a portion measuring 2 acres 30 guntas belonged to one OTP.

Said OTP sold 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.14 to one 0PT under registered sale deed dated 9/1/1945.

By another registered sale deed dated 18/5/1949 OTP sold remaining extent also to said OPT. Thus, OPT became the owner of larger portion measuring 2 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.14.

After the death of 0PT his two sons viz. COD and REM divided 2 acres 30 guntas in terms of registered partition deed dated 13/03/1985. In terms of the said partition REM received 1 acre 15 guntas.

REM S/o.OPT sold his 1 acre 15 guntas to T.Krishnappa, son of Thamanna who is the brother of petitioner herein, by registered sale deed dated 7/9/1994. Copy of sale deed dated 7/9/1994 is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-C.

The petitioner acquired another extent of 15 guntas (apart from one acre 15 guntas acquired by T.TRP, as aforesaid) from one M w/o Y by registered sale deed dated 13/12/1996. Copy of the registered Sale deed dated 13/12/1996 is produced as ANNEXURE D, having the following boundaries.

North : petitioner’s other land, XYZ and SAW land

South : petitioner’s and T.SO’ other land

East : Canal

West : Remaining Land of M in same sy.No.

Based on the registered Sale deed dated 13/12/1996, the name of petitioner was mutated in revenue records vide M.R.No.0/00-98. Copy of MR No.0/97-98 is produced as ANNEXURE-E. As noticed from the sale deed, after selling 15 guntas to petitioner M had retained an extent of 15 guntas in Sy.No.00/P6, towards the west. The land measuring 30 gunats including 15 guntas sold to the petitioner (T.ABC), which is situated at a distance from suit property, came to be allotted hissa No.00/P6. Copy of extract of Record of Right, Tenancy and Crop register (RTC) for Sy.No.00/P6 is produced as ANNEXURE-F.

Under a registered partition deed dated 24/5/2000, T.TRP and his brothers being T.ABC (petitioner) and one T.SOD divided said 1 (One) acre 15 guntas (acquired by T.TRP by registered sale deed dated 7/9/1994) amongst themselves and received 5 guntas, 25 guntas and 25 guntas, respectively. Copy of the registered partition deed dated 24/5/2000 is produced as ANNEXURE-G.

The portion measuring 25 guntas thus allotted to the petitioner is having boundaries as below:

North : own land in Kadubeesanahalli

South : BDA ring road

East : T.Venkatesh

West : Road in his land

Based on registered partition the name of petitioner was mutated in revenue records vide MR No.00. Copy of MR No.00 is produced as ANNEXURE-H.

Out of one acre divided amongst the three brothers, an extent of 10 Guntas towards South East came to be acquired by Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for formation of Ring Road. Upon survey an extent of 5 guntas was found short, thus leaving 1 acre out of which T.TRP, T.ABC (petitioner) and T.SOD continued to have 5 guntas, 17.8 guntas and 17.8 guntas, respectively. Copy of order dated 28/6/2004 in RRT (2) 00/2003-04 passed by the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District confirming the extents in Sy.No.14 in different names is produced as ANNEXURE-J.

In subdivision of Sy.No.00, the One acre divided amongst the three brothers has been assigned Sy.No.00/P7. Copy of 00/2007 showing the sub division of Sy.No.00 into Sy.No.00/p1 to Sy.No.00/P7 is produced as ANNEXURE-K. Copy of extract of RTC for 00/P7 is produced as ANNEXURE-L.

An extent of 17.8 guntas in Sy.No.00/P7 allotted to the share of petitioner forms the subject matter of the present dispute.

One acre of land including suit property owned by the petitioner and his brothers came to be converted for Non-Agricultural purpose by order dated 6/10/2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. Copy of the conversion order is produced as ANNEXURE-M. The conversion fee paid challan in the name of petitioner is produced as ANNEXURE-N. An error in boundary description in the conversion order is subsequently rectified.

Upon conversion of Suit property the same was assessed to house tax and village Panchayath, Panathur allotted property No.00/1 to the same. Copy of Khata extract issued by Village Panchayath Panathur is produced as ANNEXURE-O.

Later the suit property having come within the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike (BBMP), the name of the petitioner is entered in their records as the owner and he has been paying taxes. Khata certificate, khata extract and property tax paid receipts issued by BBMP are produced as ANNEXURE-P, P1 and P2.

The Petitioner along with his wife and children entered into an agreement on 27/11/2002 for sale of Sy.No.00/P6 measuring 15 guntas (and not the suit property) to Sri.M.R.CED s/o.Late M.SPQR . In the typed copy of the agreement which was drawn by the purchaser in schedule the petitioner having noticed that subject property was wrongly described as Sy.No.00/P7, got the same corrected as Sy.No.00/P6. Copy of agreement for sale dated 27/11/2002 which was produced by the respondents before CCB, Organized Crime Wing, Bangalore and as certified them under the RTI Act, is produced as ANNEXURE-Q.

Petitioner, his wife and children also executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 31/5/2003 in favour of one MOC, S/o.V.R RAM. Copy of GPA dated 31/5/2003 is produced as ANNEXURE-R. It is relevant to note that the GPA clearly recited that petitioner had agreed to sell 15 guntas in Sy.No.00/P6 acquired by him under sale deed dated 13/12/1996 and MR No.0/97-98 and the subject property had the following boundaries:

North : land bearing sy.No.15/1C

South : M’s land and ring road

East : Remaining land in same Sy.No.

West : Kariyamanagrahara village road

The Karnataka Udyog Mitra, a Government of Karnataka organization for providing single widow clearance conveyed approval to the respondent No.2 for construction of facility for “Software technology Park/IT Park” in certain parcel of lands including Sy.No.00/P6 of Kadubisanahalli Village. Copy of approval convayed by Karnataka Udyog Mitra dated 9/9/2003 is produced as ANNEXURE-S Approval was not granted for Sy.No.00/P7.

The GPA holder MOC, S/o. V.R.RAM executed a registered development agreement in favour of respondent No.1 as regards sy.No. 00/P6 and certain other properties, on 10/10/2005. Copy of the development agreement dated 10/10/2005 is produced as ANNEXURE-T Pertinently the development agreement was in respect of inter alia 21 guntas in Sy.No.00/P6 which included 6 guntas that was retained by M w/o Y in terms of registered sale deed dated 13/12/1996. Copy of GPA obtained by MOC from M w/o Y in respect of remaining 6 guntas in Sy.No.00/P6 is produced as ANNEXURE-U The said development agreement recited:

“And WHEREAS by a general Power of Attorney dated 29^th May 2003, executed by (1) Smt.M (2) Smt.R, (3) Smt.P, (4) Smt.A and (5) Sri.C, therein called the Executants of One part in favour of Sri V.R.MOC, therein called the Agent of other part and duly registered as Document No.00/2003- 04 …, the Agent has been empowered to execute conveyance deed in favour of Sri.M.R.CED, son of Late Sri.M.S.PQR or in favour of the nominees of Sri.M.R.CED with respect to the land in survey no. 00-P6 to an extent of 6 guntas situated at Kadubisanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore, morefully described in the Schedule thereunder.

AND WHEREAS by a General Power of Attorney dated 29^th May 2003, executed by (1) Sri.T.ABC. (2) Smt.M (3) Miss N and (4) MasterH (Miss N and Master H being minors, represented by their mother and natural guardian, Smt.M, therein called the Executants of One part in favour of sri.C.R.MOC, therein called the Agent of other part and duly registered as Document no.00/2003-04, stored in CD no. 00 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, the Agent has been empowered to execute conveyance deed in favour of Sri.M.R.CED, son of Late Sri.M.S.PQR or in favour of the nominees of Sri.M.R.CED with respect to land in survey No.00-P6 to an extent of 15 guntas situated at Kadubisanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore east Taluk, Bangalore, morefully described in the Schedule thereunder…

AND WHEREAS in pursuance of the above said Sale Deeds, … Owner no.3 is seized and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in Survey no. 00-P6 measuring 21 guntas in Kadubisanahalli Village, situated at Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the “Schedule B Property”) …

ITEM NO.5

Survey no. 14-P6 in Kadubisanahalli Village, measuring 21 guntas and butted and bounded on:

EAST BY : Ring Road

WEST BY : Road leading to Kariyammana Agrahara Village

NORTH BY : Property bearing Survey no.00/1C

SOUTH BY : Ring Road.”

In the entire joint development agreement there is no reference Sy.No.00/P7.

Subsequently, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 claimed to have obtained a sale deed from MOC as the GPA holder of Petitioner in respect of residentially converted land measuring 15 gunats in old Sy.No.14(p6), new No.00/P7 of Kadubhisanahalli Village, having the following boundaries:

East : Remaining land in same Sy.No.

West : By Kariyammana Agrahara Village road

North : Land in Sy.No.00/C

South : M’ land and Ring Road

though the authority of said GPA holder was confined to Sy.No.00/P6 alone, did not extended to Sy.No.00/P7, at all. The description of 15 gunats in the sale deed as old Sy.No.00(p6), new No.00/P7, is without any basis. In fact Sy.Nos. 00/P6 and Sy.No.00/P7 are district properties having distinct measurements and situated at a distance and not one and the same. Copy of the sale deed dated 00/7/2007 is produced as ANNEXURE-V

While the petitioner has always been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property ever since partition with his brothers in the year 2000, the respondents with their henchmen accompanied by about 25 rowdies attempted to trespass the suit property on 16/11/2008 and damaged the structures existing thereon. The petitioner a poor farmer having sought police intervention they advised him to approach the civil Court. In the circumstances the petitioner filed O.S No.00/2008 before the Civil Judge, Bangalore for injection. Copy of plaint is produced as ANNEXURE- W

On 24/11/2008 the Trial Court was pleased to grant an ad interim order of status quo.

Before the Trial Court the petitioner produced as many as 44 documents to support his possession. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he has not sold the suit property to respondent No.2 and 3, but what was agreed and authorized is be sold was Sy.No.00/P6.

The respondent No.2 filed written statement seeking to make out as if what was sold to him was suit property i.e. Sy.No.00/P7 but no documents to prove the same were produced. No justification for description old No.00/P6, new No.00/P7 was put forth. Copy of written statement filed by the respondent is produced as ANNEXURE-X

Trial Court by order dated 19/11/2013 dismissed the petitioner’s application of temporary injunction and vacated the ad interim order, by totally erred reasoning as recorded in para 15, as below:

“15. Now, the question before this court is whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. According to the averments made by Defendants 2 and 3 in paras 15 to 18 of their written statement, wherein it discloses that the property which was owned by the plaintiff, Viz., bearing Sy.No.00/P7 measuring 15 guntas, had already been sold by the plaintiff and his family members to second Defendant for Rs.49,00,500/- under a registered sale deed dated 26.07.07 through their General Power of Attorney Holder Sri.V.RMOC, after obtaining conversion of the said land by the Spl.D.C. vide his order dated 6.10.2004. This fact clearly shows that the second Defendant being a developer, who had purchased more than 19 acres of land located in different Survey numbers belonged to different persons had also purchased the suit schedule property belonged to the plaintiff with an intention to develop Software Technology park. Further in view of the sale deed executed by Sri.MOC the General Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff and his family members in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of second Defendant the plaintiff has no right title or interest over the suit schedule property. Hence, he has failed to prove existence of prima facie right over the suit schedule property. However, now the plaintiff come up with that they executed agreement of sale dated 27.11.2002. But when there is existence of Registered sale deed dt. 26.07.2007, the agreement of sale relied by the plaintiff has no legal validity. When, the plaintiff has failed to prove his prima facie right consideration of balance of convenience or irreparable loss, does not arise. Hence, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove all the three cardinal principles, viz., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to be caused to the plaintiff. Accordingly, I answer Points 1 to 3 in the negative.”

The Trial Court failed to consider that the petitioner having executed agreement and GPA for Sy.No.00/P6, the GPA holder could not have sold Sy.No. P14/7 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and hence respondent Nos.2 and 3 based on such sale deed could not claim any title or possession over suit property. Copy of Order dated 29/11/2013 in O.S.No.00/2008 is produced as ANNEXURE-Y

Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal in MFA No.00/2013 before this Hon'ble Court.

This Hon'ble Court by final judgment and order dated 24/6/2014 which is sought to be reviewed, was pleased to dismiss the petitioner’s appeal, having recorded:

“On looking into the documents viz., power of attorney, sale deed and the agreement to sell, it is seen except at one place where the vendor tried to striker off of 00/P7 for reasons best known to him and mention as 00/P6, in most of the places it is indicated as 00/P7 and not 00/P6. Further, even as regards boundaries, the boundaries which are referred to in the documents is that of Sy.No.00/P7 and not 00/P6. It is that the error could have occurred due to oversight. Further, looking to the boundaries mentioned in all the three documents viz., agreement to sell, general power of attorney and the sale deed, the sale refers to conveyance of Sy.No.00/P7 and not Sy.No.00/P6 by any stretch of imagination. In the circumstances, as per the ratio laid down in the above cited case, boundary has to prevail. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial court.”

In the humble submission of the petitioner the following has escaped consideration:

The power of attorney is expressly for 00/p6 and not as Sy.No.00/P7.

As brought out supra the GPA dated 31/5/2003 specifically mentioned that what was agreed to be sold was Sy.No.00/P6 measuring 15 guntas acquired by petitioner under sale deed dated 13/12/1996 and MR 0/1997. Towards the west of the property forming subject matter of GPA, was Kariyammanagrahara Village road, whereas suit property measures 17.5. guntas and Kariyammanagrahara Village boundary bounds the same towards west.

The development agreement dated 10/10/2005 confirmed beyond doubt that subject matter of GPA was Sy.No.00/P6 measuring 15 guntas which along with 6 guntas retained by M made 21 Guntas. As per the development agreement also the western boundary was Kariyammanagrahara village Road and not village boundary. Copy of village Map showing that a road from east to west in Sy.No.00 leads to Kariyamanagrahara villagem is produced as ANNEXURE-Z.

The respondents played a mischief in describing the property in sale deed as old No.00/P6, new No.00/P7, which is inconsistent with revenue records and registered deeds that clearly show that Sy.No.00/P6 and Sy.No.P00/P7 are district properties having different measurements and location.

Further even in the sale deed, the property is shown to be bound on the West Kariyamanagrahar Village Road, and does not tally with suit property. Hence the principle that boundaries shall prevail, as relied in impugned order, has no application.

Besides, the principle that boundaries shall prevail has no universal application and cannot be applied to the present case when:

The GPA expressly recites that the petitioner had agreed to sell 15 guntas in Sy.No.00/P6 acquired by him under sale deed dated 13/12/1996 and MR No.0/97-98.
The Western boundary in POA, development agreement and the sale deed do not correspond to suit property.
Development agreement confirms that GPA was for Sy.No.00/P6 only.
To lay a false claim over petitioner’s Sy.No.00/P7 the respondents have described the property in the sale deed as old Sy.No.00(p6), new No.00/P7.
The letter of Tahsildar dated 29/4/2011 confirms the possession of the petitioner over the suit property was also ignored. Copy of letter of Tahsildar dated 29/4/2011 is produced as ANNEXURE-AA.
The order of conversion, RTCs, Khata issued Village Panchayat and BBMP, which as on date stand in the name of petitioner and he has been payinproperty tax, prima facie evidence the petitioner’s possession of suit property.

The petitioner preferred a petition for special leave to appeal No.00/2014 under article 136 of the Constitution before Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 31/10/2014 was pleased to dispose of the same holding as under:

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. We do not find any good ground to entertain this Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, we leave it open to the petitioner to move the High Court by way of review. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion in the matter on merits. In the event, it becomes so necessary, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court again.”

Copy of the order in petition for special leave to appeal No.00/2014 dated 31/10/2014 is produced as ANNEXURE AB.

In view of the liberty granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid, since material aspects enumerated above have remained without consideration, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice, the petitioner is filing this review on following amongst other grounds, which are urged in the alternative and without prejudice to each other.

The petitioner has not filed any other review petition or appeal against the order sought to be reviewed.

GROUNDS

The decision of this Hon'ble Court having been passed on account of the respondents having withheld several vital facts/aspects, suffers from errors apparent on the face of record and calls for review

The material fact/aspect that the petitioner having executed agreement and GPA for Sy.No.00/P6, the GPA holder could not have sold Sy.No. P100/7 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and hence respondent Nos.2 and 3 based on such sale deed could not claim any title or possession over suit property, having remained without consideration, the review by this Hon'ble Court is prayed for.

The material fact that the in the power of attorney is in respect of Sy.No.00/P6 and not the Sy.No.00/P7 and that boundaries in all the documents is not that of Sy.No.00/P7 but that of Sy .No.00/P6, having remained without consideration, the review by this Hon'ble Court is prayed for.

The martial fact that the GPA dated 31/5/2003 specifically mentioned that what was agreed to be sold was Sy.No.00/P6 acquired by petitioner under sale deed dated 13/12/1996 and MR 2/1997 and towards the west of the property forming subject matter of GPA, was Kariyammanagrahara Village road, whereas Kariyammanagrahara Village boundary bounds suit property towards west, having remained without consideration, the review by this Hon'ble Court is prayed for.

The material fact that the development agreement dated 10/10/2005 confirmed beyond doubt that subject matter of GPA was Sy.No.00/P6 measuring 15 guntas which along with 6 guntas retained by M made 21 Guntas, having remained without consideration, the review by this Hon'ble Court is prayed for.

The mischief played by the respondents in describing the property in sale deed as old No.00/P6, new No.00/P7, which is inconsistent with revenue records and registered deeds that clearly show that Sy.No.00/P6 and Sy.No.P10/P7 are district properties, having remained without consideration, the review by this Hon'ble Court is prayed for.

The material fact that even in the sale deed, the property is shown to be bound on the West Kariyamanagrahar Village Road, and does not tally with suit property which on western side is bound by village boundary and therefore the principle that boundaries shall prevail, has no application, having remained without consideration, the review by this Hon'ble Court is prayed for.

The martial aspect that the principle that boundaries shall prevail has no universal application and cannot be applied to the present case when:

The GPA expressly recites that the petitioner had agreed to sell 15 guntas in Sy.No.00/P6 acquired by him under sale deed dated 13/12/1996 and MR No.0/97-98,
The Western boundary in POA, development agreement and the sale deed do not correspond to suit property,

Development agreement confirms that GPA was for Sy.No.00/P6 only, and

To lay a false claim over petitioners Sy.No.00/P7 the Respondents have described the property in the sale deed as old Sy.No.14(p6), new No.00/P7,

having remained without consideration, the review by this Hon'ble Court is prayed for.

It has remained without consideration that the petitioner made out a prima facie case as to being in possession of suit property as evidenced from order of conversion, RTCs, Khata issued Village Panchayat and BBMP, which as on date stand in the name of petitioner, he has been paying property tax and the report of Tahsildar dated 29/4/2011 and hence review by this Hon'ble Court is prayed for.

In a suit for bare injunction, while considering prayer for temporary injunction, the conclusion recorded, prejudices the case of the petitioner on merits and therefore also review is called for.

Viewed from any angle, there are sufficient grounds to review the judgment.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

Review the final judgment and order dated 24/6/2014 in MFA No.00/2013 and allow MFA No.00/2013 in terms prayed for and allow MFA No 00/2013.
Award costs to the petitioner; and

Pass such other and further order as deemed appropriate by this Hon’ble Court to meet the ends of justice.

Bangalore

Dated Advocate for Petitioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

R.P. NO.________/2015

T.ABC …PETITIONER

AND

KANYAKUMARI BUILDERS PVT LTD.

AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR EXCLUSION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND CONDONATION OF DELAY UNDER SECTION 5 READ WITH SECTION 14 OF THE LIMITATION ACT

The petitioner most respectfully submits as under:

The above petition is filed seeking review of the final judgment and order dated 24/6/2014 passed by this court in MFA No.00/2013 whereby the Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, on facts and grounds stated in the memorandum of review petition. For the sake of brevity, it is prayed that contents of memorandum of review petition be read as part and parcel of this application.

It is submitted that against the dismissal of appeal, the petitioner had filed Special Leave to Appeal No.00/2014 under article 136 of the Constitution before Hon'ble Supreme Court which was disposed of on 31/10/2014 with liberty to the petitioner to file this review The remedy under article 136 of the Constitution was pursued bonafidely. The time taken in pursuing Special Leave to Appeal No.00/2014 before Hon’ble Supreme Court needs to be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act, while reckoning the period of limitation.

After disposal of SLP No.00/2014, the petitioner in order to understand the effect of the order passed in the said SLP visited the office of his counsel in New Delhi in the month of December 2014 and that certified copy and the case papers were transmitted to the petitioner thereafter. Having received the case papers and the certified copy of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner met his present counsel and instructed him to file the review petitioner. After collecting the case papers, providing the instructions to the counsel, the above review petition is prepared and presented. In the process and on account of change of Advocate a delay of ______ days has occurred in presenting the review petition which is bona fide and not deliberate.

The petitioner have a good case on merits and likely to succeed. Consideration of their case on merits ought not to be refused on mere technicalities.

No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if delay is excluded/ condoned.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to excluded/condone delay of ______ days in presenting the review petition, in the interest of justice and equity

Bangalore

Dated Advocate for the petitioners /applicants

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

R.P. NO.________/2015

T.ABC …PETITIONER

AND

KANYAKUMARI BUILDERS PVT LTD.

AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

V E R I F Y I N G A F F I D A V I T

I, T.N.ABC S/o XYZ Aged about 52 years, R/a Bangalore 560037 do hereby state on oath as follows;

I, am the petitioner in the above Review Petition and am well versant with the facts of the case.
I,. state that the statements made at paragraphs 1 to 46 of the accompanying petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information.
I, further state that Annexure A to AB are true copies of the original and Annexure AB is the certified copy.

Date:

Place: Bangalore DEPONENT

Identified by me

Advocate

No. of corrections

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

R.P. NO.________/2015

ABC …PETITIONER

AND

KANYAKUMARI BUILDERS PVT LTD.

AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

INDEX

Sl.No.	PARTICULARS	PAGE NOS.
1.	Synopsis
2.	Memorandum of Review petition and Affidavit
3.	Annexure A: Copy of the order dated 24-06-2012 in MFA No. 10054/2013
4.	ANNEXURE-B- Sketch issued by the revenue authorities showing the location of the suit property
5.	ANNEXURE-C- Copy of sale deed dated 7/9/1994
6.	ANNEXURE-D- Copy of the registered Sale deed dated 13/12/1996
7.	ANNEXURE-E- Copy of MR No.2/97-98
8.	ANNEXURE-F- Copy of extract of RTC for Sy.No.00/P6
09.	ANNEXURE-G-the registered partition deed dated 08/06/2000
10.	ANNEXURE-H-Copy of MR No.00
11.	ANNEXURE-J- Copy of order dated 28/6/2004 in RRT 00/2003-04 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District.
12.	ANNEXURE-K– Copy of 00/2007 showing the sub division of Sy.No.14 into Sy.No.00/p1 to Sy.No.00/P7
13.	ANNEXURE-L- Copy of extract of RTC for 00/P7
14.	ANNEXURE-M- Copy of the conversion order dated 06/10/2004
15.	ANNEXURE-N- Copy of the conversion fee challan in the name of petitioner
16.	ANNEXURE-N1 Copy of Khata extract issued by Village Panchayath Panathur
17.	ANNEXURE-P- BBMP Khata certificate
18.	ANNEXURE-P1- Khata Extract
19.	ANNEXURE-P2- Property Tax paid receipt
20.	ANNEXURE -Q- Copy of agreement for sale dated 27/11/2002 certified by ACP, CCB, Organized Crime Wing, Bangalore, under the RTI Act,
21.	ANNEXURE –R - Copy of the GPA dated 31/05/2003
22.	ANNEXURE-S -, Copy of the approval conveyd by Karnataka Udyog Mitra dated 09/09/2003
23.	ANNEXURE- T-Copy of the development agreement dated 10/10/2005
24.	ANNEXURE-U-Copy of GPA obtained by MOC from M w/o Y in respect of remaining 6 guntas in Sy.No.00/P6
25.	ANNEXURE-V- Copy of the sale deed dated 26/7/2007
26.	ANNEXURE-W-Copy of plaint in O.S.No 00/2008
27.	ANNEXURE-X -Copy of written statement
28.	ANNEXURE-Y-Copy of Order dated 19/11/2013 in O.S.No.00/2008
29.	ANNEXURE-Z- Copy of village Map showing that Kariyamanagrahara village Road runs in the middle of Sy.No.00
30.	ANNEXURE-AA- Copy of letter of Tahsildar dated 29/4/2011
31.	ANNEXURE-AB- Copy of the order passed in SLP No. 00/2014 dated 31/10/2014
32	Vakalath
33	Interlocutory Application under section 5 of the Limitation Act
34	Verifying Affidavit
35	Interlocutory Application for Stay
36	Verifying Affidavit
37	Interlocutory Application for Dispensation
38	Verifying Affidavit

Bangalore Advocate for Petitioner

Date:09/03/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

R.P. NO.________/2015

T.ABC …PETITIONER

AND

KANYAKUMARI BUILDERS PVT LTD.

AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

SYNOPSIS

The case of the petitioner before this Hon’ble court is that the property sold by the Petitioner is Sy. No 00/p6 and not Sy. No 00/P7 ; that the GPA dated 31/05/2003 expressely mentions about the agreed property7 to be sold is Sy. No 00/p6 measuring 15 Guntas which was acquired by the petitioner under sale deed dated 13/12/1996 and mutated in MR 2/1997 , Western boundary shown in the sale deed is Kariyammanagrahara village road. Further, the development Agreement dated 10/10/2005 confirms/avers about the GPA being given in respect of the property bearing Sy. No 00/p6 measuring 15 Guntas out of which 6 Guntas was retained by M. Further, the western side of the Development Agreement also recites Kariyammanagrahara village road and not village boundary . The village Map produced at Annexure Z makes the same amply clear. The respondents by playing mischief have deliberately described in the sale deed as old No.00/p6, new No.00/P7; the same being inconsistent with the revenue records and above mentioned registered deeds; which clearly go to show that the said Sy. Nos 00/P6 and 00/P7 are different and distinct properties with situated at different locations and having different measurements. Hence, being aggrieved by the dismissal of MFA No00/2013; the petitioner herein had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP No.00/2014, the Hon’ble supreme court vide its order dated 31/102/014 while dismissing the SLP were pleased to grant liberty to approach this Hon’ble court by way of Review petition. HENCE, THIS Review petition seeking Review of the order dated 24/06/2014 passed in MFA No. 00/2013.

LIST OF DATES

9.1.1994 OTP sold 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.00 to one OPT under registered sale deed dated 9/1/1945.

18/5/1949

By another registered sale deed dated 18/5/1949 OTP sold remaining extent also to said OPT. Thus, OPT became the owner of larger portion measuring 2 acres 30 guntas in Sy.No.00.

13/3/1985

After the death of OPT his two sons viz. COD and PQR divided 2 acres 30 guntas in terms of registered partition deed dated 13/03/1985. In terms of the said partition PQR received 1 acre 15 guntas.

7/9/1994

PQR S/o.OPT sold his 1 acre 15 guntas to T.TRP, son of APL who is the brother of petitioner herein, by registered sale deed dated 7/9/1994. (Annexure C)

13/12/1996

The petitioner acquired another extent of 15 guntas (apart from one acre 15 guntas acquired by T.TRP, as aforesaid) from one M w/o Y by registered sale deed dated 13/12/1996.(Annexure D); which had following boundaries.

North : petitioner’s other land, TEH’s and SAW’s land

South : petitioner’s and T.SOD’ other land

East : Canal

West : Remaining Land of M in same sy.No.

name of petitioner came to be mutated in revenue records vide M.R.No.0/97-98. (Annexure F)

08/06/2000

Under a registered partition deed dated 24/5/2000, T.ABC (petitioner) and his brothers (Annexure G) petitioner received 25 Guntas having boundaries as below:

North : own land in Kadubeesanahalli

South : BDA ring road

East : T.SOD

West : Road in his land

27/11/2002

The Petitioner along with his wife and children entered into an agreement on 27/11/2002 for sale of Sy.No.00/P6 measuring 15 guntas (and not the suit property) to Sri.M.R.CED S/o.Late M.S.PQR. (Annexure Q)

31/5/2003

Petitioner, his wife and children also executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 31/5/2003 in favour of one MOC, S/o.V.R.COM agreeing to sell 15 Guntas in Sy. No 14/p6 (Annexure R)

9/9/2003

The Karnataka Udyog Mitra, a Government of Karnataka organization for providing single widow clearance conveyed approval to the respondent No.2 for construction of facility for “Software technology Park/IT Park” in certain parcel of lands including Sy.No.00/P6 (Annexure S)

28/06/2004

Deputy commissioner, Bangalore District, passed order dated 28/6/2004 in RRT (2) 00/2003-04 confirming the extents in Sy.No.14 standing in different names

(Annexure J)

6/10/2004

One acre of land including suit property owned by the petitioner and his brothers came to be converted for Non-Agricultural purpose by order dated 6/10/2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore. ( Annexure M)

10/10/2005

The GPA holder MOC, S/o. V.R.RAM executed a registered development agreement in favour of respondent No.1 as regards sy.No. 00/P6 and certain other properties, on 10/10/2005.(Annexure T) In the entire Development Agreement there is no reference to Sy. No 00/P7.

26/7/2007

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 claimed to have obtained a sale deed from MOC - GPA holder of Petitioner in respect of residentially converted land measuring 15 gunats in old Sy.No.00(p6), new No.00/P7 though the though the authority of said GPA holder was confined to Sy.No.00/P6 alone ( Annexure V)

16/11/2008

Respondents tried to disturb the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner a poor farmer having sought police intervention they advised him to approach the civil Court.In the circumstances the petitioner filed O.S No.00/2008 before the Civil Judge, Bangalore for injection. Copy of plaint is produced as (Annexure W)

24/11/2008

On 24/11/2008 the Trial Court was pleased to grant an ad interim order of status quo.

19/11/2013

Trial Court by order dated 19/11/2013 dismissed the petitioner’s application of temporary injunction and vacated the ad interim order on totally erred reasoning and without considering that the Agreement and GPA was in respect of Sy.No.00/P6,. (Annexurre Y) Against which petitioner filed appeal in MFA No.00/2013.

24/7/2014

The High Court by final judgment and order dated 24/6/2014 by a totally misconstrued and factually erred reasoning, dismissed the petitioner’s appeal in MFA 00/2013.

31/10/2014

The Special Leave Petition (SLP) No.00/2014 preferred by the petitioner before the Supreme Court of India against the order in MFA No.00/2013 came to be dismissed however, reserving liberty to approach this Hon’ble court by way of a Review petition.

Date: 09/03/2015 Advocate for Petitioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

R.P.No.________/2011

BETWEEN:

ABC … PETITIONER

AND:

Kanyakumar Builders and others … RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION FOR STAY UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

For the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit Petitioner most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant an interim order staying all the further proceedings in O.S No.00/2008 pending before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore, until the disposal of this Review petition in the interest of justice and equity.

Bangalore

Dated: Advocate for Petitioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

R.P.No.________/2011

BETWEEN:

ABC … PETITIONER

AND:

Kanyakumari Builders . … RESPONDENTS

V E R I F Y I N G A F F I D A V I T

I, T.N. ABC S/o XYZ Aged about 52 years, R/a Bangalore 560037 do hereby state on oath as follows;

I am the Petitioner in the above case and I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. I am authorised by other Petitioners to swear this affidavit on their behalf as well.
I state that above Review Petition is filed seeking reconsideration of order dated 24/06/2014 passed by this Hon’ble Court in MFA 00/2013. For the sake of brevity and to avoid undue repetition I pray that the contents of Memorandum of Review Petition be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.
I state that prima facie the impugned order dated 29/11/2013 passed in OS. No 00/2008 is contrary to several documents placed on record of the Learned Civil Judge, Bangalore; the order of the Learned civil judge in vacating the interim order granted earlier is on the face of it passed without following the mandate of law, Petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property. If the further proceedings in O.S. No. 00/2008 are not stayed the purpose of filing this Review Petition would stand defeated and the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and injustice amounting to miscarriage of justice . That, it is just and necessary to pass an interim order as prayed for to avoid multiplicity of proceedings besides defeating the very purpose of filing the present Review petition. No injury whatsoever would be caused to the respondent if interim order as prayed for is granted.

WHEREFORE it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the accompanying application, in the interest of justice and equity.

Date:

Place:

Identified by me DEPONENT

Advocate

No. of correction

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

R.P.No.________/2015

BETWEEN:

ABC … PETITIONER

AND:

Kanyakumari Builders Pvt Ltd and others … RESPONDENTS

APPLICATION UNDEWR SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Petitioner in the above petition is seeking Review of the order dated 24/06/2014 passed by this Hon’ble court in MFA No 00 /2013 and the same is produced at Annexure A to the Review petition.

It is submitted that the petitioner has produced only the Photo copy of order in MFA No.00/2013 at Annexure A. along with the Review

Petitioner undertakes to apply and produce the certified copies of Annexure A with 4 weeks from today.

If the application for dispensation is allowed no hardship or injury would be caused to the respondents; on the other hand petitioner would be put to hardship if the same is rejected.

WHEREFORE it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court be pleased to dispense with the production of certified copy of the order dated 24/06/2014 passed in MFA 00/2013 in the interest of justice and equity.

Bangalore

Date:12/03/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

R.P.No.________/2011

BETWEEN:

ABC … PETITIONER

AND:

Kanyakumari Builders . … RESPONDENTS

V E R I F Y I N G A F F I D A V I T

I, T.N.ABC S/o XYZ Aged about 52 years, R/a Bangalore 560037 do hereby state on oath as follows;

I, state that the averments made at Para Nos 1 to 5 of the accompanying application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

I, state that what is stated herein above is true and correct.

Date:

Place:

Identified by me DEPONENT

Advocate

No. of correction

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

R.P. NO.________/2015

BETWEEN:

SRI.T.ABC
S/O SRI XYZ

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

R/A

BANGALORE 560037 Appellant Petitioner

And:

KANYAKUMARI BUILDERS PVT LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT

RPQ CHAMBERS

LINKING ROAD AND MAIN AVENUE SANTACRUZ (W)

MUMBAI 40054

REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR

RPQ Respondent 1 Respondent 1

M.S. PQR DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER

THE COMPANIES ACT

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.D4 UNITY BUILDING,

J.C. ROAD BANGALORE 560002

REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

SRI M.R. CED

S/O LATE SRI M.S. PQR Respondent 2 Respondent 2

SRI M.R. CED
S/O LATE SRI M.S. PQR

R/A

BANGALORE 560054 Respondent 3 Respondent

APPLICATION FOR EXCLUSION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND CONDONATION OF DELAY UNDER SECTION 5 READ WITH SECTION 14 OF THE LIMITATION ACT

The petitioner most respectfully submits as under:

The above petition is filed seeking review of the final judgment and order dated 24/6/2014 passed by this court in MFA No.00/2013 whereby the Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, on facts and grounds stated in the memorandum of review petition. For the sake of brevity, it is prayed that contents of memorandum of review petition be read as part and parcel of this application.

It is submitted that against the dismissal of appeal, the petitioner had filed Special Leave to Appeal No.00/2014 under article 136 of the Constitution before Hon'ble Supreme Court which was disposed of on 31/10/2014 with liberty to the petitioner to file this review The remedy under article 136 of the Constitution was pursued bonafidely. The time taken in pursuing Special Leave to Appeal No.00/2014 before Hon’ble Supreme Court needs to be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act, while reckoning the period of limitation.

After disposal of SLP No.00/2014, the petitioner in order to understand the effect of the order passed in the said SLP visited the office of his counsel in New Delhi in the month of December 2014 and that certified copy and the case papers were transmitted to the petitioner thereafter. Having received the case papers and the certified copy of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner met his present counsel and instructed him to file the review petitioner. After collecting the case papers, providing the instructions to the counsel, the above review petition is prepared and presented. In the process and on account of change of Advocate a delay of ______ days has occurred in presenting the review petition which is bona fide and not deliberate.

The petitioner have a good case on merits and likely to succeed. Consideration of their case on merits ought not to be refused on mere technicalities.

No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if delay is excluded/ condoned.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to excluded/condone delay of ______ days in presenting the review petition, in the interest of justice and equity

Bangalore

Dated Advocate for the petitioners /applicants

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

R.P. NO.________/2015

T.ABC …PETITIONER

AND

KANYAKUMARI BUILDERS PVT LTD.

AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

V E R I F Y I N G A F F I D A V I T

I, T.N. ABC S/o XYZ Aged about 52 years, R/a Bangalore 560037 do hereby state on oath as follows;

I, am the petitioner in the above Review Petition and am well versant with the facts of the case.
I,. state that the statements made at paragraphs 1 to 5 of the accompanying petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information.

Date:

Place: Bangalore DEPONENT

Identified by me

Advocate

No. of corrections

+Clients Back

+Lawyers

+Law Students

+Law Schools

Petitions & Pleadings

Lawyers Network

Users

Cities Serving

Law Schools Network

Law Students Network