The High Court
Case Details
HC-KAR - 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21546 RFA No. 2050 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 473 of 2006 RFA No. 2009 of 2006 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2050 OF 2006 (SP) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 473 OF 2006 REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2009 OF 2006 REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2016 OF 2006 Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA IN RFA NO. 2050/2006 BETWEEN: 1. GHANSHAM K DALWANI S/O LATE L. KISHENDAS DALWANI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.57, CENTRAL STREET KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020. 2. M/S GHANSHAM CONSTRUCTIONS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN NO.57 CENTRAL STREET KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR GHANSHAM K DALWANI
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. UJWALA A MANDGI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR KOPPARTHY P S BHASKARA RAO S/O K V HANUMATHA RAO …APPELLANTS HC-KAR - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21546 RFA No. 2050 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 473 of 2006 RFA No. 2009 of 2006 AND 1 OTHER AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.205, 2ND FLOOR ABU APARTMENTS NO.10 ARTILLERY ROAD, ULSOOR BANGALORE-560 008. (AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED:14.10.2024) 2. MRS POONAM G DALWANI W/O MR GHANSHAM K DALWANI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT 57, CENTRAL STREET KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P B APPAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R1: R2 POONAM G DALWANI IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:22.6.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7234/95 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-16), PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. IN RFA NO. 473/2006 BETWEEN: 1. GHANSHAM K DLWANI S/O LATE L KISHENDAS DALWANI AGE: 48 YEARS R/AT NO 57, CENTRAL STREET KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE 560020. 2. M/S GHANSHAM CONSTRUCTIONS PROPRIETARY CONCERN NO 57, CENTRAL STREET KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560 020 HC-KAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21546 RFA No. 2050 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 473 of 2006 RFA No. 2009 of 2006 AND 1 OTHER REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR GHANSHAM K DALWANI (BY SRI. UJWALA A MANDGI., ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANTS AND: 1. SRI VISHWAMBHAR PATI S/O PROF T PATI AGED 38 YEARS R/AT FLA TNO 305, III FLOOR ABU APARTMENTS, NO 10 ARTILLERY ROAD, ULSOOR BANGALORE 560 008. 2. SMT GAIL HART W/O VISHWAMBHAR PATI AGE: 32 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO 305,3RD FLOOR ABU APARTMENTS, NO 10 ARTILLERY ROAD, ULSOOR BANGALORE-560 008. 3. SMT POONAM G DALWANI W/O GHANSHAM K DALWANI AGED 42 YEARS R/AT NO 57, CENTRAL STREET KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE 560020 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P B APPAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R1& R2: R3 POONAM G DALWANI, SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THE RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 03.11.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7865/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, CCH.NO.16, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21546 RFA No. 2050 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 473 of 2006 RFA No. 2009 of 2006 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR IN RFA NO. 2009/2006 BETWEEN: 1. GHANSHAM K DALWANI S/O LATE L. KISHENDAS DALWANI AGED 48 YEARS R/AT NO.57, CENTRAL STREET KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020. 2. M/S GHANSHAM CONSTRUCTIONS PROPRIETARY CONCERN NO.57, CENTRAL STREET KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560 020 REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR GHANSHAM K DALWANI (BY SRI. B PRAMOD., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MS KATHLEEN GONSALVES D/O MRS.CARMEL GONSALVES AGED MAJOR FLAT NO.101, IST FLOOR ABU APARTMENTS, NO.10 ARTILLERY ROAD,ULSOOR BANGALORE-560 008. 2. MRS CARMEL GONSALVES AGED MAJOR SINCE DEAD R1 IS ONLY LR’S OF R2 AMENDED V/O DATED: 10.11.2010. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P B APPAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R1: R2 IS DEAD, V/O DATED: 21.10.2020 R1 IS TREATED AS LR OF R2) ...RESPONDENTS HC-KAR - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21546 RFA No. 2050 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 473 of 2006 RFA No. 2009 of 2006 AND 1 OTHER THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:16.3.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7232/95 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-16), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND INJUNCTION. IN RFA NO. 2016/2006 BETWEEN: 1. GHANSHAM K DALWANI S/O LATE L KISHENDAS DALWANI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO 57, CENTRAL STREET KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE 560 020. 2. M/S GHANSHAM CONSTRUCTIONS PROPRIETARY CONCERN NO 57, CENTRAL STREET KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE 560 020 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR GHANSHAM K DALWANI (BY SRI.B PRAMOD ., ADVOCATE) AND: ...APPELLANTS 1. MRS KOPPARTHY SUREKAHA BHASKARA RAO W/O KOPPARTHY P.S. BHASKARA RAO AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO 205,2ND FLOOR ABU APARTMENTS, NO 10 ARTILLERY ROAD, ULSOOR BANGALORE-560 008. 2. MRS. POONAM G DALWANI AGED ABOUT 31YEARS HC-KAR - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21546 RFA No. 2050 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 473 of 2006 RFA No. 2009 of 2006 AND 1 OTHER W/O GHANSHAM K DALWANI R/AT NO.57, CENTRAL STREET KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560 020. (BY SRI. P B APPAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR R1: R2- SMT. POONAM G DALWANI, IS SERVED AND UNREPRESSED) ...RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:22.6.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7233/95 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-16), PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT These appeals are filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree of different dates passed in O.S.Nos.7234/1995, 7865/1995, 7232/1995 and O.S.No.7233/1995, respectively, passed by XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-16). 2. The plaintiffs filed suits for specific performance and other consequential reliefs. The suits were partly decreed. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos. 1 HC-KAR - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21546 RFA No. 2050 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 473 of 2006 RFA No. 2009 of 2006 AND 1 OTHER and 3 have filed these appeals. The trial court by judgment and decree in O.S.No.7234/1995 (RFA No.2050/2006) held as follows: “In the result, the suit is partly decreed. The suit against 2nd defendant is hereby dismissed. The defendant is hereby directed to execute the sale deed by making alteration in the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.60,000/-. The defendant is permanently restrained from putting up any construction on the basement area other than car parking. The defendant is hereby directed to cause the operation of lift in the schedule ‘A’ property.” The trial court by judgment and decree in O.S.No.7865/1995 (RFA No.473/2006) held as follows: “The suit is partly decreed with cost. The suit against defendant No.2 is dismissed. HC-KAR - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21546 RFA No. 2050 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 473 of 2006 RFA No. 2009 of 2006 AND 1 OTHER The defendant Nos. 1 and 3 permanently restrained from using the basement area other than the car parking of the apartment owners and prospective owners of the apartment. If the additional construction is allowed by the sanctioning authority as per law. The defendant is directed to make operation of the lift in Schedule ‘A’ property. The defendant is directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs by receiving Rs.6,109.23 paise. The plaintiff should hear the expenses of registration charges and stamp duty within 3 months.” The trial court by judgment and decree in O.S.No.7232/1995 (RFA No.2009/2006) held as follows:
Decision
“In the result, the suit is decreed with cost and the suit against the 2nd defendant is hereby dismissed. The defendant is hereby directed to execute the sale deed by making alteration in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.16,074/- and the defendant is hereby permanently retrained from putting up any construction over the basement area other than the car parking. HC-KAR - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:21546 RFA No. 2050 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 473 of 2006 RFA No. 2009 of 2006 AND 1 OTHER The defendant is hereby directed to cause the operation of the lift in the schedule ‘A’ property.” The trial court by judgment and decree in O.S.No.7233/1995 (RFA No.2016/2006) held as follows: “In the result, the suit is partly decreed. The suit against 2nd defendant is hereby dismissed. The defendant is hereby directed to execute the sale deed by making alteration in the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.60,000/-. The defendant is permanently restrained from putting up any construction on the basement area other than car parking. The defendant is hereby directed to cause the operation of the lift in the schedule ‘A’ property.” 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the grievance of the appellants is in respect of the decree directing to cause the operation of the lift in ‘A’ Schedule property. In respect of other part of the decree, the appellants have no grievance. Since the lift in ‘A’ schedule property is working, there is no question of directing the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:21546 RFA No. 2050 of 2006 C/W RFA No. 473 of 2006 RFA No. 2009 of 2006 AND 1 OTHER HC-KAR appellants herein to cause operation of the lift in ‘A’ schedule property. 4. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed in part. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court in respect of direction to the appellants to cause operation of the lift in ‘A’ Schedule property is set aside. The other parts of the judgment and decree are confirmed. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 86