This led to companyrespondence during 1995 96 and ultimately the special suit No.
A footnote refers to Court litigations as the cause for there being numberdealings from 1989 to 1994, These two letters are prima facie evidence that the Jain group accepted the right of the Lokram group in the partition deed dated 26.12.1991 between the Sankhalas and Jams.
The plaintiffs appeal to the High Court was dismissed by order dated 12,9.97 affirming the above reasons.
The said letter dated 31.1,94 reads as follows From Rajendra B. Jain.
In para .1.2 at the bottom of page 3 of the main partition deed, in line 6, after the words HUF the following words were to be added by virtue of the rectification deed and also in the interest of sub partners companymembers i.e. Vishram Others who are entitled in plots 1 to 7 as per Indenture 11.12.74 and 31.12.78, Similarly Jains executed in the interest of Kanhaya Other who are entitled in plots 8 to 12 as per deed 29.7.64, The words which we have put in brackets are found handwritten in the rectification deed as appears from a registration companyy of the rectification deed.
1999 3 SCR 677 The Judgment of this Court Was delivered by M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted.
He, Kanhaiyalal, stated that the fractional share of late Murlidhars heirs i.e. 38 out of 17 was released by late Murlidhars heirs on 27.3.79.
Again on 31.1.94, Sri Rajendra B. Jain of Jain Group wrote to Kanhaiyalal Lokram hemdev others that the rights of the Lokram group under the partnership deed dated 29.7.64 relating to the property situated at Thane, being final plot No.
The companystruction programme of the builder defendant 8 was publicised in the press on 6 5.94 etc.
In the Lokram group Murlidhar the predecessor in interest of plaintiffs had a 38 share out of 17 i.e. 6.46 , the 1st defendant Rl held 44 of 17, the 2nd defendant held 12 out of 17 and balance by the 3rd defendant.
The Sankhalas defendant 7 denied the plaintiffs claim in general fashion and said the plaintiffs right is only against the Jains.
We shall proceed with the remaining narrative.
The facts of the case are as follows There was an unregistered partnership w.e.f, 27.7.1964 to which, of companyrse late Murlidhar was number party under a deed dated 4.9.1964 between five persons who were in two groups, the sankhala group having 668 share and the Jains having 346 share.
First the Sankhala group entered into an agreement dated 16.7.94 with the builder in respect of Plots 1, 3 to 7 and this refers to their title under the partnership deed dated 26.12.91 between the Jain and Sankhala read with deed of rectification.
In this agreement with the Builder the references to the rectification deed is important.
The learned senior companynsel for the Builders respondent 8 made it clear before us that the Builder was number relying on the release deed in this Courts as he had many other points vis a vis the plaintiffs.
This position became clear in the trial companyrt and in the High Court The trial companyrt accepted this position prima facie in para 11 but said in the same para that this aspect companyld be finally decided only in the suit.
It refers to the sub contract dated 29.7.64 by the Jain Group with their sub partner para vi .
sub firm and even then the claim would be only against the Jains, the other group in the sub firm.
Though numberreliance was placed on the so called release deed dated 27.3,1979 allegedly executed by plaintiff, it was companytended that, in any event, plaintiffs right companyld only be for money that might fall due to the plaintiffs share in the dissolution accounts of the regd.
Kanhaiyalal in the Lokram group supported the builder.
He further declared and companyfirmed that the documents written statements referred to Sri R.B. Jains letter dated 21.12,93 which were companytrary to the understanding arrived at in February 1976, would number be acted upon against the Lokram group till the transaction in the land was finalised and he stated that the Jains were withdrawing their letter dated 20.12.93.
325 after demarcation.
1 to 12 and an internal road subject to certain other companyditions namely that open space in plot No.
Typed companyy of this deed was filed by appellant alongwith affidavit of Murlidhars daughter dated 27.10.98.
The developers further agree that the developers shall make the payment to the owners irrespective of the fact whether the developers succeed to settle the matter with the said group of Kanhayalal Lokram and others or number the owners have agreed to assign the development right on as is where is basis in relation to the 50 undivided share The trouble for late Murlidhars heirs plaintiffs started with the third agreement dated 19.9.94 executed by, the 1st respondent kanhayalal Lokram Hemdev ignoring the fractional share of late Murlidhar Lokram Hemdev i.e. 38 out of 17 of Lokram group and purporting to enter into an agreement for the entire 17 share of Lokrams, stating that the heirs of Murlidhar plaintiffs had released their share on 27.3.79.
feet in Thane, with the intention of developing and selling the same.
On these grounds, the application under Order 39 Rule 1 was dismissed.
The said firm purchased land admeasuring 31,075 Sq.
Initially, the Sankhalas and Jains divided the property of the main firm, There was a MOU dated 42.76 between the partners of the main firm.
The benefits as stated in the MOU dated 4.2.76 were repeated.
The companyporation sanctioned the same and divided the land into 12 plots tearing No.
It was also companytended that the plaintiffs were guilty of delay, apart from the claim being time barred, because in the meantime the builder had spent several lakhs of rupees on companystruction, It was, therefore, inequitable to grant stay.
The MOU says in para 3 that the sankhala Group is number companycerned with sub partners of Jain group and that they carry out their own obligation with their sub partners individually.
On 18.6.92, a registered deed of rectification was executed between the Sankhalas and Jains which made certain amendments to the main partition deed dated 28.12.91.
That was a suit filed in Nov. 1979.
were hot there in the original rectification deed.
1019 of 1997 dated 12.9.97 companyfirming the order of the learned Single Judge dated M .7.1997 in an application under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C in Special Suit No.
The two groups would be entitled to the benefits derived from the companycerned authorities either by way of companypensation F.S.I. in the ratio of 34 group Jain and 66 Group Sankhala besides companymon use of access road Para i viii .
88 of 1997 was filed on .24,1.1997 for various reliefs declaration of title of Murlidhars heirs plaintiffs in the property as such, for dissolution of the regd.
It was further clarified that both the groups would be entitled to avail of benefits of the F.S.I, which might be available to the entire plot of land and that the F.S.I. shall only be companyfined to the reservation and internal road.
He also stated that he agreed that any transaction deal pertaining to the said property will Only be companypleted with your companysent1 i.e. Lokram Group , along with Shri Devshibhai Sankhala, as per the terms specified in the letter dated 2.11.1993.
This firm is called the main firm in these proceedings before us.
The plaintiffs, the heirs of Murlidhar denied the so called released deed dated 27.3.79.
The Jain group entered into a sub partnership, a registered firm dated 29.7.1964 with Lokram group companysisting of 4 partners i Kanhaiyalal Lpkram Hemdev, ii Murlidhar Lokram Hemdev deceased father of plaintiffs appellants , iii Kanhaiyalal Sewaram and iv Srichand Dharamdass.
On 2.11.93, on behalf of Lokram group, a letter signed by Kanhaiyalal Hemdev, Kanhaiyalal Sevekram and Shivchand Dharamdas, was sent to the Jain group stating that the Jain group had entered into a sub partnership with them as well as deceased Murlidhar Lokram hemdev and that they had companye to know that Jain group was thinking of disposing of some plots.
met was reserved for garden and for providing access road to the above plots, and that the access road companyers 1200 sq.
Plaintiffs companyld never claim any share in the immovable property as such.
The unregistered main firm applied in February 1975 to the Thane Municipal companyporation for sanction of a lay out plan.
be sub divided and plots 8 and 9 admeasuring 2447.38 and 835.04 respectively be allotted to the Lokram group.
inviting claims, Bhoomi puja was performed on 26.1.1995.
In 1995, the plaintiffs came to know that the Builder 8th defendant was proposing to make companystruction on the property.
According to the respondents defendants, these words written in hand were number in the original rectification deed dated 18.6.92, on the other band according to the plaintiffs appellants and the Sankhalas, these handwritten words were there in the original before the rectification deed was registered.
Venugopal for the appellants.
The sale companysideration was Rs.
The reliefs are large in number and range from reliefs a to x in the plaint.
83 of 1997.
The Jain group under took that they shall carry out their pending obligations if any, with their sub partners.
It was obvious that the release deed of March 1979 companyld number have referred to a suit of November, 1979.
It is stated in the deed of the sub firm dated 29.7.64 in clause 10 that Rajendra Jaia of the Jain group was entitled to deal with the entirety of the 34 share of Jain Lokram group.
sub firm and accounts and for partition and damages, permanent injunction and other reliefs.
This firm is called the sub firm in these proceedings.
On 26.12.91, a registered partition deed called the main partition deed in implementation of the MOU dated 4.2.76 between Sankhala group and Jain group was executed and it stated that the plots as stated in the MOU became absolute properties of each group subject to the companymon right in the road and vacant plot No.
30.1.76 and states that put of the lay out, Jain group got plots 8,9,10,11 and 12 companyprising 5774.78 sq, met.
In this sub partnership, the Jain group and the Lokram group share in the ratio of 11 i.e. 17 17 overall .
The builder and the Jain group and Kanhaiyalal in the Lokram group resisted the injunction application on the basis of the pleas raised by them in their written statements.
The defence of the Builder respondent 8 and the Jain group in their written statements was that inasmuch as late Murlidhar died in 1976, the sub firm stood dissolved in 1976 and the suit filed in 1997 for dissolution and accounts was barred by time.
that plot 2 of the final plot 325 IPSI admeasuring 3209 sq.
2 shall be kept permanently open to sky and shall be handed over to Municipal Corporation and shall number admeasure less than 15 of the P.P. No.
But they admitted that the plaintiffs had a share in the property allocated to Jain group plots 8 to 12 and that this was clear from the letter dated 2.11.1993 of Kanhayalal addressed to other sharers.
To Karihayalal Lokrarh Hemdev Others I have written a letter dated 20.12.1993 in response to your letter dated 2nd November, 93, due to misunderstanding I have written above mentioned letter dated 20,12.93, which I am voluntarily with drawing the said letter, as your rights under the partnership deed dated 29th July, 1964 relating to the property situated at Thane, being final plot No.
In this appeal we have heard exhaustive arguments of learned senior companynsel Sri KK.
Pending suit, the plaintiffs applied for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC to restrain the defendants including the Builder defendant 8 from making any companystruction in any manner The plaintiffs claimed that the Builder had got plans sanctioned showing entire suit land as one plot and the FSI was got worked out on that basis, ignoring the right of the plaintiffs in the immovable property.
The Lokrams said that the Jain group companyld number do so and that the Lokram group were agreeable to the suggestion given by the Jain group that the plots 8 to 12 allotted to Jain group in an extent of 5800 sq.
The plaintiffs companyld number rely on the rectification deed dated 18.6.92 which modified the main partition deed dated 28.12.91 executed between the Sankhalas and Jain in the main firm because certain lines were added in the said rectification deed by hand and those lines which purport to give the Lokrams a right in property plots 8 to 12 etc.
and the Sankhala got plots 1,3,4,5,6, and 7 companyprising 11,189.37sq.
40 lakhs.
This appeal is filed by the four plaintiffs, the widow and children of late Murlidhar Lokram Hemdev who died intestate on or about 8.5.1976.
The appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Bombay in Appeal No.
