Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 289 (CAL)

Ajit Nain v. Bengal Silver Spring Projects Ltd.

2017-03-15

SHIVAKANT PRASAD

body2017
JUDGMENT : GA 1513 of 2014 Defendant No. 1 has prayed for rejection of the plaint filed in CS No. 70 of 2007 under the provision of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs. 2. According to the defendant No. 1/petitioner averment in paragraph 12 of the amended plaint reveals that the subject matter of the suit is immovable property admeasuring 3000 sq. ft. at Eastern Metropolitan Bye pass at “Silver Springs,” No. 5, JBS, Halden Avenue, Kolkata-700 105 (hereinafter referred to as suit property) situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and the suit being the suit for land, this Court is devoid of jurisdiction to try the same. 3. The plaintiff/objector has contested the said application by written objection-on-affidavit contending inter alia, that upon representation made by Sri Piyush Bhagat, the Managing Director, person in control of management of the defendant no. 1 having ostensible authority to enter into an agreement on behalf of the said defendant No. 1, the plaintiff parted with money and had entered into an agreement with the said defendant No. 1 in February, 2003 for purchase of a space measuring about 3000 sq. ft. in the commercial block on the ground floor at the suit premises. 4. The breach on the part of the defendant No. 1 in refusing to perform the said agreement as recorded in the letter dated 12th February, 2007 was issued from No. 5/1A, Hungerford Street, Kolkata-700 017 and received by the plaintiff at No. 44, Ezra Street, Kolkata-700 001 within jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Mr. P.C. Sen, learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff further submitted that the title to or interest in the property agreed to be sold by the defendant No. 1 is not the issue to be decided in this suit as no enquiry as to the title or possession or right to immovable property is required to be made in the suit, by reason of the prayer (c1) of the amended plaint as against the defendant No. 3. 6. It is submitted that six Cheque aggregating 20,00,000/- was handed over by the plaintiff on 3rd July, 2000 under the agreement and the same was encashed by the defendant No. 1 and that the plaintiffs’ agreement with the defendant No. 1 is prior to the agreement with the defendant No. 3. 6. It is submitted that six Cheque aggregating 20,00,000/- was handed over by the plaintiff on 3rd July, 2000 under the agreement and the same was encashed by the defendant No. 1 and that the plaintiffs’ agreement with the defendant No. 1 is prior to the agreement with the defendant No. 3. Accordingly, the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC be rejected. GA 2911 of 2016 7. This application has been submitted on behalf of the defendant No. 3 contending that the claim of the plaintiff as made in the amended plaint relates to the title and delivery of the possession of immovable property situated outside the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court as the plaintiff has prayed for execution and registration of a deed of conveyance against the defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit property consequently upon execution and cause registration of necessary conveyance for transfer of the defendant No. 3 right title interest in the suit property. As such, this Court has to decide the total of the land under whom the said area is in possession, who is the owner and who has the authority to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff if at all under the law. 8. Mr. Pramit Kr. Roy, learned Senior Advocate for the defendant No. 3 has submitted that the plaintiff has no oral or any subsisting agreement between the defendant No. 1 prior to the deed of sublease in favour of the defendant No. 3. Since it is a suit for land and this Court does not have any jurisdiction to try the instant suit, any decree passed in the suit will be a nullity and not binding upon any party. Thus, it is urged that the suit being C.S. 70/2007 be taken off the file and be dismissed with exemplary costs. GA 3403 of 2016 9. By this application the defendant No. 3 has contended that it was added as party in the suit by an order dated 28th August, 2007 in TA No. 448 of 2007 without giving an opportunity to file an affidavit. Mr. GA 3403 of 2016 9. By this application the defendant No. 3 has contended that it was added as party in the suit by an order dated 28th August, 2007 in TA No. 448 of 2007 without giving an opportunity to file an affidavit. Mr. Roy has submitted that right title and interest in the suit property of its stranger to the contract is beyond the scope of suit for specific performance of the contract for sale and by reason of the defendant No. 3 being a party or stranger to the contract and having been added as a party, the plaintiff has converted his suit for specific performance into a title suit and contended that from the map annexed to the said application it would appear that the defendant No. 3 is having its business from a space measuring 4642 sq. ft. in the commercial complex known as “Silver Arcade” at premises No. 5, JBS Halen Avenue, Kolkata-700 105 known as “Silver Spring,” ergo, the defendant No. 3 has prayed that the name of the defendant No. 3 be struck off from the array of defendants in CS No. 70/2007 and for recall of the order dated 28th August, 2007 passed in 04.04.2007. 10. Now, it would be profitable to reproduce the provision of Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC which provides for rejection of plaint and reads thus: “11. Rejection of plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:- (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the court to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law; (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails comply with the provision of Rule 9. Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp papers shall not be extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp papers, as the case may be within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.” 12. Mr. Swarendu Ghosh, learned Advocate for the defendant No. 1 concurring with the said submission of Mr. Roy submitted that averments made in paragraphs 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 22 and 42 and prayer (c1) to the amended plaint makes the suit, a suit for land and invited my attention to the prayers made in the amended plaint which are reproduced hereunder: a. Decree of specific performance of the agreement as pleased in paragraph 12 above by directing the defendant no. 1. (i) Execution and registration of deed of conveyance in respect of the subject portion, i.e. 3000 sq. ft. in the commercial building on the ground floor overlooking Eastern Metropolitan Bye-pass at “Silver Springs”, No. 5, J.B.S., Halden Avenue, Kolkata-700105 in favour of the plaintiff against payment of balance consideration of Rs. 14 lacs. (ii) If the defendant no. 1 fails to specifically perform the said agreement, the Registrar, Original Side, be directed to specifically perform the said agreement in the manner aforesaid; (iii) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 from acting in breach of and/or in derogation of or in any manner inconsistent with the agreement as pleaded in paragraph 12 above; (c1) Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant no. 3 to forthwith execute and caused to be registered in favour of the plaintiff necessary conveyance for transfer of the defendant no. 3’s right, title and interest in the said area morefully described in paragraph 12 above. 3 to forthwith execute and caused to be registered in favour of the plaintiff necessary conveyance for transfer of the defendant no. 3’s right, title and interest in the said area morefully described in paragraph 12 above. (iv) Receiver; (v) Injunction; (vi) Costs; (vii) Further or the other relief; It is also submitted that the plaintiff has not even taken any leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of Calcutta High Court, which reads as under:- “Original jurisdiction as to suits.- And we do further ordain, that the said High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall be empowered to receive, try, and determine suits of every description, if, in the case of suits for land or other immovable property, such land or property shall be situated, or in all other cases if the cause of action shall have arisen, either wholly, or, in case the leave of the Court shall have been first obtained, in part, within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the said High Court, or if the Defendant at the time of commencement of the suit shall dwell, or carry on business, or personally work for gain within such limits; except that the said High Court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court at Calcutta, in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for, does not exceed One hundred rupees.” 13. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid rule that this Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction will have power to receive, try and determine: (1) suits for land or other immovable property if such property is situated within the local limit of original jurisdiction of the High Court; or (2) all other cases (a) if the cause of action has arisen wholly within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court; (b) if prior leave of the court has been obtained and the cause of action has arisen in part within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of the High Court; or (c) if the defendant dwells or carries on business or personally works for gain within such limits. Therefore, the moot issue as to whether the present suit is a “suit for land” has to be determined on the averments made in the plaint with reference to the reliefs claimed therein. It is a settled principle of law that where the relief relates to adjudication of title to land or immovable property or delivery of possession of the land or immovable property, it will be a “suit for land.” 14. Per contra, Mr. P.C. Sen, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arindam Mukherjee for the plaintiff fortifies his argument with the submission that so far as the contention that the suit appears to be barred by any law under the provisions or Order 7 Rule 11(d) is concerned it has to be found from the averments made in the plaint itself and that adjudication of right title and interest in respect of the immovable property situated outside the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court is concerned, it would appear from a meaningful reading of the plaint that no such issue will arise to grant the reliefs claimed in the suit. A suit for specific performance has been considered to be somewhat in the nature of a preliminary decree which cannot set out in fullest details of the different steps which are required to be taken to implement the main portions of the order directing specific performance of the contract as the plaintiff has originally sought for specific performance against the defendant No. 1. The possession of the suit property was not asked for. When the defendant No. 1 revealed that the suit property has been transferred to the defendant No. 3 prior to institution of the suit the plaintiff impleaded the defendant No. 3 a party and amendment of the plaint. Since the defendant No. 1 had made over possession of the suit property to the defendant No. 3, possession has been claimed which does not affect the title to the property in question. The contract between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 is enforceable against the defendant No. 3 and the defendant No. 3 is also bound by the decree for specific performance that may be passed against the defendant No. 1 in view of the provisions of Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The contract between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 is enforceable against the defendant No. 3 and the defendant No. 3 is also bound by the decree for specific performance that may be passed against the defendant No. 1 in view of the provisions of Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The defendant No. 3 will have to either join the conveyance to perfect the title of the plaintiff or the decree will be enforced as if there exists no conveyance between the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 3 with regard to the suit property. 15. In this regard the plaintiff relied on the following decisions: 1. AIR 1960 Cal. 626 (Debendra Nath Chowdhury Vs. Southern Bank Ltd.) (Division Bench) 2. AIR 1982 SC 818 (Babulal Vs. M/s. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal & Ors.) 3. 2001(7) SCC 698 (Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Daulat & Anr.) 16. It is further submitted that the defendant No. 2 is also from Kolkata. All the evidences are lying at or within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble Court will be a forum of convenience for all the parties and is also better equipped to decide the issues involved in the suit than the District Courts wherein the suit has to be tried if it is held that the suit is a suit for land. The defendant Nos. 1 and 3 having participated in the hearing of the said applications has not only acquiesced in the steps taken by the plaintiff to carry forward the progress of the suit incurring considerable expenses but have also made use of the existence of the suit to obtain such interlocutory relief as they thought would be to their advantage at the hands of the court which the said defendants now claim should not try the suit. In this regard the plaintiff relied on the judgment reported in AIR 1953 SC 472 (Chittaranjan Mukherji Vs. Barhoo Mahto). 17. In this regard the plaintiff relied on the judgment reported in AIR 1953 SC 472 (Chittaranjan Mukherji Vs. Barhoo Mahto). 17. In the instant suit, the property though situated outside the original jurisdiction of this Court, as per Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865, this Hon’ble Court may not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the said suit yet the suit being a suit for specific performance of contract for sale, this Court has the jurisdiction to try the suit inasmuch as cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court as the agreement was entered by and between the parties with the handing of the six Cheques amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- to the defendant No. 1 towards the earnest consideration money for purchase of the suit property. 18. On the contrary, Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the defendant No. 1 and Mr. Pramit Kr. Roy, Sr. Advocate for the defendant No. 3 have submitted that by reason of amendment of plaint and prayer c1 to the plaint for a decree against the defendant No. 3, the suit has taken shape of a suit in the nature of suit for land as the instant suit is not a suit simpliciter for specific performance of contract for sale in terms of a validly executed agreement for sale and also relied on the authority in Adcon Electronic Pvt. Ltd. vs. Daulat and Another reported in (2001) 7 SCC 698 , in which case the Hon’ble Apex Court referring to the decision in His Highness Shrimant Maharaj Yashvantrav Holkar of Indore v. Dadabhai Cursetji Ashburner reported in ILR (1890) 14 Bom. 354 and Moolji Jaitha and Co. v. Khandesh Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1950 FC 83 was of the view that a “suit for land” is a suit in which the relief claimed relates to title to or delivery of possession of land or immovable property. Whether a suit is a “suit for land” or not has to be determined on the averments in the plaint with reference to the reliefs claimed therein; where the relief relates to adjudication of title to land or immovable property or delivery of possession of the land or immovable property, it will be a “suit for land”. Whether a suit is a “suit for land” or not has to be determined on the averments in the plaint with reference to the reliefs claimed therein; where the relief relates to adjudication of title to land or immovable property or delivery of possession of the land or immovable property, it will be a “suit for land”. The said observation was arrived at in the cited decision in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Mahajan, J. in Moolji Jaitha case (supra) wherein it has been observed thus: “If an attempt is made to find a comprehensive definition of the phrase, it will eventually be discovered that it has created further complications. I therefore content myself by saying that where the nature of the suit is such that in substance it involves a controversy about land or immovable property and the court is called upon to decide conflicting claims to such property and a decree or order is prayed for which will bring about a change in the title to it, that suit can be said to be in respect of land or immovable property; but where incidentally in a suit, the main purpose of which or the primary object of which is quite different, some relief has to be given about land, the title to it not being in dispute in the real sense of the term, then such a suit cannot fall within the four corners of this expressions.”…… “In my opinion, if the suit is for specific performance and a decree for possession of the land sold is claimed, such a suit would certainly be a suit for land; but if the suit is simpliciter for specific performance , i.e., for the enforcement of the contract of sale and for execution of a conveyance, in that event there can be no good ground for holding that such a suit is a suit for determination of title to land or that the decree in it would operate on the land.” 19. Defendants have also relied on a latest decision in case of Sumer Builders Private Limited Vs. Narendra Gorani reported in (2016) 2 SCC 582 in which case, suit was relating to an agreement for development of a land and it was held that the suit was a suit for land. 20. Defendants have also relied on a latest decision in case of Sumer Builders Private Limited Vs. Narendra Gorani reported in (2016) 2 SCC 582 in which case, suit was relating to an agreement for development of a land and it was held that the suit was a suit for land. 20. In respectful consideration of the decision in Sumer Builders Private Limited (supra) this Court is of the view that the facts and circumstances of the case is distinguishable from the instant case as in the cited case the appellant had filed petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before Bombay High Court seeking temporary injunction restraining respondent from entering upon and alienating the property and also seeking grant of leave under Clause 12 of Letters Patent on the premise that the court at Bombay had territorial jurisdiction as petition pertained to money claim and money was paid at Mumbai and held that having regard to relevant clauses of agreement MoU, respondent’s letter terminating agreement MoU, appellant’s letter refuting respondent’s claim and reliefs sought in appellant’s plaint, held, dispute related to possession of land and suit falls within expression “suit for land” under Clause 12. However, agreement and MoU having been executed at Indore, where the land was situated, held, court at Indore had territorial jurisdiction and not Bombay High Court. Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain petition under Section 9 of 1996 Act, land being not situated within local limits of ordinary jurisdiction of that Court. 21. In a reportable decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated April 1, 2015 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3272 of 2015 [Re: Excel Dealcomm Private Limited Vs. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited & Ors.] one of the questions raised was whether the suit for specific performance filed by Excel was a “suit for land” and taking into consideration the decision in Adcon Electronic Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Clause 12 of Letters Patent the Apex Court held that the suit was a suit for land and since parties had granted exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of Mumbai, the jurisdiction of the Court at Calcutta is clearly ousted as per law. 22. In case of Smt. Bimal Kumari Vs. 22. In case of Smt. Bimal Kumari Vs. Ashoke Mitra and another, reported in AIR 1955 Cal 402 , a suit for specific performance simpliciter was filed where in an agreement to sell property, it was covenanted that the vendor would execute and register a proper deed of conveyance and simultaneously deliver possession to the purchaser. The purchaser brought a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale and omitted to sue for possession. He asked for leave under Order 2, Rule 2 in respect of possession of the property. 23. It was held: “the cause of action for possession on the agreement was the same as the cause of action for the specific performance. On the same averments as those made in the plaint, he would be entitled to ask for possession also. He need allege nothing more, he need not prove anything more. Leave should not be given in such a case under Order 2, Rule 2.” And further observed that: “If one of the parties files a suit in a Court which is not competent to grant him one of the reliefs he is entitled to, he cannot be heard to say that part of the contract is one which cannot and ought not to be specifically performed. The ability or inability to perform the contract referred to in Section 16. Specific Relief Act clearly relates to the parties to the suit and has no connection with the jurisdiction of the Court to grant a particular relief.” 24. It is submitted on behalf of learned Advocate for the defendant no. 1 that judgments cited by the plaintiff viz. AIR 1960 Cal. 626 and AIR 1955 Cal. 402 are not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In AIR 1960 Cal. 626 prayer was made by the plaintiff for specific performance only, directing the defendant to execute and register a lease deed in favour of the plaintiff. No prayer was made for transfer of right title and interest of the land in favour of the plaintiff. 25. In the instant case apart from the averments made in the plaint, by amended prayer (c1), specific prayer has been made for transfer of defendant no. 3’s right title and interest over the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. No prayer was made for transfer of right title and interest of the land in favour of the plaintiff. 25. In the instant case apart from the averments made in the plaint, by amended prayer (c1), specific prayer has been made for transfer of defendant no. 3’s right title and interest over the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Such prayer makes the instant suit to a “suit for land.” The facts and the issues involved in the instant case are completely different from the facts and issues in AIR 1960 Cal. 626 thus is not applicable in this case. 26. The law relating to specific performance is basically founded on equity, the conduct of the plaintiff, element of hardship that may be caused to the parties, the availability of adequate alternate relief are required to be taken into considerations which can be gone into on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the parties to the suit inasmuch as the defendant No. 3 has submitted that the property purchased by him from defendant No. 1 is different property from the property claimed by the plaintiff. On plain reading of the plaint it shows that the plaintiff has not made any prayer for alternative decree for refund of earnest money payable to the plaintiff by the defendant No. 1 towards damages or compensation. I am of the opinion that there should be a valid contract for suit for specific performance of contract because all contracts are agreements legally enforceable but all agreements are not contract, ergo, the conduct of the party to an agreement is paramount consideration as to whether that would amount to valid agreement, is yet a matter of evidence. 27. No doubt, it is now a settled law that unregistered agreement for sale is admissible in evidence under Section 49(c) of Registration Act in a suit for specific performance of contract (see. AIR 2010 SC 1654 S. Kaladevi v. VR Somasunderam). But in this case the plaintiff has failed and neglected to file any such agreement for sale for its enforcement. 28. The defendant no. AIR 2010 SC 1654 S. Kaladevi v. VR Somasunderam). But in this case the plaintiff has failed and neglected to file any such agreement for sale for its enforcement. 28. The defendant no. 3 M/s. Saini Trading Company is admittedly is a company carrying on business outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court who has also taken out an application being GA No. 2911 of 2016 for rejection of the plaint in CS No. 70 of 2007, inter alia, on the ground that the suit property is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court in view of the amended prayers made in the plaint for a decision in respect of the suit property and for claiming possession both from defendant no. 1 and defendant No. 3. 29. Though, the cause of action disclosed in the plaint as against defendant No. 1 is within the jurisdiction of this Court, nevertheless, by reason of insertion of prayer (c1) and the averments made in the amended plaint the suit stands converted to a suit for land as the present suit is not a suit for specific performance of contract for sale simpliciter. The basic structure of the original suit for specific performance of contract has been changed owing to insertion of prayer c1 of the amended plaint. Dispute does not involve the issues to be decided in a suit for specific performance of contract rather the dispute relates to conveying the right title interest and possession of the suit property from the defendant No. 3 who is not a party to the agreement as alleged by the plaintiff. If it is found on evidence that the property claimed is different from the claim made by the plaintiff and if there has been sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 3 in respect of the self same property, then the moot issue relates to the land and the instant suit is undoubtedly a suit for land within the purview of a provision of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 30. 30. It reflects from the cause title of the plaint itself that the office of the defendant No. 3 and the suit property are admittedly situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court and no leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 has ever been applied therefore, the suit would not be maintainable and the plaint deserves rejection as per the provision of Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 31. On perusal of the amended plaint, I do find that no leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 has been prayed for, so the decision in case of Debendra Nath Chowdhury vs. Southern Bank Ltd. reported in AIR 1960 Cal 626 has no manner of application in this suit in that context. It is true that the plaintiff had initially filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale against the defendant No. 1 but without annexing any agreement for sale by and between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 so as to construe the terms of agreement, and the terms relating to readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part as the plaint in a suit for specific performance of contract must aver in the plaint the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract in view of the provision of Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act which specifically provide that plaintiff must plead and prove that he had performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him. 32. I am fully in agreement with the submission of Mr. Sen, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff that the facts as disclosed in the plaint may be subject matter of the evidence for proof at the trial. Since leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 has never been taken by the plaintiff, I am of the considered view that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and as such, the decision referred to on behalf of the plaintiff in case of Babulal Vs. M/s. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal & Ors. Since leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, 1865 has never been taken by the plaintiff, I am of the considered view that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and as such, the decision referred to on behalf of the plaintiff in case of Babulal Vs. M/s. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1982 (SC) 819 is distinguishable and not apposite to the instant case as in the cited decision it is observed that in a case where exclusive possession is with the contracting party a decree for specific performance of the contract of sale simpliciter, without specifically providing for delivery of possession, may give complete relief to the decree holder. In order to satisfy the decree against him completely he is bound not only to execute the sale deed but also to put the property in possession of the decree holder in consonance with the provision of Section 55(1) of TP Act which provides that seller is bound to give, on being so required, the buyer or such person as he directs such possession of the property as its nature admits. But in the instant case the defendant No. 3 is not a contracting party with the plaintiff. 33. In the context above and bearing in mind the principles laid down in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Sumer Builders Private Limited (supra) the plaint is liable to be rejected on its plain reading owing to change in the basic structure of the original suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant No.1. 34. Hence, ordered, that the plaint is rejected and the suit stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The plaintiff may approach before appropriate forum for adjudication of his right title interest and possession in the suit property. Thus, GA No. 1619 of 2007, GA No. 3797 of 2007, GA No. 4036 of 2008, GA No. 1513 of 2014, GA No. 2911 of 2016 and GA No. 3403 of 2016 are disposed of. 35. Department and all parties to act on the signed photocopy of this judgment.