- (1.) The two sets of matters are connected and have been taken up together. In CS No. 312 of 2007 the plaintiff company seeks a declaration that an agreement dated August 4, 2003 and two powers of attorney executed by the defendant shebaits on January 19, 2005 and February 11, 2005 are valid and subsisting and a declaration that a letter of cancellation of September 7, 2007 is void. The ancillary injunctions sought are to compel the defendants to discharge their obligations under the agreement of August 4, 2003 and the supplemental agreement of November 24, 2003; mandatory injunction commanding the defendants to withdraw the letter of termination; and, injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff s share in the newly constructed building at 49, Kali Krishna Tagore Street, Calcutta - 700007. ALP No. 8 of 2008 has been brought by the plaintiff in CS No. 312 of 2007 seeking transfer to this Court of four other suits connected with the same transaction. The petitioner in the application under clause 13 of the Letters Patent suggests that it would be embarrassing for the connected actions to be allowed to proceed elsewhere as that may result in a conflict of decisions and unnecessary other complications.
(2.) The case made out in the plaint relating to CS No. 312 of 2007 is that the sixth defendant deity was the owner of three adjoining premises at Kali Krishna Tagore Street measuring about four cottah and the other defendants are the shebaits of the deity. Though there appear to be a defendant No. 1A and another defendant No. 5A whose names have been included in hand in the cause title, but the body of the plaint has no reference to such defendants. Since the plaintiff says that an application has been made for extension of time to serve the writ of summons which has not yet appeared before Court, such aspect as to the anomalies in the plaint is disregarded at the moment with liberty to the contesting defendants to urge such ground at a future date.
(3.) The plaint claims that the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 along with other shebaits (another pointer that there were other shebaits who had not been impleaded) approached the plaintiff for the purpose of developing the property. According to the plaint, an agreement was entered into on August 4, 2003 between the parties for the development of the property by the plaintiff. Paragraph 5 of the plaint claims that the defendants executed powers of attorney for carrying out the terms and conditions of the agreement of August 4, 2003. Such powers of attorney, said to be registered, are claimed to have been executed on January 19, 2005 and February 7, 2005. The plaintiff claims to have applied to the corporation for amalgamation of the premises and the three premises are now known as 49, Kali Krishna Tagore Street. The plaint says that the plaintiff has incurred considerable expenditure for engaging an architect to prepare a building plan; for negotiating with the old tenants and relocating them; and, by way of payment of a sum of Rs.20 lakh to the shebaits in addition to rent of Rs.2.59 lakh and a further sum of Rs.2.75 lakh on account of arrears rates and taxes. The plaintiff claims to have removed the old structure and completed eighty per cent of the construction of the new building. According to the plaint, the shebaits are entitled to the fourth floor of the new building and possession of such floor has been made over to the shebaits early in 2006. The plaint speaks of an expenditure in excess of Rs.2 crore having been incurred by the plaintiff for discharging its obligation under the agreement of August 4, 2003. Paragraph 14 of the plaint refers to a letter dated September 7, 2007 issued by advocate representing the defendant nos. 1 to 5 (again, the defendant nos. 1A and 5A are not specifically mentioned) which sought to cancel the agreement dated August 4, 2003 and November 24, 2003 and powers of attorney dated January 19, 2005 and February 11, 2005 on false and fabricated grounds. Earlier, at paragraph 4A of the plaint, the plaintiff has referred to a supplemental agreement of November 24, 2003. The plaintiff says that some of the shebaits were not signatories to the agreement of August 4, 2003 and, by the supplemental agreement, such shebaits adopted the agreement of August 4, 2003 and agreed to be bound thereby.;