Hajee Ebrahim Sait Wakf — RFA 1245/2025 · 1013/2025 · 1355/2025
Case analysis, argument positions and a court-floor note ·
High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru
Hearing13.10.2026
CoramHanchate Sanjeevkumar J.
Appeals admitted?No — not yet
Listed asOffice objections
We appear forThe Wakf, respondent
Privilege: not for filing
Deadline: limitation
Clause 9 of Ex.P23
Before you start
The order of 06.10.2026 in all three appeals records that the appeals “are also not yet admitted”, that they are “wrongly posted under the caption ‘Final Hearing’”, and that they are listed on 13.10.2026 under the caption “non-compliance of office objections”. So the first thing on the day is to ask the Registry to correct the listing and to seek admission. Do not be drawn into arguing final merits on 13.10.2026 as though the appeals were ready for hearing.
Part 1The three appeals at a glance
All three arise from two suits decided on the same day, 5 February 2025, by the same judge, Sri Vedamoorthy B.S., XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. We appear for the Wakf in all three as sole respondent.
| Appeal | Appellant | From | Result below | Status now |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RFA 1245/2025 | M/s Indian Wood & Industries | O.S. 9403/2014 | Suit for specific performance dismissed with costs; deficit court fee of Rs. 2,12,312 against the plaintiff | Not admitted |
| RFA 1013/2025 | Mr. Divakar Rao (proprietor of Airlines Hotel) | O.S. 1281/2016 | Partly decreed for the Wakf: possession, arrears of Rs. 1,12,60,800 | Conditional stay of 26.04.2025, condition complied with |
| RFA 1355/2025 | M/s Indian Wood & Industries | O.S. 1281/2016 | Same judgment as above | Not admitted |
The relief the Wakf actually holds in O.S. 1281/2016
Possession from both defendants, to quit within three months.
Arrears of Rs. 1,12,60,800 from the 1st defendant (Indian Wood) only, within three months, failing which 9% interest from the date of decree.
Further damages from 01.02.2025 at the monthly rent agreed in the Agreement to Lease, the figure not stated.
Costs, unquantified. No court-fee direction.
Part 2The two judgments and how they interact
The firm is the tenant in O.S. 9403/2014 and the respondent in O.S. 1281/2016. The Wakf is the defendant in the first and the plaintiff in the second. The same three parties, the same property, the same judge, the same day.
| Question | O.S. 9403/2014 (the firm's suit) | O.S. 1281/2016 (our suit) |
|---|---|---|
| Who sued whom | Firm sued the Wakf for specific performance | Wakf sued the firm and Divakar Rao for ejectment |
| Issue 1 | Readiness and willingness — Negative | Sub-letting to D2 — Negative |
| Issue 2 | Plaintiff never diligent — Affirmative | Tenancy terminated by notice — Affirmative |
| Issue 3 | Entitlement to decree — Negative | Section 53A — Negative |
| Issue 4 | What decree — Dismissed with costs | Rent paid regularly till Dec 2014 — Affirmative |
| Issue 5 | Additional issues: court fee Negative; limitation Affirmative; three fraud issues All negative | Partly affirmative |
- The Wakf won possession on the strength of the very documents it resisted in the other suit. That is not a contradiction the appellants will press; it is the answer to it. The Wakf's position is that Ex.P23 and Ex.P61, being unregistered, never created a term beyond month to month.
- Our answer in RFA 1013 and RFA 1355 is the judgment in RFA 1245. If the 60-year lease is unenforceable for want of registration — which is how we won the ejectment — then the firm's demand to enforce it must equally fail.
- The stamp duty point cuts both ways and we should not press it. The firm paid the impounding duty of Rs. 80,93,000 on Ex.P61, which is the very document we said was never registered. That supports registration in substance, in our favour on the ejectment side.
Part 3Limitation — our strongest ground
The judgment applied Article 54, first limb, and fixed the cause of action at 30.06.1999 (¶¶ 65 to 68), holding the suit of 04.12.2014 out of time. That holding is correct. The reasoning, however, skips the clause that actually fixes the date.
“The parties hereto shall execute and register the Lease Deed contemplated herein within 90 days from the date of receipt of all statutory clearances including the receipt of the necessary ‘No Objection Certificate’ under Section 269 UL of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department in respect of this Agreement. The Stamp Duty, Registration fees, Legal fees and all incidental charges and expenses for the registration of the said Lease Deed shall be borne exclusively by the Lessee.”
—
E
x
.
P
2
3
,
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
L
e
a
s
e
2
5
.
0
3
.
1
9
9
8
,
c
l
a
u
s
e
9
| Step | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|
| The NOC under Section 269-UL was issued | 22.07.1998 | Recital in Ex.P26 and Ex.P27: Order No. AA/BNG/447/98-99 |
| 90 days from that date under clause 9 | 20.10.1998 | Clause 9 of Ex.P23 |
| Extended by the Wakf at the plaintiff's request | 31.03.1999 | Ex.P26 clause 1 — “the last date … shall be 31.03.1999” |
| Extended again at the plaintiff's request | 30.06.1999 | Ex.P27 clause 1 — “the last date … shall be 30.06.1999” |
| Suit instituted | 04.12.2014 | Judgment, cause title |
| Time from 20.10.1998 would have expired | 20.10.2001 | Article 54, 3 years |
| Time from 30.06.1999 expired | 30.06.2002 | Article 54, 3 years |
What the judgment says
- ¶ 65: Ex.P26 extended the time to 30.03.1999, and Ex.P27 to 30.06.1999, each at the plaintiff's request.
- ¶ 66: “In Ex.P61, no time is specified for registration of the said document.”
- ¶ 68: time began to run on 30.06.1999, “the time specified in Ex.P23 and Ex.P27”.
- ¶ 64 records the appellant's case: that under Ex.P23 and Ex.P61 “the date is not fixed for the performance of contract”.
What clause 9 of Ex.P23 actually says
- The judgment never quotes this clause. It is the answer to ¶ 64 on the face of the appellant's own principal document.
- Clause 9 runs from receipt of “all statutory clearances including” the NOC. The 1996 order in Misc. 11/1996 and any Urban Land Ceiling clearance also count. If a later clearance was received after 22.07.1998 the date shifts, though the Supplements still carry it to 30.06.1999. Obtain Ex.P22 before asserting the 20.10.1998 date.
- Do not overstate. The safe submission is the judgment's own: time ran from 30.06.1999. The 20.10.1998 point shows the date was fixed earlier still.
How to put it
“My Lords, the date was not left open. Clause 9 of the plaintiff's own Agreement to Lease required registration within ninety days of the statutory clearances. The last of those clearances, the No Objection Certificate, was issued on 22 July 1998. My Lords will find that date recited in two later documents, the Supplemental Agreements of 1998 and 1999, both of which the plaintiff signed. Ninety days from that date is 20 October 1998. The defendant then extended the time twice, to 31 March 1999 and then to 30 June 1999, on the plaintiff's own request. The plaintiff filed this suit on 4 December 2014. There was no continuing breach to plead, because nothing fell due until the stamp duty was paid, and that was paid in 2014 — sixteen years after the obligation had already been missed.”
Authorities
- Rathnavathi v. Kavita Ganashamdas, (2015) 5 SCC 223 — Article 54, first limb: where a date is fixed for performance, time runs from that date. The authority for clause 9. Verified.
- K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan, (1997) 3 SCC 1 — time is not of the essence, but stipulated time-limits are respected and the court retains discretion under Sections 10 and 20. Do not cite it for “delay defeats specific performance”; that is wider than the ratio and the appellant will meet it with Satyanarayana v. Yellogi Rao. Verified, proposition narrowed.
Part 4Readiness and willingness
Issue 1 was decided at ¶ 42: the plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved readiness and willingness. Every element of that finding comes from PW1's own cross-examination.
| What the court recorded | Where it comes from |
|---|---|
| The plaintiff was silent for fifteen years after the Wakf's Ex.P7 asking it to arrange stamp duty and registration | ¶ 42; Ex.P7 of 04.09.1999 |
| It did not present Ex.P61 before the Sub-Registrar under Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act | ¶ 42 |
| It took no steps under Section 38 to enforce the Wakf's appearance to admit execution | ¶ 42 |
| Clause 7 of Ex.P2 required the lease deed by 31.03.1996 at the latest | PW1's cross, 08.08.2023 — he accepted it |
| He could not apply for construction permission because the lease was unregistered | PW1's cross, 20.07.2023 — drawing “ready” |
| He did not produce the agreement of sale of 10.02.2001 | PW1's cross, 11.09.2023 |
| S.N.S. Rao had not paid Rs. 15,00,000 of the Rs. 30,00,000 premium | PW1's cross, 11.09.2023 — denied |
Ex.P7 is the document that carries this issue — and it is ours
Ex.P7, the Wakf's letter of 04.09.1999, is an admission against interest. It confirms receipt of the final premium instalment, that the Wakf had taken possession of 30,000 sq ft (Schedule B) and that the firm retained 48,986 sq ft (Schedule C), and then asks the firm to “arrange for early payment of the necessary Stamp Duty and Registration of the Lease Deed … that we have signed and handed over to you on this day”.
It is the clearest possible answer to any suggestion that the Wakf was diligent in pursuing registration, and it dates from September 1999.
Authorities
- C.S. Venkatesh v. A.S.C. Murthy, AIR 2020 SC 930 — continuous readiness and willingness is a condition precedent; conduct before and after the suit counts. Verified. The passage is at paragraph 15, not 16 as the trial judge says.
- Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu v. Davarasety Manmadha Rao, (2024) 7 SCC 515 — readiness is a condition precedent; willingness is the conduct of the party; the 2018 amendment is prospective. Verified. Use this spelling.
- R. Kandasamy v. T.R.K. Sarawathy, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3377 — listed by the trial judge on this issue but not discussed. Citation unverified — confirm before filing.
Part 5The premium and Section 18 of the Limitation Act
This is the one place where the documents reveal a step the judgment does not address. It should be anticipated rather than discovered in the courtroom.
| Instalment | Amount | When | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| First | Rs. 10,00,000 | 19.08.1995 — DD 122829 of 07.08.1995, Central Bank, Rs. 5,00,000; DD 212062 of 09.08.1995, Catholic Syrian Bank, Rs. 5,00,000 | Ex.P23 cl. 2(a); Ex.P61 cl. 2(a) |
| Second | Rs. 10,00,000 | January 1997 — DD 002612 of 06.01.1997, Central Bank, Rs. 5,00,000; DD 968026 of 09.01.1997, Corporation Bank, Rs. 5,00,000 | Ex.P23 cl. 2(b); Ex.P61 cl. 2(b) |
| Balance | Rs. 10,00,000 | “at the time of registration of the Lease Deed contemplated herein” | Ex.P23 cl. 2(c) |
| Balance received | Rs. 10,00,000 | DD 192770 of 02.09.1999 and DD 048528 of 04.09.1999 | Ex.P7, the Wakf's letter |
- The finding that the Wakf “received the premium of Rs. 30,00,000” is a finding about later payments, not about performance up to the critical date. On the documents only Rs. 20,00,000 had been received by 30.06.1999. It sits at ¶¶ 6, 7 and 26, and ¶ 26 records DW1's admission in cross.
- Payment of the balance in September 1999 is an acknowledgment in writing of an overdue obligation. On the face of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, payment of part of a debt before expiry is an acknowledgment of liability, and a fresh period runs from that date.
The arithmetic, and why it does not save the suit
If time ran from 30.06.1999, it expired on 30.06.2002.
Ex.P7 acknowledges the balance on 04.09.1999, before that expiry. A fresh period would run to 04.09.2002.
The suit was filed on 04.12.2014 — twelve years later.
So the point does not rescue the suit. It answers an argument the appellant may run that time ran later, and it neutralises any reliance on Ex.P8 of 21.02.2006 or Ex.P9 of 02.04.2013, which are letters of the Wakf's own made long after the original period had run.
Do not concede the acknowledgment; but do not build on it either.
Authorities
- Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India, (2021) 8 SCC 481 — an acknowledgment, however worded, requires a fresh period under Section 18. Held inapplicable below. Verified. The trial judge's quotation is stitched from two parts of paragraph 37; do not repeat it.
Part 6Sub-letting — decided by neither judgment
The suit in O.S. 9403/2014 was dismissed on limitation, readiness and court fee. The sub-letting question was never reached, and it is not decided in O.S. 1281/2016 either, where Issue 1 was answered against the plaintiff. The clause has never been construed by any court on this record.
| Provision | What it says | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Ex.P2, cl. 13 | “The Tenant is at liberty and has right to let out, or sub-let, the building or portion of the building already constructed and/or to be constructed by him on the Schedule property during the period of lease. However, the tenant is not authorised to let out or sub-lease the entire portion of the land in ‘C’ Schedule property. The possession and control of ‘C’ Schedule property shall vest with the tenant during the tenure of the lease.” | Permission exists, but is confined to the building or a part of it. |
| Ex.P23, cl. 18 | “The Lessee is not authorised to let out or sub-lease the entire portion of the land or the existing building/s on the Schedule ‘C’ property or assign or vest the lease right to any party without first completing the proposed development thereof. However the Lessee is at liberty and is permitted to join with any party for any business beneficial to the Lessee by entering into partnerships, collaborations etc.” | Nothing may be sub-let before development is complete, and no leasehold may pass to anyone. |
| Ex.P23, cl. 23 | “The Lessee may convert itself into a company and/or may assign or vest the leasehold right in the Schedule ‘C’ property or part thereof in any company incorporated by the partners by the Lessee for execution of the proposed project.” | A narrow permission: assignment only to the firm's own project company. |
- PW1 claimed in cross a general right to sub-let and to sell under Ex.P61. That claim is wider than any of the three clauses permits.
- The sub-tenants — Corner House, Tivoli Garden, Shreeraj Lassi Bar — were let without the firm having entered into any franchise or written agreement with them (PW1's cross, 22.08.2023).
- Ex.P74, P75 and P76 are lease deeds of 30.11.2007, 28.10.2011 and 20.07.2016 put to DW1 in cross on 01.10.2024. The paper-book index does not say who the parties are. Obtain them before any submission on sub-letting.
Part 7The three fraud issues — lost, and why
These were our issues. We pleaded them, the court framed them on 05.02.2024, they were recast on 27.09.2024 to include non-joinder, and they were answered against us on evidence at ¶¶ 54 to 57.
| Exhibit | Document | Why it was rejected |
|---|---|---|
| Ex.D33 | Xerographic copy of the MoU of 04.08.1995 between the firm and M/s Esteem Enterprises (S.N. Rao), for 50% of the Rs. 30,00,000 premium | No foundation for secondary evidence. The Wakf never disclosed who held the original, in the written statement or in DW1's evidence. |
| Ex.D36 | Xerographic copy of a public notice, Prajavani, 21.05.2010 | Same; and the firm was not called to produce the original. |
| Ex.D37 | Xerographic copy of a public notice, Deccan Herald, 21.05.2010 | Same. |
- DW1 said he had never seen the original and that Ex.D33 had come from O.S. 25633/2014, where Diwakar Rao produced it.
- At ¶ 55 the court read the plaint in O.S. 25633/2014 — produced in O.S. 1281/2016 as Ex.D39 there — and found that Diwakar Rao had produced the original. It held that the Wakf “has not taken any steps to summon the original … either from Diwakar Rao or from the Court in which, Diwakar Rao produced the said document.”
- M/s Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. appeared on summons and swore through B. S. Mohan, Senior DGM (Legal), that it holds no originals. Nothing discredited him.
- The Wakf did not summon M/s Esteem Enterprises, S. N. Rao or P. Dayananda Pai. None of them was joined.
The senior's decision, not ours
As respondent, the Wakf may support the decree on a ground decided against it. Whether to seek to reopen the fraud findings — by way of Order XLI Rule 22 or Rule 27 CPC — depends on two things we do not yet know: 1. the dates of service of appeal notice in each appeal, which govern the time for a cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 31; and 2. the grounds of appeal as filed, which are in the office file and not in any paper book.
Do not raise the fraud issues orally on 13.10.2026 without that instruction.
Part 8Court fee — the one ruling that runs against the plaintiff
Additional Issue 1 was framed on 10.09.2015 and decided against the plaintiff at ¶¶ 44 to 48. The suit was wrongly valued under Section 41 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act; the correct head is Section 40(3).
“The plaintiff is directed to pay deficit Court Fee of Rs.2,12,312/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twelve Thousand Three Hundred and Twelve only) within 3 months from the date of this Order failing which, the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue from the property of the plaintiff.”
—
J
u
d
g
m
e
n
t
o
f
0
5
.
0
2
.
2
0
2
5
,
O
R
D
E
R
S
| Step | Figure |
|---|---|
| Aggregate premium | Rs. 30,00,000 |
| Average annual rent across each of Ex.P23 and Ex.P61 | Rs. 28,16,200 |
| Aggregate market value (premium twice, plus rent twice) | Rs. 1,16,32,400 |
| Fee under Article (1)(xvi), Schedule I | Rs. 2,65,287 |
| Permanent injunction under Section 26(c), unvalued | Rs. 25 |
| Paid by the plaintiff | Rs. 53,000 |
| Deficit directed | Rs. 2,12,312 |
- The Registry has already required a fresh valuation slip in line with Additional Issue 1, for the court fee on the appeal itself.
- The firm paid court fee of Rs. 1,74,251 on RFA 1245/2025 after the objection of 22.05.2025 was complied with.
- Watch point: the ruling proceeds on Section 40(3), not Section 41. The valuation is the appellant's to defend; do not volunteer a view on it.
Part 9O.S. 1281/2016 — what we won and what is missing
Our own suit. The plaint is now held. The judgment and drawn decree are not, and until they are, two things cannot be asserted.
| Party | As described in the plaint |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | M/s Hajee Ebrahim Sait Wakf, a private Wakf, No. 47, 2nd Floor, Greams Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006, by its Muthavalli Mr. M. Fuaad Musvee, son of late Ebrahim Musvee |
| Defendant 1 | M/s Indian Wood & Industries, registered partnership firm, Wood House No. 526, 2nd Floor, 5th Block, Ranka Apartment, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore 560 027, by its partner Mr. Kurian Thomas |
| Defendant 2 | Mr. Divakar Rao, son of S.N. Rao, aged about 40 years, proprietor of Airlines Hotel, No. 4, Madras Bank Road, Civil Station, Bangalore |
| Counsel for the Wakf | Sri M. G. Javeed, Sri Ahmed Khan and Sri S. F. M. Mumtaz, No. 208, 2nd Floor, Karnataka Sangha Building, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru 560 009 |
- ¶ 9 pleads the Esteem MoU. The Wakf produced the very agreement of 04.08.1995 between Indian Wood and M/s Esteem Enterprises as Document No. 7, in its own favour.
- ¶ 11 pleads that the Agreement to Lease of 25.03.1998 and the Lease Deed of 01.07.1999 are unregistered and unstamped.
- ¶ 15 pleads no date of default in registration: “The cause of the action for the suit arose on 25/03/1998 and 01/07/1999 and termination notice dated 24/11/2014.” That omission supports limitation running from an earlier date in the other suit.
- There are no caveats against Mr. Divakar Rao. The Wakf filed caveats 2961/2025, 10211/2025 and 10213/2025, all through Smt. Tahura Anzar, all naming Indian Wood as caveatee. The Caveator/Caveatee tab of RFA 1013/2025 returns RECORD_NOT_FOUND.
- The conditional stay was granted at the first listing on 26.04.2025, with notice to the respondents issued only afterwards.
The open point that cannot be answered yet
The judgment in O.S. 1281/2016 quantifies arrears at Rs. 1,12,60,800 for 01.01.2015 to 31.01.2025.
The High Court's order of 26.04.2025 in RFA 1013/2025 says “Arrears of rent from 1-1-2025 till 31-1-2025 is quantified as Rs.1,12,60,800/-”.
Same figure. Periods ten years apart. The stay condition was imposed on “the defendants”, and RFA 1013's appellant is Divakar Rao, against whom no money decree was made. Obtain the drawn decree and a certified copy of the order before saying anything about the stay.
Part 10Positions to take on 13.10.2026
In order, with what to ask for.
| # | Position | Basis | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The appeals are wrongly posted; they are not admitted; they are listed only for office objections | Order of 06.10.2026 | Take first |
| 2 | Objections on the appellant's side that are ours to press: court fee, synopsis, valuation slip, certified copies, vakalat acceptance | Registry notes of 22.05.2025, 25.04.2025 and 09.06.2025 | Take second |
| 3 | A fresh valuation slip in O.S. 9403/2014 should be required before admission | Additional Issue 1, judgment ¶ 48 | High |
| 4 | The cause title requires correction. The court records the Muthavalli as “M Fuaad Musavee”, “MR. N. FUAAD MUSVEE” and “MR.M. FUAAD MUSVEE” in three different appeals, and the firm as both “Indian Wood and Industries” and “Indian Wooda and Industries” | Party Information tab | High |
| 5 | Time to file the written submissions, if the Court is minded to hear the appeals | — | Ask if pressed |
| 6 | Liberty to file certified copies of Ex.P22 and Ex.P1 | Paper-book index | Ask if pressed |
Do not, unless instructed
Do not argue the merits of limitation orally on a non-compliance-of-office-objections listing.
Do not reopen the three fraud issues.
Do not say anything about the arrears period in O.S. 1281/2016, or about the stay condition, until the decree and the certified order are in hand.
Do not quote any authority from the trial judge's list without checking it first.
Do not identify the Muthavalli by any initial in open court. Say “the Muthavalli of the Wakf” until the cause title is corrected.
Part 11What the appellants will press, and our answers
Preparation for the reply.
| Their point | Our answer |
|---|---|
| Neither Ex.P23 nor Ex.P61 fixed a date, so the second limb of Article 54 applies and time ran from refusal (the notice of 24.11.2014) | Clause 9 of Ex.P23. Registration was to be within 90 days of the statutory clearances; the NOC issued 22.07.1998; the date was then extended twice at the plaintiff's own request. The judgment's own ¶ 68 attributes the date to Ex.P23 and Ex.P27. |
| Ex.P7, Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are acknowledgments under Section 18, and the payments of rent are a continuous performance | Ex.P7 of 04.09.1999 acknowledged a balance that fell due only on registration, and carried limitation at most to 04.09.2002. Ex.P8 of 2006 and Ex.P9 of 2013 were made long after the original period. Rent is every tenant's duty and is not an acknowledgment of a duty to admit execution. |
| Ex.D1 to Ex.D18 are photographs of the unauthorised sub-tenants | They were marked and are relied on by the Wakf on possession. The sub-letting clauses, not the photographs, are the answer to any claim of a general right to sub-let. |
| Ex.P61 was signed and stamped, and the stamp duty was paid in 2014 | That supports registration in substance, and it is why we won the ejectment. It does not answer performance within time. The duty was to present the document within four months of execution under Section 23, and a further four months on fine under Section 25 — both long past by 2014. |
| The Wakf's own Ex.D40 decree of 21.10.1994 shows it acted on the property | That decree was put to DW1 on 30.09.2024. It is a predatesuit decree of the Madras High Court and does not bear on registration of the 1999 lease. |
| Indian Wood's written statement in O.S. 25633/2014 denies the Esteem MoU (Ex.D44); the Wakf's cross said the opposite | D1 and D2 are at odds with each other on their inter se arrangement. D2 cannot build a right against the Wakf on a document D1 denies. |
The strongest answer we have, in four sentences
“My Lords, the date was never open. The plaintiff's own Agreement to Lease required registration within ninety days of the statutory clearances. The last of those was the No Objection Certificate of 22 July 1998. The Wakf then extended the date twice — to 31 March 1999 and 30 June 1999 — on the plaintiff's own request and at the plaintiff's instance. The suit was filed on 4 December 2014. On the plaintiff's own documents, time had run out years before the property was ever searched.”
Part 12Authorities — verified, corrected, and to be avoided
Twenty-nine authorities are cited in O.S. 9403/2014. Eleven carry a defect in the citation, the quotation or the reported name. Nine carry a reporter number that could not be confirmed because the reporter is paywalled. Nothing has been dropped.
| Authority | Mark | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop and Sons, (2000) 6 SCC 394 | Overstated | “Month to month” is not its holding; that arrives through Section 106 TPA. It was decided for the occupant under the Kerala rent law. |
| Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika Choudhary, (2012) 11 SCC 405 | Use this | The clearest Supreme Court statement: ¶ 6 the landlord need establish only the jural relationship and termination by lapse of time or Section 106 notice; ¶ 12 the tenancy “was only a month to month tenancy”. Listed at ¶ 14(v) and never discussed. |
| Delhi Motor Co. v. U.A. Basrurkar, AIR 1968 SC 794 | Promote | An unregistered lease over a year gives no rights; and Section 53A “is only available as a defence to a lessee and not as conferring a right”. Marked “check” in the senior's note. It is on point. |
| Nexgen Edusolutions v. Aspire Investments, FAO(OS) 297/2015, Delhi HC (DB), 30.09.2015 | Use this | ¶ 23 is the passage the judgment quotes. Also ¶ 14 (“immaterial as to who is at fault”) and ¶ 15 (“no estoppel against Statute”). Delhi authority, persuasive only. |
| R. Hemalatha v. Kashthuri, (2023) 10 SCC 725 | Corrected | The judgment gives paragraphs 23 and 25. They are paragraphs 10 and 12 of a fourteen-paragraph judgment. |
| S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram, (2010) 5 SCC 401 | Corrected | Paragraph 12 is paragraph 11. |
| Smt. G. Kusuma Devi v. Smt. Gowramma | Corrected | The passage is paragraph 21, not 39. The initials “G.K.” are wrong. Use AIR 2006 Kar 295. The key Karnataka authority. |
| C.S. Venkatesh v. A.S.C. Murthy, AIR 2020 SC 930 | Corrected | Paragraph 15, not 16. |
| Boramma v. Krishna Gowda | Year wrong | (2000) 9 SCC 214, not 2009. |
| Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction, (2022) 4 SCC 103 | Misquoted | The judgment quotes “Section 2 of the Limitation Act, 1963”. The Supreme Court said Section 22. |
| Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India, (2021) 8 SCC 481 | Misquoted | The quotation is two separate parts of paragraph 37 joined with no ellipsis. |
| Som Dev v. Rati Ram, (2006) 10 SCC 788 | Obiter | The judgment says the Court “held” a proposition that was a passing observation in paragraph 3. Do not present it as a holding. |
| CBSE v. Vineeta Mahajan, (1994) 1 SCC 6 | Do not use | It concerns examination discipline — a candidate found with chits. |
| LIC v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491 | Do not use | Service law and evidence. Sits in tension with Narbada Devi Gupta. |
| Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655 | Do not use | Stamp law: two unstamped hundis. It never mentions registration. |
| Venkatachala Gounder, (2003) 8 SCC 752; Narbada Devi Gupta, (2003) 8 SCC 745 | Procedure only | Evidence and procedure, not the merits. |
| Sandhya Rani Sarkar; Parakunnan; K.G. Arumugham; Maharani Shantidevi; Indravathi; Saradamani Kandappan | Limited use | Genuine, but specific-performance and delay authorities, not lease or Article 54 authorities. |
| K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan, (1997) 3 SCC 1 | Narrow | Discretion under Sections 10 and 20, not “delay defeats specific performance”. |
| Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu v. Davarasety Manmadha Rao, (2024) 7 SCC 515 | Use this | Reported name is Ramana, not “Raman”. |
| I.S. Sikandar; R. Kandasamy; K.M. Manjunath; Siddamsetty Infra; Bichitrananda Behera; S.V. Narayanaswamy | Unverified | The reporter could not be reached. Each travels with the mark “citation unverified — confirm before filing”. |
Part 13Anomalies in the two judgments
These are on the face of the judgments. Useful to show the record was not carefully prepared, and dangerous if overworked.
| # | Anomaly | Where |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ex.P7 is dated 04.09.1999 at ¶ 33 and 04.07.1999 at ¶ 66. The letter is on its face dated September 4, 1999 | ¶¶ 33, 66 |
| 2 | ¶ 57 refers to “Ex.D3 and Ex.D37” when the documents under discussion are Ex.D36 and Ex.D37. Ex.D3 is a photograph | ¶ 57 |
| 3 | At ¶ 55 the court relied on Ex.D39 in O.S. 1281/2016 — the plaint in O.S. 25633/2014. In O.S. 9403/2014, Ex.D39 is a Section 65B certificate | ¶ 55 |
| 4 | Dates given once differently: the Misc. 11/1996 order as 10.10.1996 at ¶ 3; the assignment as 12.09.2007 at ¶ 56; B. S. Mohan's affidavit as 26.04.2024 at ¶ 9 (16.04.2024 on the deposition) | ¶¶ 3, 9, 56 |
| 5 | The stamp duty appears as Rs. 77,07,665 plus fine Rs. 3,85,335 at ¶ 4 and as Rs. 80,93,000 at ¶ 21. These agree arithmetically, but confirm against the adjudication record rather than reconciling it in argument | ¶¶ 4, 21 |
| 6 | The same nine mis-cited authorities and the same misquotations recur in O.S. 1281/2016 at ¶¶ 37 to 46 | Both judgments |
One further conflict, outside the judgments
A Karnataka High Court order in W.P. 19887/2022 of 25.11.2025 describes RFA 1355/2025 as an appeal against the O.S. 9403/2014 dismissal, while the case-status page ties it to O.S. 1281/2016. The case-status page should be preferred, but the discrepancy should be noted in any written submission.
Part 14The hearing: what to say, what to ask for
Take this as the order of business on 13.10.2026.
| Step | Do this |
|---|---|
| Before the hearing | Refresh the case-status page. Confirm the listing and the caption. If the listing has changed, everything below is void. |
| As called | Identify the party as “Respondent No. 1”, without any initial. |
| First submission | The appeals are not admitted, are wrongly posted as Final Hearing, and are listed only for non-compliance of office objections. Ask that the caption be corrected and that admission be taken up. |
| On office objections | Take the appellant's objections one by one. Do not accept any objection that is not clearly raised. |
| If the merits are taken up | Limit submission to the four sentences above, and to clause 9 of Ex.P23. Do not go beyond it. |
| Never | Do not reopen the fraud issues. Do not mention the arrears period in O.S. 1281/2016. Do not quote an unverified citation. Do not accept a cause title with a wrong initial in the Muthavalli's name. |
Part 15Chronology of the dispute
| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 03.08.1964 | Order in Misc. Case No. 275/1964 permitting the Wakf to lease 78,986 sq ft | Ex.P14 |
| 11.11.1965 | Agreement of Lease between the Wakf and the firm | Ex.P25 |
| 18.08.1968 | Firm appoints Mr. S.N.S. Rao Manager of Airlines Hotel | Ex.P16 |
| 04.08.1995 | Undisclosed MoU with M/s Esteem Enterprises for 50% of the Rs. 30,00,000 premium — 15 days before the MoU with the Wakf | Amended WS ¶ 11 |
| 19.08.1995 | MoU between the Wakf and the firm. Rs. 10,00,000 of the premium paid | Ex.P2 |
| 11.10.1996 | Order in Misc. 11/1996 permitting the lease. Recited in Ex.P23 as “11.10.1906”, a typographical slip | Ex.P1 |
| 22.07.1998 | NOC under Section 269-UL issued, Order No. AA/BNG/447/98-99 — the last statutory clearance | Ex.P26, Ex.P27 recitals |
| 20.10.1998 | 90 days from the NOC expires under clause 9 of Ex.P23 — default begins | Ex.P23 cl. 9 |
| 17.10.1998 | Supplemental Agreement: last date extended to 31.03.1999, at the plaintiff's request | Ex.P26 |
| 30.03.1999 | Supplemental Agreement: last date extended to 30.06.1999 | Ex.P27 |
| 30.06.1999 | Date from which limitation runs, as held at ¶ 68 | Judgment |
| 04.09.1999 | The Wakf's letter, Ex.P7: balance of Rs. 10,00,000 received; the lease deed “signed and handed over to you on this day” | Ex.P7 |
| 10.02.2001 | Agreement of sale by the firm to P. Dayananda Pai of 50% of the super built-up area | Amended WS ¶ 12 |
| 12.11.2007 | Assignment to M/s Dynasty Developers Pvt. Ltd., now M/s Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. | Amended WS ¶ 13 |
| 21.05.2010 | Public notices in Prajavani and Deccan Herald | Ex.D36, Ex.D37 |
| 23.04.2012 | The firm's legal notice to Mr. Diwakar Rao terminating his licence | Ex.P19 |
| May 2012 | Rent paid by the firm from this month | Amended WS ¶ 5 |
| 02.04.2014 | The Wakf's own affidavit in W.P. 11835/2014 — marked against the Wakf in rebuttal | Ex.P77, Ex.P81 |
| 29.05.2014 | Ex.P61 impounded under Section 33; duty Rs. 77,07,665 with fine Rs. 3,85,335, together Rs. 80,93,000, paid | Judgment ¶¶ 4, 21 |
| 24.11.2014 | The Wakf's notice under Section 106 TPA terminating the tenancy | Ex.D21 |
| 04.12.2014 | O.S. 9403/2014 instituted | Judgment |
| 2014 | O.S. 25633/2014 filed by Mr. Diwakar Rao (City Civil Judge, Mayohall, CCH-29) | DW1 affidavit ¶ 22.1 |
| January 2015 | The Wakf stops accepting rent | DW1 affidavit ¶ 13.3 |
| 11.02.2016 | O.S. 1281/2016 instituted by the Wakf for ejectment and damages | Published judgment |
| 11.11.2016 | O.S. 25633/2014 compromised: the Wakf “shall” execute the lease deed — the Wakf was not a party | DW1 affidavit ¶ 22.2 |
| 27.01.2024 | Amended written statement of the Wakf | Paper-book index |
| 05.02.2024 | The three fraud issues framed | os 9403-14.pdf p. 10 |
| 07.06.2024 | DW1's chief; affidavit dated the same day; Ex.D8 to Ex.D39 | Depositions |
| 27.09.2024 | Limitation issue framed; fraud issue 2 recast | os 9403-14.pdf p. 11 |
| 28.10.2024 | Evidence closed in O.S. 9403/2014 | Judgment |
| 11.11.2024 | DW1 Kurien Thomas's chief in O.S. 1281/2016 | Received |
| 05.02.2025 | Both judgments: O.S. 9403/2014 dismissed; O.S. 1281/2016 partly decreed | Both judgments |
| 06.02.2025 | Caveat 2961/2025 filed by the Wakf | High Court |
| 26.04.2025 | RFA 1013/2025 filed; conditional stay on deposit of Rs. 1,12,60,800 with 9% interest | High Court |
| 06.05.2025 | Caveats 10211/2025 and 10213/2025 filed by the Wakf | High Court |
| 21.05.2025 | RFA 1245/2025 and RFA 1355/2025 filed | High Court |
| 06.10.2026 | All three: not admitted; wrongly posted; listed on 13.10.2026 for non-compliance of office objections | High Court |
Part 16Open points and gaps in the record
What must be requisitioned, in priority order.
| Priority | Document | From | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Urgent | Judgment and drawn decree of O.S. 1281/2016, with the valuation slip | RFA 1013/2025 and RFA 1355/2025 paper books, or the trial court | Settles the arrears period, ten years apart between the judgment and the High Court's order. Nothing has been held. |
| Urgent | Ex.P22, the NOC of 22.07.1998 — one page | Paper book p. 599 | Clause 9 of Ex.P23 runs 90 days from it. |
| Urgent | Ex.P1, the order in Misc. 11/1996 | Paper book before p. 121 | The permission the whole lease rests on. |
| Urgent | Certified copy of the High Court order of 26.04.2025 in RFA 1013/2025 | High Court | The stay condition. |
| Urgent | The three memoranda of appeal with grounds, as served | Office file | The grounds to be answered, and the dates of service of notice. |
| Urgent | Plaint and written statements of O.S. 9403/2014 | Paper book pp. 1–48 | Every paragraph of the written statement answers a plaint paragraph. |
| High | Written statements in O.S. 1281/2016, both defendants | RFA 1013/2025 / RFA 1355/2025 paper books | Neither has written. |
| High | Ex.P77, P80, P81 — the Wakf's own W.P. 11835/2014 papers | Paper book pp. ~801–849 | Our own 2014 affidavit, marked against us in rebuttal. |
| High | Ex.P74, P75, P76 — lease deeds of 2007, 2011, 2016 | Paper book pp. ~751–800 | Put to DW1 in cross; parties unknown. |
| High | Order sheet of O.S. 9403/2014 | Paper book pp. 1015–1121 | Nothing of it is held. |
| High | Reporter check of the unverified citations | SCC, SCC OnLine, ILR, AIR | See the authorities table. |
| Normal | Stamp-duty impoundment and adjudication record | Sub-Registrar / DC of Stamps, Shivajinagar | The figure of Rs. 80,93,000. |
Court note — read this one
Nine short parts. Part 2 is the submission to learn word for word; Part 6 is the list of what to ask for; Part 7 is the numbers; Part 9 is the checklist.
Part 1The case in sixty seconds
Indian Wood was the tenant of 48,986 sq ft of wakf land in Civil Station, Bengaluru. It signed a 60-year lease in 1998 and a lease deed in 1999. It never registered either. In 2014 it sued the Wakf for specific performance. The trial court dismissed the suit on limitation, on readiness and on court fee.
In a different suit, the Wakf itself sued Indian Wood and Mr. Diwakar Rao for ejectment, and on the same day, 5 February 2025, won: possession and arrears of Rs. 1,12,60,800.
Both appeals are now before this Court. In both, the answer is the same: the documents were never registered, so there was never a term beyond month to month.
THE SUBMISSION — LEARN IT WORD FOR WORD
“My Lords, the date was never left open.
Clause 9 of the plaintiff's own Agreement to Lease required registration within ninety days of the statutory clearances. The last of those clearances, the No Objection Certificate under Section 269-UL, was issued on 22 July 1998.
The Wakf then extended the time twice — to 31 March 1999 and then to 30 June 1999 — on the plaintiff's own request.
The plaintiff sued on 4 December 2014. There was no continuing breach, because nothing fell due until the stamp duty was paid.”
| Appeal | Appellant | Suit below | Result below |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1245/2025 | Indian Wood & Industries | O.S. 9403/2014 | Dismissed; deficit fee Rs. 2,12,312 against the plaintiff |
| 1013/2025 | Mr. Divakar Rao | O.S. 1281/2016 | Partly decreed for the Wakf; possession + Rs. 1,12,60,800 |
| 1355/2025 | Indian Wood & Industries | O.S. 1281/2016 | Same judgment |
Part 2Limitation — say this if the Court takes the merits
Note
If asked why the trial court said 30.06.1999 — it did, and the holding is right. The judgment quotes the two Supplemental Agreements but never sets out the clause in the Agreement that fixes the date in the first place. That clause is in our favour, and it is on the plaintiff's own document.
THE SUBMISSION — LEARN IT WORD FOR WORD
“My Lords, the date was never left open.
Clause 9 of the plaintiff's own Agreement to Lease required registration within ninety days of the statutory clearances. The last of those clearances, the No Objection Certificate under Section 269-UL, was issued on 22 July 1998.
The Wakf then extended the time twice — to 31 March 1999 and then to 30 June 1999 — on the plaintiff's own request.
The plaintiff sued on 4 December 2014. There was no continuing breach, because nothing fell due until the stamp duty was paid.”
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| 22.07.1998 | Last statutory clearance received — the No Objection Certificate |
| 20.10.1998 | 90 days later the obligation to register fell due |
| 30.06.1999 | Last agreed date, after two extensions at the plaintiff's request |
| 04.12.2014 | Suit filed — sixteen years after the duty first arose |
Part 3Readiness and the admissions
- Clause 7 of the MoU required the lease deed by 31 March 1996 at the latest — he accepted it.
- He could not apply for construction permission because the lease was unregistered.
- He did not produce the sale agreement of 10 February 2001.
- He claimed a general right to sub-let and to sell — wider than any clause permits.
- He accepted he had no franchise agreement with Corner House, Shreeraj Lassi or ASV Enterprises.
OUR OWN DOCUMENT IS THE BEST EVIDENCE — EX.P7, 4 SEPTEMBER 1999
The Wakf's own letter, Ex.P7, asks the firm to “arrange for early payment of the necessary Stamp Duty and Registration of the Lease Deed … that we have signed and handed over to you on this day”.
It is dated 4 September 1999 on its face. The judgment gives that date twice, and once wrongly as 4 July 1999.
If the appellant's counsel says the Wakf was diligent, put Ex.P7 in front of him.
Part 4The premium — the point nobody has taken
| Instalment | Amount | Paid when |
|---|---|---|
| First | Rs. 10,00,000 | 19.08.1995 |
| Second | Rs. 10,00,000 | January 1997 |
| Balance | Rs. 10,00,000 | “at the time of registration” — actually paid 02.09.1999 and 04.09.1999 |
- On the documents, only Rs. 20,00,000 had been received by 30 June 1999. The balance fell due only on registration.
- Paying it in September 1999 is an acknowledgment in writing of an already-overdue obligation.
- If time ran from 30.06.1999 it expired on 30.06.2002. The acknowledgment would carry it to 04.09.2002 — still twelve years before the suit.
ANTICIPATE, DO NOT BUILD ON IT
The plaintiff may say the acknowledgment restarted limitation. Let it. It does not rescue a 2014 suit.
But it neutralises Ex.P8 of 2006 and Ex.P9 of 2013 — letters of the Wakf's own, sent years after the original period had run.
Part 5Sub-letting — never decided
No court has decided this clause on these documents. The suit in O.S. 9403/2014 was dismissed on other grounds.
- Sub-letting of the building or a part of it is permitted.
- Sub-letting the whole of the Schedule C land is not.
- No assignment of any kind until the development is complete.
- Assignment is allowed only to a company the firm itself incorporates for the project.
BEFORE YOU SAY ANYTHING ON SUB-LETTING
Ex.P74, P75 and P76 are lease deeds of 30 November 2007, 28 October 2011 and 20 July 2016. They were put to the Wakf's witness in cross. The parties to them are not known.
One of them may be a sub-lease granted by the firm without the Wakf's consent. Do not argue the point until those three documents are read.
Part 6What to ask for — in this order
Six requests. Nothing else.
| # | Ask for | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The listing to be corrected — these are not admitted and are not a final hearing | Order of 06.10.2026 so records it |
| 2 | Admission, or a fixed date for it | They are still at the stage of office objections |
| 3 | A fresh valuation slip in O.S. 9403/2014 before admission | Required by Additional Issue 1; the appeal fee turns on it |
| 4 | Liberty to file certified copies of Ex.P22 and Ex.P1 | The two exhibits not in the paper book that bear on limitation |
| 5 | Time to file written submissions, if the Court is minded to hear the appeals | We are not ready to argue the merits on the day |
| 6 | Directions on the office objections in all three appeals together | They are the same objections, raised thrice |
NEVER, ON THIS LISTENING
Do not argue limitation orally unless the Court takes up the merits — and then only the four sentences above.
Do not reopen the three fraud issues. They were our issues and they were decided against us.
Do not say anything about the arrears period in O.S. 1281/2016 or about the stay condition. The drawn decree is not in hand.
Do not quote a citation you have not checked.
Part 7Numbers — do not get these wrong
| Figure | Amount / date |
|---|---|
| Suit schedule property | 48,986 sq ft (eastern portion of 78,986 sq ft) |
| Premium | Rs. 30,00,000 — but only Rs. 20,00,000 paid by 30.06.1999 |
| Court fee deficit | Rs. 2,12,312 — against the plaintiff, not us |
| O.S. 1281/2016 arrears | Rs. 1,12,60,800 — against Indian Wood only |
| Stay deposit | Rs. 1,12,60,800 with 9% interest — RFA 1013/2025 only |
| Statutory clearance | 22.07.1998 |
| Last agreed registration date | 30.06.1999 |
| Lease deed signed and handed over | 04.09.1999 |
| Suit filed | 04.12.2014 |
| Termination notice | 24.11.2014 |
| Rent first paid by the firm | May 2012 |
| Lease deeds put to the witness in cross | 30.11.2007, 28.10.2011, 20.07.2016 — parties unknown |
Part 8Authorities you may use
Verified. Correct pinpoints. Do not quote anything else from the judge's list.
| Authority | For what |
|---|---|
| Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika Choudhary, (2012) 11 SCC 405 | The clearest statement that an unregistered lease is month to month and terminable by Section 106 notice (¶¶ 6, 12). |
| Delhi Motor Co. v. U.A. Basrurkar, AIR 1968 SC 794 | Unregistered lease over a year gives no rights; Section 53A is only a defence to a lessee. |
| Nexgen Edusolutions v. Aspire Investments, FAO(OS) 297/2015, Delhi HC (DB), 30.09.2015, ¶ 23 | “The consequences of non-registration are the mandate of law and not dependent on the conduct of parties.” Also ¶ 14: “immaterial as to who is at fault”; ¶ 15: “no estoppel against Statute”. |
| Rathnavathi v. Kavita Ganashamdas, (2015) 5 SCC 223 | Article 54, first limb — where the date is fixed, time runs from it. The authority for clause 9 of Ex.P23. |
| Smt. G. Kusuma Devi v. Smt. Gowramma, AIR 2006 Kar 295, ¶ 21 | The key Karnataka authority. Not paragraph 39. |
| C.S. Venkatesh v. A.S.C. Murthy, AIR 2020 SC 930, ¶ 15 | Continuous readiness and willingness is a condition precedent. Not paragraph 16. |
| Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu v. Davarasety Manmadha Rao, (2024) 7 SCC 515 | Readiness is a condition precedent; willingness is conduct. Spelled Ramana. |
DO NOT USE — WRONG SUBJECT OR UNSUPPORTED
CBSE v. Vineeta Mahajan — about a candidate found with chits in an examination.
LIC v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen — service law. Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana — stamp law on two hundis.
Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop — “month to month” is not its holding.
K.S. Vidyanadam — discretion under Sections 10 and 20, not “delay defeats specific performance”.
Anything marked “citation unverified” in the detailed document.
Part 9Checklist for the day
Tick these before you walk in.
- Case-status page refreshed. Listing and caption confirmed unchanged for 13.10.2026.
- The limitation submission read aloud once, so the four dates come out in order.
- No initial used for the Muthavalli — anywhere.
- Ex.P7 kept to hand. It is the document that answers the diligence charge.
- Memoranda of appeal to hand, with the dates of service of notice. Without them no time can be computed for any cross-objection.
- Caveat papers to hand — 2961/2025, 10211/2025, 10213/2025. The Registry's objection on the verifying affidavits in the first two is still outstanding.
- Nothing said about the arrears period in O.S. 1281/2016.
- Nothing said about reopening the fraud issues.
- No citation spoken aloud unless it is marked verified.
The one-line version of the whole case
The date was fixed by the plaintiff's own documents, twice over, and the suit came twelve to sixteen years too late.