1 SA No.260/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.260 of 2010 Khujenbhai E. Poonawala .. Appellant Versus Lalitkumar B. Oswal (Poonawala) Partner of M/s.Mai Moon Construction and others .. Respondent ... Ms.Pallavi N. Dabholkar for the appellant. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 2nd September 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff and claims to be a co-owner of the suit property. He executed development agreement in favour of respondent no.1 on 1 April 1997 and also executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent no.1 on the same day. It appears that other co- owners also entered into separate agreements with the defendant no.1. The appellant filed a suit, bearing RCS No.1600 of 2001, against respondent no.1 by joining Pune Municipal Corporation and other co- owners as parties to the suit, for a declaration that the agreement as well as the Power of Attorney dated 1 April 1997 were void as they were 2 SA No.260/10 obtained by practising fraud and deception. The trial court did not believe the case of fraud and deception and dismissed the suit. The appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial court. Aggrieved appellant has filed this second appeal. 3. In my view, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Even otherwise, after perusal of the pleadings, I am satisfied that there was not even a proper pleading of fraud in the plaint. The pleading of fraud as contained in paragraph no.6 of the plaint reads as under: The defendant no.1 by concealing the real and actual facts and circumstances from this plaintiff fraudulently in the month of October 1997, obtained the signature of the plaintiff along with other co-owners of the suit property on the application of amalgamation of the suit property with neighbouring properties i.e CTS No.1574 and CTS No. 1575 and the and the defendant no.1 submitted the plan of the suit property to the defendant Corporation, thereby the defendant no.1 has obtained the sanction from the defendant no.2 Corporation to the combined plan of properties i.e CTS No.1574 and the suit property CTS No. 1577. 3 SA No.260/10 The defendant No.1 has not made construction of the building on the suit property of the plaintiff, as per the Agreement between them. In spite of that, the defendant No.1 illegally and fraudulently without taking the express consent of the plaintiff illegally utilized the FSI of the suit property in the neighbouring properties by showing the parking space on the suit property of the plaintiff and thereby committed an offence under Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegations of fraud appear to be in respect of a subsequent conduct regarding other properties which were sought to be amalgamated. The pleading does relate to a fraud as to the suit agreement and the Power of Attorney dated 1 April 1997. There is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)