Delhi High Court
The Christian Institute For The ... vs Bhargava Consultants Pvt. Ltd. ... on 15 December, 2005
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.11.1984 and for execution of all the title deeds in favor of the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff is a non-profit charitable organisation/society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The suit has been instituted through its Directors and Secretary Shri Saral K. Chatterjee. Mr. Chatterjee is no more alive and the authority in his favor vide resolution dated 21.11.1988 has been proved through the affidavit of evidence filed by Mr. Rabial Mallick. It may be noticed that all the defendants are ex parte.
3. Defendant No. 1 is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with defendant No. 2 its Managing Director while defendant No. 3 is also a public limited company. Defendant No. 1 was the perpetual lessee of a plot of land measuring 1835.36 sq. yard bearing Municipal No. 14, Jangpura- B, Mathura Road, New Delhi, as per its conveyance deed dated 14.11.1977 a copy of which has been exhibited as Exhibit P-2 since the original is stated to be in the custody of the defendant who has failed to produce the same despite service of notice.
4. Defendant No. 1 for purpose of development and construction of plot of land, entered into a Collaboration Agreement with defendant No. 2 on 22.07.1982 (Ex. P-3). A tripartite agreement (Ex.P-4) was thereafter executed on 28.02.1984 between plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 in terms whereof defendant No. 1 agreed to convey the suit property along with the super structure to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 31,45,200/-. In terms of the tripartite agreement, the plaintiff simultaneously entered into agreement with defendant No. 3 for construction on the plot of the land by demolishing the existing structure. A separate agreement for sale with defendant No. 1 was also executed in terms of the tripartite agreement. The plaintiff is stated to have entered in to an agreement for sale with defendant No. 1 on 30.11.1984 (Ex.P-5) in terms whereof defendant No. 1 agreed to transfer by way of conveyance deed its rights, title and interest in the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 31,45,200/-. A separate construction agreement dated 26.09.1984 (Ex-P6) was also entered into by the plaintiff with defendant No. 3 company.
5. Amounts have been paid from time to time by the plaintiff in terms of the agreement and the balance amount payable in terms of the sale agreement dated 30.11.1984 to defendant No. 1 is said to be Rs. 7,95,200/- which is payable at the time of signing execution and registration of sale deed. Despite the amount being offered defendant No. 1 and 2 have not come forth to execute the sale deed.
6. It is stated that defendant No. 1 on 01.09.1992 executed an irrevocable general power of attorney in favor of defendant No. 3 company to execute the sale deed and a LandDO granted permission on 29.08.1985 which was forwarded to the plaintiff by defendant No. 3 under the cover of letter dated 02.09.1985 (Ex.P-15 and P-15A respectively). The various communications thereafter exchanged however, did not result in the execution of the sale deed and thus the present suit was filed.
7. It appears from the communication that defendant No. 3 was attempting to put the burden on defendant No. 1 for execution of the sale deed and it is said that defendant No. 2 who was really looking after defendant No. 1 has now settled abroad. The result of the same is that even though the plaintiff is in possession of the property since 1986 along with the construction thereon, the title of the plaintiff has not been perfected as the sale deed was not executed. It may be noticed that even the permission was obtained from Income Tax Authorities in Form 34A as required at that stage of time. The plaintiff has stated that he is as has always been willing to perform its obligation of paying the balance sale consideration of Rs. 7,95,200/-.
8. The aforesaid facts have been proved and the documents exhibited in pursuance to the affidavit of evidence filed by Mr. Rabial Mallick who has proved the board resolution dated 27.02.2003 as exhibit P-1 whereby he is authorised to file the affidavit.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, a decree for specific performance is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against defendant No. 1 in respect of agreement to sell dated 30.11.1984 for property 14, Janpura-B, New Delhi. The plaintiff will be liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 7,95,200/- at the stage of execution and registration of the sale deed.
10. The plaintiff is also entitled to costs. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
