Delhi High Court
J.L.Kapoor vs Girish Chopra on 22 November, 2010
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 22.11.2010
+ CS(OS) 314/2004
J.L.KAPOOR ..... Plaintiff
Through : Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate.
versus
GIRISH CHOPRA ..... Defendant
Through : Sh. Sanjay Goswami with Sh. H.k. Balajee, Advocates,
for Defendant No.1.
Sh. Sanjeev Anand and Ms. Prachi Gupta, Advocates,
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
1.
Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes.
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be Yes.
reported in the Digest?
MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J (OPEN COURT)
%
1. Learned counsel for the parties submit that an appropriate decree may be made having
regard to the changed circumstances. The plaintiff contends that he entered into an agreement to
purchase the suit property, i.e. first floor of B-4/42, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi by an
agreement dated 05.06.2000. The total consideration payable was ` 40,00,000/-. Pertinently,
Clause-2 stipulated that a substantial amount of ` 38,00,000/- would be paid by the plaintiff to
the first defendant on or before 31st December at the time of execution/registration of the sale
deed and other relevant documents. The first defendant had concededly built on the property and
for that purpose, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding/Collaboration Agreement with
the second defendant, who admittedly was the owner of the property.
2. It is not in dispute that on 12.02.2001, possession of the suit property was handed-over to
the plaintiff. On that date, it was recorded as follows:
CS(OS) No.314/2004 Page 1
"XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
That the total Deal has been finalized for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty
Lacs only), and out of which the said Girish Chopra has received a sum of Rs.
38,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lacs only) and the balance sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only), shall be paid by the said Shri Joginder Lal
Kapoor and Smt. Kiran Lata Kapoor to the said Shri Girish Chopra at the time of
final Sale Deed of the said demised portion of the said property in the office of the
Sub-Registrar, New Delhi, as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement to
sell dated 05th May 2000.
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX"
3. Apparently, inter se disputes surfaced as between the owner and the first defendant. In
the meanwhile, the other portions of the same building, i.e. B-4/42, Safdarjung Enclave, New
Delhi were sold to different purchasers. All this and the present transaction became the bone of
contention between the two defendants, i.e. the owner and the first defendant. These disputes
were refereed to arbitration. On 23.11.2006, the learned arbitrator HMJ P.K. Bahri (Retd).
published his award. The plaintiff relies upon certain portions of the award - paras 33 to 36, 46
and 50 to contend that his rights were recognized by the arbitrator and that in fact the defendants
had stated that conversion of the property was one of the obligations to be performed so that the
title in the property could be passed to the vendees, including the plaintiff. It is contended that
subsequently the defendant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 12.05.2010.
The plaintiff relies upon the following stipulation in the MoU:
"XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
5. Subject to and only after the receipt of the full payment of Rs. 75 lacs as
aforesaid,
(i) the owner shall withdraw his criminal complaint against the builder and
others and assist in doing all that will be necessary for its quashing; and
(ii) once the property is converted into freehold, the owner shall execute the
sale deed and such other documents that may be required for transfer of the first
floor in favor of Shri Joginder Lal Kapoor and the second floor in the name of
Shri Ashwini kumar Matta and Smt. Feroa Mata at the cost and expense of the
said parties.
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX"
CS(OS) No.314/2004 Page 2
4. The defendants do not dispute the above developments. It is submitted, however, that the
plaintiff has, besides a decree for specific performance, also claimed other reliefs, such as
damages and injunction and that the Court should clarify that decree on this premise would not
be feasible if the suit is to be disposed of by appropriate directions. They also contend that the
question of conversion into leasehold is pending consideration since the relevant statutory
authority, i.e. the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has claimed misuse charges in respect of
the suit property to the extent of ` 1.37 crores. Apparently, the second defendant owner has
impugned that demand by a Writ Petition 20552/2005. It is additionally submitted that the
second defendant that the claim for restitution would survive whether or not the suit is decreed
either in part or wholly.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the claim for damages and injunction would
not be urged and that the suit may be disposed of with suitable directions.
In the light of the above developments and statements, following directions are issued:
(a). The second Defendant No.2 shall execute a registered Conveyance Deed/Sale
Deed in favor of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, i.e. first floor of B-4/42,
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, within four weeks of final judgment in Writ Petition i.e.
after the decision by the final appellate court, if the case is taken up in appeal.
(b). The above direction to execute the registered Sale Deed is subject to the DDA
accepting the plea for conversion of the entire property.
(c). In either eventuality, covered by Clause a or b above, the second defendant is
directed, within two weeks of resolution of the issue regarding payment of misuse
charges and conversion charge, intimate the development to the plaintiff and call upon
the latter to sign the sale deed at a time mutually convenient to both the parties.
(d). The plaintiff shall, upon receipt of intimation mention in S. No. 3 above, make
necessary arrangements for furnishing the appropriate Stamp Duty, upon which the sale
deed would be executed.
(e). The plaintiff, who has apparently objections to the request for conversion by the
second defendant, shall withdraw them within four weeks from today and intimate the
second defendant about this development.
(f). The plaintiff has apparently sought for conversion of property in his name. These
objections as well as application for conversion shall be withdrawn and duly intimated to
CS(OS) No.314/2004 Page 3
the second defendant within four weeks.
7. The suit property is appropriately conveyed and known to the plaintiff. The second
defendant shall not create any third-party rights in respect of the suit property, i.e. the first floor
of B-4/42, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi.
8. It is clarified that the above directions and orders would not, in any manner, prejudice the
second defendant's claim for restitution which would survive. All interim orders are hereby
dissolved. The suit is decreed in the above terms subject to final orders by the appropriate
appellate Court.
9. Let the suit be decreed in the above terms. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as
to costs.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J
NOVEMBER 22, 2010
'ajk'
CS(OS) No.314/2004 Page 4
