Mrs. Jagdish Manohar Singh vs M/S South Delhi Builders Pvt. Ltd. ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 5665 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           CS(OS) 1109/1993
%                                                     19th September, 2012



         MRS. JAGDISH MANOHAR SINGH               ......Plaintiff
                       Through: Mr. Rohit K. Aggarwal, and Ms.
                                Amita Singh, Adv.

                            VERSUS


         M/S SOUTH DELHI BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
                                                  ..... Defendants
                      Through:   Ms. Malvika Rajkotia and Mr.
                                Chetanya Puri, Advocates for D-2
                                and D-3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

    To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)



1.             This is a suit filed by plaintiff Smt. Jagdish Manohar Singh for

specific performance of the agreement pertaining to the lower ground floor

portion of the property no. A-61, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (in short 'the suit

property).

CS(OS)1109/1993                                                              Page 1 of 3
 2.           The entire suit property originally belonged to defendant nos.

2 and 3 to the suit, and who, by a collaboration agreement dated 22.9.1988,

allowed the defendant no.1 on consideration as stated in agreement dated

22.9.1988 to reconstruct the building. Defendant nos. 2 and 3, in terms of

the agreement dated 22.9.1988, in addition to the other rights under the

agreement for another property, got the second floor which was to be

constructed on the suit property. Therefore, admittedly, the defendant nos.

2 and 3 have no right except to the second floor in the suit property.

3.           The disputes in the present case pertained to a servant quarter,

a cubical and a bathroom in the basement /lower ground floor portion of

the newly constructed property by defendant no.1 at A-61 Hauz Khas, New

Delhi.

4.           I may state that between the plaintiff and the builder/defendant

no1there has already been a compromise and which has been recorded by

this Court vide its orders dated 3.2.2003 and 12.2.2003.

5.           In view of the very fair stand taken by defendant nos. 2 and 3

that do not claim any rights in any portion of the basement/lower ground

floor of the suit property, nothing survives in the present suit. Defendant

nos. 2 and 3 will now execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with
CS(OS)1109/1993                                                            Page 2 of 3
 respect to the entire construction existing in the lower ground

floor/basement of the property A-61 Hauz Khas, New Delhi, and which

will include the disputed servant quarter, a cubical and a bathroom in the

basement/lower ground floor.     The plaintiff will pay all necessary charges

of the sale deed including towards the stamp duty charges or the

registration charges. The sale deed be executed in favour of the plaintiff by

the defendant nos. 2 and 3 within a period of three months from today.

6.           It is also not disputed that limited to the extent of the plaintiff

wanting to maintain his water tanks or his dish-antenna , if fixed at the

terrace, the defendant nos. 2 and 3 will give reasonable access to the terrace

for such purpose.

7.           The suit is accordingly decreed in terms of the aforesaid

observations. Decree sheet be prepared.




SEPTEMBER 19, 2012                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib