Delhi High Court
Vinay Chhabra & Ors. vs Ms. Vera Ruth Rego Gonsalves on 22 January, 2015
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22nd January, 2015
+ FAO(OS) 14/2015 & CM. 435/2015,1017-1018/2015
VINAY CHHABRA & ORS ....Appellants
versus
MS. VERA RUTH REGO GONSALVES ....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Surendra Sesai, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Rakesh Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. The Appellants impugn order dated 19.12.2014 whereby the
learned Single Judge has been pleased to hold the Appellants guilty of
disobeying/committing breach of status quo order dated 11.05.2010.
===============================================================
2. The Respondent (Plaintiff) has filed a Suit for declaration, pre-
emption, permanent injunction, partition and possession claiming
amongst other reliefs a decree of declaration that she is the co-owner
of the suit property to the extent of 1/6th undivided share. The said
Suit is still pending.
3. By order dated 11.05.2010, the learned Single Judge, noting the
contention of the Respondent that the Defendants were contemplating
to sell the suit property, directed the Defendants to maintain status
quo with regard to the title and possession of the suit property.
4. The Respondent filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A
contending that the Appellant No. 2 (Respondent No. 1 in the
application) by Agreement to Sell and Purchase and General Power of
Attorney both dated 16.09.2010 had transferred her 1/3 rd share and
also handed over possession of various portions of the suit property in
favour of Appellant No. 1 (Respondent No. 2 in the application) and
Appellant No. 3 (Respondent No. 3 in the application), in spite of
===============================================================
being aware of the order dated 11.05.2010, agreed to be a witness to
the said transaction.
5. The impugned order held the Appellants guilty of
disobeying/committing breach of status quo order dated 11.05.2010.
6. The Appellants while admitting the execution of the Agreement
to Sell and Purchase and General Power of Attorney dated 16.09.2010,
deny that they are in breach of the status quo order dated 11.05.2010.
7. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that the
Appellants have merely executed an Agreement to Sell and Purchase
and the physical possession has not been transferred. It is further
contended that mere execution of the Agreement to Sell does not
violate the status quo order as the Agreement to Sell does not create
any right or title in the property. Reliance is placed on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private
Limited Vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2012 (1) SCC 656.
===============================================================
8. We find no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for
the Appellants that by execution of the Agreement to Sell the status
quo order has not been violated.
9. The Appellants have not denied that at the time of the execution
of the Agreement to Sell and the General Power of Attorney dated
16.09.2010 the Appellants were aware of the status quo order dated
11.05.2010.
10. The Agreement to Sell dated 16.09.2010 records that the total
sale consideration agreed upon for sale of the 1/3rd share of the
Appellant No. 2 is Rs. 22,00,000/-. The entire sale consideration is
recorded to have been paid, it further records that the vacant and
peaceful possession of the portion of the basement floor and ground
floor and terrace roof rights of first floor out of the said property has
been handed over and the proprietary/symbolic/ownership possession
of the first floor which is occupied by tenants has also been handed
over and the purchaser is empowered to collect the rents, etc.
===============================================================
11. Along with the Agreement to Sell, the Appellant No. 2 has also
executed, in favour of the son of the Appellant No. 1, a registered
General Power of Attorney dated 16.09.2010 giving all sorts of
powers including the power to sell the 1/3rd share of the Appellant No.
2.
12. Direction to maintain status quo with regard to title and
possession of the property implies that the injuncted party cannot
thereafter take any steps or enter into any transaction whereby the
status of the title or possession of the property are affected. It is not
that only a completed transaction of sale or parting with possession
would violate the status quo order but every step taken towards the
completion of the transaction of sale or parting with possession would
also amount to a violation/breach of the status quo order.
13. In the present case, the Appellants have not only executed the
Agreement to Sell but the entire sale consideration has been paid and
received. The vacant physical possession of a part of the property has
===============================================================
also been delivered and received. The contention of the Appellants
that the physical possession has not been delivered cannot be believed
in view of the contrary fact recorded in the Agreement to Sell and also
the fact that a General Power of Attorney giving various powers
including a power of sale has been executed and registered with the
sub-registrar.
14. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellants, that
the Agreement to Sell dated 16.09.2010 was in furtherance to an
earlier agreement and part of the sale consideration was received prior
to the passing of the status quo order, holds no water in as much as
there is no reference of a prior agreement to sell in the Agreement to
Sell dated 16.09.2010 and also the fact that substantial sale
consideration has been received, Agreement to Sell executed, vacant
possession handed over and General Power of Attorney executed and
registered after the status quo order.
===============================================================
15. The reliance of the learned counsel on the decision of the
Supreme Court in Suraj Lamps (supra) is misplaced as the same is
not applicable in the facts of the present case. In the said judgment,
the Supreme Court has laid down that a transfer of immoveable
property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance duly
stamped and registered and any contract of sale, which is not a
registered deed of conveyance, would fall short of the requirements of
Section 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and will not
confer any title or transfer any interest in an immovable property
except to the limited right granted by Section 53-A of the said Act.
16. In the present case, the issue is not with regard to the
completion of the transaction of sale but with regard to violation of
the status quo order with regard to the title and possession of the
property in suit. The execution of the Agreement to Sell, receipt of the
sale consideration, handing over of the physical possession, execution
and registration of the General Power of Attorney are steps taken
===============================================================
towards the transfer of title and possession of the property and clearly
amount to violation of the status quo order dated 11.05.2010.
17. In our opinion, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and
we find no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
JANUARY 22, 2015 BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.
st
===============================================================
