Delhi High Court
Mrs Maya Dulani vs Shri Gopal Dulani & Anr on 30 October, 2015
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 3259/2015 & IAs No.22881-82/2015
MRS MAYA DULANI ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate
versus
SHRI GOPAL DULANI & ANR ..... Defendants
Through : Mr. Dinesh Garg, Advocate
for D-1 with D-1 in person.
Ms. Rachna Aggarwal, Advocate for D-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 30.10.2015
1. The plaintiff (wife of defendant No.1) has instituted the present
suit praying inter alia for a decree of permanent injunction restraining
defendant No.1 from executing the sale deed in respect of the entire
ground floor with front lawn and rear courtyard along with the right to
construct a basement in the event of reconstruction of premises
bearing No.C-29, New Delhi South Extension Part-I, New Delhi
measuring 200 sq. yards.
2. In the alternative, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree against
the defendant No.1 directing him to pay a sum of Rs.21.00 lacs within
a period of one week from the date of execution of the sale deed in
respect of the suit premises in favour of defendant No.2, the proposed
purchaser. Counsel for the plaintiff hastens clarify that the present
suit is directed against the defendant No.1 alone and defendant No.2
has only been impleaded as a proforma party.
3. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the defendant No.1 enters
appearance and states that the relationship between the plaintiff and
his client is strained and the plaintiff is harbouring an impression that
the defendant No.1 shall not abide by the promise made by him to his
deceased mother that he would pay her 50% of the sale consideration
received in respect of the ground floor of the suit premises. He states
that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.42.00 lacs, the defendant
No.1 has received a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs from the defendant No.2
towards earnest money and he has assured the plaintiff that upon
receiving the balance sale consideration, he shall pay a sum of
Rs.21.00 lacs to her at one go. However, due to sheer lack of faith,
the plaintiff is apprehensive that the defendant No.1 may not abide by
his assurance.
4. Counsel for the plaintiff states his client had called upon the
defendant No.1 to pay her 50% of the earnest money, but he had
refused to do so and instead stated that he will pay 50% of the entire
sale consideration at one go and in this background, the plaintiff has
had to approach this Court for protecting her interests in the suit
premises.
5. Counsel for the defendant No.1 states, on instructions from his
client, that he shall not renege from the assurance given to the
plaintiff that he will pay 50% of the entire sale consideration to her in
respect of the ground floor of the suit premises within one week from
the date of execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2.
He agrees to give a written intimation to the plaintiff of the date fixed
for executing the sale deed of the suit premises so that the period of
one week can be reckoned therefrom.
6. Both the parties state that in view of the assurance given by the
defendant No.1, as recorded above, the suit may be disposed of.
7. In view of the submissions made by the counsels for the plaintiff
and the defendant No.1 that the dispute between the wife and the
husband with regard to payment of 50% of the sale consideration in
respect of the suit premises would stand resolved on the defendant
No.1 paying a sum of Rs.21.00 lacs to the plaintiff within one week
from the date of execution of the sale deed, the suit is disposed of,
along with the pending applications, while binding the defendant No.1
to the statement recorded herein above.
8. File be consigned to the record room.
HIMA KOHLI, J
OCTOBER 30, 2015
sk
