Delhi High Court
M/S Manglayatam Projects Pvt Ltd vs Dharam Veer Singh (Since ... on 1 September, 2016
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 3569/2014 & IAs No.23157/2014 and 2276-77/2016
M/S MANGLAYATAM PROJECTS PVT LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocate with
Mr. Ankush Jain, Director of plaintiff in person.
versus
DHARAM VEER SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS & ANR
..... Defendants
Through : Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate
for D-1(a), (b) & (c).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 01.09.2016
1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff praying inter alia
for a decree of specific performance against the defendants, in respect of an
Agreement to Sell dated 30.11.2012, executed between Late Shri Dharamvir
Singh, (the predecessor-in-title of the defendants No.1) and the defendant
No. 2, MOU dated 4.3.2013 executed between the predecessor-in-title of the
defendants No.1 & 2 and the plaintiff, and the Receipt/agreement dated
18.3.2013, executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff, in
respect of half of the undivided share in agricultural land measuring 643
biswas, i.e., 32 bighas 3 biswas comprised in Khasra No.45/9/2 (1-08),
12/2(1-18), 13(4-15), 14(3-16), 15(2-02), 16(4-08), 17/1/(4-04), 18(4-16),
19(4-16) situated in the revenue estate of village Auchandi, Delhi. Further,
the plaintiff has sought a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the
defendant No.1 from creating any third party interest in the subject
landholding. In the alternative, the plaintiff has prayed for directions to the
defendant No.1, to refund an amount of Rs.1.00 crore paid to their
predecessor-in-title as earnest money along with interest.
2. Pleadings in the suit are complete. When the case was listed on
18.7.2016, for framing of issues, Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the
defendants No.1(a), (b) & (c) (legal heirs of Shir Dharamvir Singh, the
original owner of the subject landholding) had stated that without prejudice
to the rights and contentions of his clients, they are ready and willing to
concede the relief of specific performance prayed for by the plaintiff on the
condition that out of the agreed total sale consideration of Rs.4,68,85,417/-,
as recorded in the Agreement to Sell dated 30.11.2012, the balance sale
consideration of Rs.3,68,85,417/- be paid by the plaintiff, after adjusting the
sum of Rs.1.00 crore already received by them, along with interest for the
delayed payment. In view of the aforesaid submission, counsel for the
plaintiff was directed to obtain necessary instructions from his client.
3. Today, Mr. Rana, learned counsel for the plaintiff states on
instructions from Mr. Ankush Jain, Director of the plaintiff company, who is
present in person, that the plaintiff has no objection to discharging its
obligations under the Agreement to Sell dated 30.11.2012, MOU dated
4.3.2013 and the Receipt/agreement dated 18.3.2013. He however disputes
the contention of the defendants that there has been a deliberate delay on the
part of the plaintiff in discharging its obligations under the contract. He
states that vide Agreement to Sell dated 30.11.2012 executed between the
defendant No.2 and Shri Dharamvir Singh, [predecessor-in-title of the
defendant No.1(a), (b) & (c)], the parties had agreed that the owner of the
subject landholding shall sell the same to the defendant No.2 for a total sale
consideration of Rs.4,68,85,417/- and at the time of executing the said
contract, part sale consideration of Rs.50.00 lacs was received by Shri
Dharamvir Singh. Subsequently, a MOU dated 4.3.2013 was executed
between the plaintiff/company (who had stepped into the shoes of the
defendant No.2), and Shri Dharamvir Singh, whereunder both the parties
had agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the sale as recorded in the
Agreement to Sell dated 30.11.2012. This was followed by the execution of
the Receipt dated 18.3.2013, by Shri Dharamvir Singh, who had
acknowledged having received a sum of Rs.50.00 lacs from the plaintiff,
towards part sale consideration and undertaken inter alia that he would
execute the sale deed within the period one year from the date of execution
of the Agreement to Sell, i.e., on or before 30.11.2013.
4. Counsel for the plaintiff states that instead of abiding by the terms and
conditions of the Agreement to Sell dated 30.11.2012, by executing the sale
deed in favour of the plaintiff on or before the cut off date, the predecessor-
in-title of the defendant No.1(a), (b) & (c) had served a misconceived legal
notice dated 21.3.2013 on the plaintiff, terminating the said contract. The
plaintiff had replied to the said notice, vide letter dated 2.12.2013, wherein it
had showed its readiness and willingness to execute a sale deed in respect of
the landholding within fifteen days from the date of issuing the said reply.
When the predecessor-in-title of the defendant No.1(a), (b) & (c) refused to
respond to the said reply, the plaintiff was compelled to institute the present
suit on 17.10.2014. He thus questions the right of the defendant No.1 (a), (b)
& (c) to demand interest on the balance sale consideration on the ground that
his client was always ready and willing to discharge its obligations under the
contract.
5. It may be noted that Shri Dharamvir Singh had expired on 11.4.2014,
prior to institution of the present suit. As a result, the present suit has been
filed by the plaintiff against his legal heirs and Shri Sudhir Singh, the
original purchaser named in the Agreement to Sell dated 30.11.2012.
6. This Court is not persuaded by the submission made by the counsel
for defendant No.1(a), (b) & (c) to the effect that the plaintiff had
deliberately delayed in discharging its obligations under the Agreement to
Sell dated 30.11.2012. On a perusal of the contents of the legal notice dated
21.10.2013 issued by Shri Dharamvir Singh, it transpires that the only
ground taken by him for terminating the contract was that a copy of the said
document had not been furnished to him, which is rather flimsy.
7. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the defendant No.1(a),
(b) & (c) states that if the plaintiff agrees to pay the defendants No.1(a), (b)
and (c) the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,68,85,417/- within two weeks
from the date they furnish a NOC from the revenue authorities, which is a
pre-condition for executing the sale deed in respect of the subject
landholding in terms of Clause (a) of the Agreement to Sell dated
30.11.2012, his clients shall execute a Sale Deed in their favour. Counsel for
the plaintiff is agreeable to the said suggestion.
8. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, a decree of specific
performance is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants
No.1(a), (b) and (c) in respect of half undivided share in agricultural land
measuring 643 biswas, i.e., 32 bighas 3 biswas comprised in Khasra
No.45/9/2 (1-08), 12/2(1-18), 13(4-15), 14(3-16), 15(2-02), 16(4-08),
17/1/(4-04), 18(4-16), 19(4-16) situated in the revenue estate of village
Auchandi, Delhi. As a first step, defendant No.1(a), (b) & (c) shall
immediately apply to and obtain a NOC from the revenue authorities for
executing a Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants shall
execute the sale deed in respect of the subject landholding in favour of the
plaintiff within two weeks from the date of obtaining a NOC from the
revenue authorities. The plaintiff shall pay the balance sale consideration of
Rs.3,68,85,417/- to the defendants No.1(a), (b) and (c) at the time of
execution of the Sale Deed in respect of the subject landholding before the
Registrar of Assurance. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
9. In case either party commits a default in discharging their obligations,
as recorded hereinabove, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to seek
execution of the judgment and decree, in accordance with law.
10. The suit is disposed of, along with the pending applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SEPTEMBER 01, 2016
sk/rkb/ap
