High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition seeking a direction that the defendants be restrained from carrying out construction work in the suit property and be restrained from selling, disposing or creating any third-party interest in the suit property.
Brief Facts:
The plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. A shop, which forms part of the suit property was sold by the plaintiff to the defendant no.5 on 13th July, 2017 and the possession of the same was also handed over to the defendant no.5. The defendant no.5 undertook that he would completely co-operate with the plaintiff if any proposal for reconstruction and re-development of the suit property was initiated with any other party, including his own shop and for which purpose, the defendant no. 5 shall hand over vacant peaceful possession of his shop by 10th to 15th of March, 2018. On 24th January, 2018, the plaintiff entered into an Agreement to Sell and Purchase with the defendants no.1 and 2. A Mutual Agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendants no.1 and 2, wherein it was specifically noted that in view of the failure of the plaintiff to get the defendant no.5 to vacate the portion sold to him and other reasons, the sale consideration was reduced. Thereafter, there was a prolonged silence on behalf the plaintiff and only on 1st July, 2021, a legal notice was issued by the plaintiff to defendants no.1 to 5 asking them to make good loss of Rs.95,00,000/- to the plaintiff. Since defendants did not pay the aforesaid amount, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff in September, 2021.
Plaintiff’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that fraud was played upon the plaintiff by the defendants no.1 to 4, who in collusion with defendant no.5, obtained the suit property. It is contended that the defendant no.5 in collusion with defendants no.1 to 4 did not vacate the property and therefore, it resulted in the defendants no.1 to 4 coercing the plaintiff to sell the suit property at a value, which was much less than what was agreed upon.
Defendant’s Contention:
The counsel for the defendants no.1 to 4 has denied that there was fraud played on the plaintiff and that there was collusion between the defendants no.1 to 4 and the defendant no.5.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that the plaintiff has not denied the execution of any of the aforesaid documents. In fact, the plaintiff admits that the entire sale consideration in respect of the Sale Deed dated 9th March, 2020 has been received by the plaintiff. Further, it is an admitted position that the plaintiff remained silent from the date of execution of the Sale Deed on 9th March, 2020 and only sent the legal notice on 1st July, 2021, after almost 16 months. Though, various allegations of fraud and collusion have been raised on behalf of the plaintiff but these are the subject matter of trial in the suit.
HC opined that in the present case, the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction, restraining the defendants from carrying out construction work in the suit property and from selling, disposing or creating any third-party interest in the suit property. At best, the case of the plaintiff is with regard to the deficient amount of consideration of Rs.95,00,000/-, which is a monetary claim. HC further opined that if the plaintiff succeeds in the present suit, she would be entitled to recover the aforesaid amount from the defendants. It is to be noted that that the plaintiff has preferred the present suit only in September, 2021, after almost 16 months of the Sale Deed dated 9th March, 2020, during which time period the defendants were free to deal with the properties exclusively.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “in the present case it is not one where irreparable harm and injury would be caused to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted. On the other hand, if the defendants are restrained from dealing with the suit property, even after they have paid the full consideration in terms of the Sale Deed dated 9th March, 2020 and which Sale Deed has been duly executed in their favour, irreparable harm and injury would be caused to the defendants. In the opinion of this Court, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the defendants. In view of the above, no case for grant of interim injunction is made out.”
Case Title: Vandana Verma v. Roop Singh & Ors.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
Citation: CS(OS) 437/2021
Decided on: 24th March, 2022
Read Judgment @latetlaws.com
Picture Source :
