HARI NARAYAN KUMAR Vs. RADHEY SHAM MARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these four applications under Order 39 Rules 1 arid 2 Civil Procedure Code for various interim injunctions have been filed by the plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance and injunction based on an agreement to sell dated 13.4.1989 in their favour entered into between them and defendants No. 3 to 5 on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, is that defendants No. 1 and 2 are the perpetual lessees of plot of land No. C-6/37, Safdarjung Residential Scheme New Delhi. Defendants No. 3 to 5 had represented to them that defendants No. 1 and 2 had entered into a collaboration agreement with defendants No. 3 to 5 on 16.6.1987, the latter agreeing to develop and construct apartments over this plot of land at their own cost after obtaining necessary sanctions/permissions on the terms agreed therein with a right and authority to defendants No. 3 to 5 to sell the flats to be constructed to others. On construction being made, defendants No. 3 to 5 had entered into an agreement to sell dated 13.4.1989 with the plaintiffs agreeing to sell complete ground floor flat in the said building comprising of three bedrooms with attached, bathrooms, drawing/dining with front, middle and back courtyards for a consideration of Rs. 6.50 lakhs. Out of this sale consideration, Rs. 5.50 lakhs were paid by them by means of two bank drafts of Rs. 1.50 lakhs and Rs. 4.00 lakhs dated 12.4.1989 and 13.4.1989 and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed after obtaining requisite clearance under Section 230-A of the Income Tax Act arid permission from the DDA within six months. Vacant possession of the premises including that of the back courtyard was also given to them, that the plaintiffs, have been ready and willing to complete their part of the agreement. The sale having not been completed by the defendants in spite of notices, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for specific performance and injunction against interference in their use, occupation and enjoyment of the premises including the back courtyard. Regarding interference in their use and occupation, it is alleged that the back courtyard was also agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs, it belongs to them, possession of it was given to them and they are in its possession; that there is a basement underneath and its windows have openings in that courtyard; the defendants No. 1 and 2 illegally and unlawfully have been trying to enter into the said courtyard through those windows with a view to occupy the courtyard and to deprive the plaintiffs of it which has been resisted in the past. However plaintiffs apprehending further such attempts have also sought injunction against such interference and seeks directions to put permanent grill over those windows.

(3.) Along with the suit, the plaintiffs had also filed an application I.A. No. 8219/92 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code on which by an ex parte interim injunction passed on May 29, 1992 the defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs with respect to the ground floor of property bearing No. C-6/37, Safdarjung Residential Scheme, New Delhi and also from transferring, alienating or encumbering in any manner the ground floor of the said premises.