HIGH WAY FARMS Vs. CHINTA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for temporary injunction has been filed in a suit for the specific performance of land situated in Khasra Nos. 314(4-16), 313(4- 16), 315(4-16) situated in Village Shahroorpur, District Mehrauli, New Delhi. This agreement based on a receipt dated 22.9.1991 has allegedly been signed by defendant Nos. 1,3,9,10 and II. In this very suit specific performance of another piece of land has also been claimed on the basis of another receipt dated 3.10.1991. The land mentioned in the second receipt is situated in Khasra No. 311(4-16), 312(1- 4) situated in the same village and allegedly executed by defendant Nos. 13,14 and 15. There is no document witnessing any agreement between plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2,4,5,6,7,8 and 12 but they have all been impleaded in the suit.

(2.) Learned Counsel for defendants had raised an objection to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of mis-joinder of parties as well as mis-joinder of causes of action. Primafacie both these objections are well founded but in the view which I have taken, I need not expand on these objections.

(3.) As lias been stated above, the suit is predicated on two documents styled as receipts. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the contents of these documents should be read holistically and meaningfully and that merely because these are styled as receipts, it would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that an Agreement to Sell had not been entered into. To this extent learned Counsel for the plaintiff is no doubt correct. In .all such cases a duty is cast on the Court to examine the document in question and to arrive at a conclusion as to whether it contains all the necessary concomitants of an agreement. In M/s. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinod KumarAlag, AIR 1991 Delhi 315, Aruri Kumar, J. had made the following observations :