DEEPAK MOHINDRA Vs. RADHEY SHAM MARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these four applications under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code for various interim injunctions have been tiled by the plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance based on an Agreement to Sell dated 16.7.1989 entered into between them and defendant Nos. 3 to 5 on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, is that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the perpetual lessees of plot of land No. C-6/37, Safdarjung Residential Scheme, New Delhi. Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 had represented to them that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into a collaboration agreement with defendant Nos. 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 defendant Nos. 3 to 5 to sell the flats to be constructed to others in pursuance of the collaboration agreement, defendant Nos. 3 to 5 had paid initially Rs. 50,000.00 and further payment of Rs. 2.00 lakhs was paid subsequently on 10.5.1988 as advance payment; that they had also obtained the consent and approval of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the sale of the said premises in favour of the plaintiffs and also about the sale consideration.

(3.) After so constructing the building, the defendant .Nos. 3. to 5 had agreed to sell premises on first floor of the said property to plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 5,85,000.00 for which Agreement to Sell dated 16.7.1989 was executed between defendant Nos. 3 and 4 as attorneys for defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Whole of the sale consideration was paid at the same time and possession of the premises was also handed over to the plaintiffs who are in occupation and residing there since then. The defendants, however, have failed to execute and get registered the sale deed in their favour despite requests made and also notices sent by them; defendants are harassing the plaintiffs and are refusing to execute the sale deed in their favour. The plaintiffs have filed this suit for specific performance and damages.