RAJ RANI SHARMA Vs. GAYATRI KUKREJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of three applications bearing IA Nos.4897/2007 (u/O 39 Rules 1-2 CPC), 7083/2008 (u/O 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC) and 15209/2008 (u/O 39 Rule 4 CPC).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to filing of the present applications are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and in the alternative claiming a compensation to the tune of Rs. 82,16,000/- from the defendants apart from other reliefs. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff was a bonafide purchaser of a residential flat bearing No.B-47 in Upkar Co-operative Group Housing Society situated at plot no.18, Mayur Vihar, Phase I Extension, New Delhi -91 from defendant no.1 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 7,90,000/- vide a registered sale deed dated 9.5.2005. It is alleged that at the time of execution of the sale deed, the defendant no.1 had represented and assured the plaintiff that the property in question was free from all encumbrances. Believing these representations to be true and coupled with the fact that the defendant no.1 had got a certificate from defendant no.2/Society on 29.12.2003 in her favour granting no objection for converting the lease hold rights in respect of the flat to freehold by the DDA, the plaintiff purchased the flat. It is further alleged that subsequent thereto, the DDA had also registered a Conveyance Deed in favour of the defendant no. 1 on 24.8.2004 whereupon the defendant no.1 had sold this flat to the plaintiff on 09.5.2005. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff had taken possession of the flat on 09.4.2004 although the document of sale was executed on 9.5.2005 but on account of sad demise of her husband, she could not carry out the renovation work in the flat. She had allegedly gone to Mascat to be with her son. During this period, she had put the lock on the flat in question and when after a year or so she came back to India in the month of April, 2006, she was surprised to find that the locks of the flat had been changed. She lodged a report with the police on 10.5.2006. To her utter shock and surprise she found that on 20.5.2006, the defendant no.2/cooperative society got an advertisement inserted in newspaper intimating that nobody should deal with the flat in question as the defendant no.1 having membership No.230 had obtained the said membership on the basis of false representation.

(3.) THE defendant no.1 has filed the written statement and contested the claim of the plaintiff. She has denied that the flat has been sold by her to the plaintiff.