VEENA ARORA Vs. DEVINDER KUMAR MAHNDRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has filed this application seeking temporary injunction against the defendant for restraining him from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from second floor roof with terrace rights of the suit property and also restraining him, his servants, agents, assignees, representatives, attorneys or any other person acting on his behalf from creating any third party interest in the second floor roof with terrace rights of the suit property till pendency of the suit.

(2.) In brief, case of the plaintiff is that suit premises i.e. M-31, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi was initially owned by one Shri Ashok Narang and Smt. Geeta Narang. The said two persons sold ground floor of the said premises to one Shri Devinder Mahna, first floor to Shri Gagandeep and second floor to Shri Devinder Kumar Mahindru, the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- each vide separate Sale Deeds dated 31st March, 2005. Later on all aforesaid three persons sold their respective shares in the suit premises to plaintiff's husband Shri Raj Kumar Arora, plaintiff's son Gaurav Arora and herself for Rs. 6,00,000/- each, which was paid by Raj Kumar Arora vide three cheques dated 15th May, 2005. On 18th May, 2005 defendant had received full amount for selling his share in the suit premises consisting of second floor/terrace in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff and her family members received complete physical possession of the suit premises. Shri Devinder Mahna executed requisite Sale Deed in respect of ground floor in favour of Raj Kumar Arora on 22nd July, 2005 which was got registered on 18th August, 2005. However, Gagandeep and Devinder Kumar Mahndru refused to execute the Sale Deed and demanded more money from the plaintiff and her family on the plea that prices of the property had increased. Since defendant refused to execute Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, plaintiff filed the present suit seeking declaration as owner of the second floor of the suit premises, mandatory injunction against defendant to direct him to execute the Sale Deed in respect of the suit premises and a decree for permanent injunction to restrain him from creating any third party interest in the suit property.

(3.) During pendency of the suit, plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") and sought amendment of the plaint with permission to claim a relief of specific performance of the contract. The said application was allowed by this Court on 6th August, 2007.