PUSHPA DEVI Vs. LATE SH. MAHARAJ KUMAR MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I propose to dispose of the captioned interlocutory applications (hereinafter referred to as "IAs"). The first, IA being: IA no. 13061/2009; has been filed by the plaintiff under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"); while the second, IA being: IA no. 3108/2010; has been filed by the defendant nos. 1 (a) to (e) to seek vacation of the interim order dated 12.10.2009.

(2.) The case set up by the plaintiff is as follows: The plaintiff in the suit has sought specific performance of her receipt-cum-memorandum of understanding dated 13.04.2007, by virtue of which she claims a right in 50% undivided share in the property situate at A-16, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"). It is the case of the plaintiff that she is already an owner of the other half of A-16, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi property. The ownership, with respect to the said 50% undivided share, is claimed by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 16.05.2009, which evidently has been executed in favour of the plaintiff by one Satish K. Mehta.

(3.) The background in which the plaintiff has instituted the present suit is, as follows: The property situate at A-16, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Rana Pratap Bagh property") was evidently owned by one late Sh. Laxman Dass and his wife Dhanwati Devi. It appears that Laxman Dass predeceased his wife Dhanwati Devi. After the death of Dhanwati Devi, disputes arose between her nephew Harbanslal Mehta and his children Maharaj Kr. Mehta and Satish Kr. Mehta. A suit for perpetual injunction was filed by Maharaj Kr. Mehta, who claimed to be the adopted son of late Laxman Dass, before the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi. This suit was registered as suit no. 780/1982. In the said suit, Harbans Lal Mehta along with his wife Padam Piari and Satish Kr. Mehta, amongst others, were impleaded as defendants. In the said suit parties arrived at a settlement. The settlement was recorded in the court's order dated 13.02.1984. Broadly, by virtue of this settlement, it was agreed that during their life time, late Harbanslal Mehta and his wife late Padam Piari Mehta would remain the absolute owners of the Rana Pratap Bagh property. After the death of their parents, late Maharaj Kr. Mehta and Satish Kr. Mehta each would own 50% undivided share in the Rana Paratap Bagh property. The plaintiff claims, as indicated above, that she has purchased 50% undivided share of Satish Kr. Mehta by virtue of registered sale deed dated 16.05.2009. As regards the remaining 50% undivided share in the Rana Pratap Bagh property, owned by late Maharaj Kr. Mehta; the plaintiff claims rights by virtue of a receipt-cum-agreement dated 07.09.2008, executed in her favour by defendant no. 2, i.e., one Shri Raj Kr. Gupta. It is averred that Shri Raj Kr. Gupta, by virtue of the said receipt-cum-agreement dated 07.09.2008 has assigned his rights and interest in the other 50% share in the Rana Pratap Bagh property in favour of the plaintiff. In so far as Shri Raj Kr. Gupta is concerned, he acquired the rights of late Maharaj Kr. Mehta share in the suit property by virtue of receipt-cum-memorandum of understanding dated 13.04.2007. It is averred that the legal heirs of Maharaj Kr. Mehta, despite repeated requests, have declined to consummate the sale. It is also averred that both defendant no. 2 earlier, as well as the plaintiff now, in her capacity as the assignee, is ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement. The plaintiff claims that she has sufficient funds to pay balance consideration which, according to her, is a sum of Rs 27.50 lacs. It is further averred that there is an apprehension that the legal heirs of Maharaj Kr. Mehta may create third party interest in the suit property. The apprehension, it appears, stems from the fact that the Rana Pratap Bagh property, wherein a shop is evidently located on the ground floor, has fallen vacant which, the legal heirs may attempt to sell and, thereby, compromise the interest of the plaintiff.