SARAWJEET SINGH Vs. SARASWATI BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, the following three suits can conveniently be dispoed of together. 1. Suit No.2210/97 Mrs.Sarawjeet Singh ... Plaintiff. vs. M/s.Saraswati Builders & Ors. ... Defendants 2. Suit No.2211/97 Mr.M.Jha ... Plaintiff. vs. M/s.Saraswati Builders & Ors. ... Defendants. 3. Suit No.2212/97 Mrs.Sushila Devi Jha ... Plaintiff. vs. M/s.Saraswati Builders & Ors. ... Defendants. All the three suits had been consolidated by this Court vide order passed on 18.9.1998. Since the question involved are identical, for sake of convenience the same are being mentioned from Suit No.2211/97.

(2.) The plaintiff N.Jha had filed the suit seeking a declaration, declaring the agreement to sell dated 13.1.1997, to be null and void and for recovery of Rs.15,61,570/- besides pendente lite interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Rs.5,50,000.00 are claimed as damages suffered by the plaintiff by keeping blocked the amount of the plaintiff of Rs.27.00 lakhs to honour its obligation under the agreement to sell dated 13.1.1997.

(3.) The facts alleged in the plaint are that defendant (M/s.Saraswati Builders) is a partnership firm and Mrs.Neena Seth represents herself to be the one of the partners. The defendant is a contractor and builder carrying on the business of construction of buildings. In January 1997, the defendant, through its partner approached the plaintiff and made certain representations and gave assurances which were later on found to be false and deceitful. The defendant represented to the plaintiff that under Collaboration Agreement dated 15.6.1996 entered with one M/s.Teprim Overseas Pvt.Ltd. it has constructed a building over Plot No.C-462, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The defendant further represented that by virtue of and under the said collaboration agreement, the defendant was competent and entitled to enter into agreement to sell and deliver possession of the first floor of the property. It was represented further that by virtue of General Power of Attorney dated 20.6.1996, executed by one Pradeep Bakshi, a constituted attorney of the recorded owner Mr.H.B. Datar, in favour of Mrs.Neena Seth, the defendant would be able to execute a sale deed. It was told that the right of defendant to sell and deliver possession was unfattered and unrestricted. Relying on the said assurance given and the representation made, the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale. Vide the agreement of sale, the defendant agreed to sell and plaintiff agreed to purchase portion of the first floor of the building, comprising of drawing/dining room, one servant quarter with common bath/WC. The total sale consideration was Rs.41.00 lakhs. Out of the said sale consideration, the plaintiff made part payment of a sum of Rs.14.00 lakhs. It was acknowledged by the defendant.