TARUN SAWHNEY Vs. UMA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for specific performance of the two agreements to sell both dated 16th September, 2009, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction. The Plaintiff has also made an alternative prayer for damages in case specific performance of the agreement to sell is not granted.

(2.) Property bearing BP No. 32, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi, admeasuring 1021 sq. metres was owned by Ms. Usha Bhagat. Vide agreement to sell dated 14th August, 1969, she agreed to sell her half undivided share in the property to her brother Defendant No. 5 Mr. Venoo Bhagat. In a suit filed by Ms. Veenu, a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 14th August, 1969 was passed against Ms. Usha Bhagat, which led to execution of a sale deed/transfer deed dated 11th September, 2008 in his favour, in respect of half undivided portion of the suit property. During her lifetime, Ms. Usha Bhagat had also executed a Will dated 10th April, 2003 in respect of the suit property. In a petition, filed by the Executor of the aforesaid Will dated 10th April, 2003, Letter of Administration was granted by the Court in favour of Defendants 1 and 2, who were the Executors of the Will. The Defendants, who are also the legal heirs of Ms. Usha Bhagat later agreed that all of them would equally share one half undivided share in the suit property, while the remaining undivided share would be owned exclusively by Defendant No. 5 in terms of the decree passed in his favour. They also agreed to sell the suit property on or before 31st December, 2008. The Defendants vide two agreements both dated 16th September, 2009 agreed to sell the suit property to the Plaintiff. One agreement was executed only by Defendant No. 5, whereas the other agreement was executed by all the five Defendants together and both the agreements contained reference to each other. Initially, the sale consideration in respect of half undivided share owned exclusively by Defendant No. 5 was fixed at Rs 12.90 crores, but it was later revised to Rs 15.90 crores vide Supplementary Agreement dated 16th September, 2009. A sum of Rs 90 lakhs was paid by the Plaintiff to Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 as advance money and the balance consideration was to be paid in terms of Clause 5 of the agreement. A sum of Rs 10 lakhs was paid to Defendant No. 5 in respect of the second agreement and the remaining amount was payable in terms of Clause 3 of the said agreement.

(3.) At the time of execution of the agreements, the suit property was yet to be mutated in the names of Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and it was also required to be converted from lease-hold to free-hold, the mutation and conversion being pre-requisite conditions for the sale of the suit property. The Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 11,76,000/- on 28th June, 2010 and another sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- on 26th July, 2010 towards payment of conversion charges and misuse charges/ground rent respectively. It was agreed between the parties that if conversion of lease-hold rights into free-hold rights is granted by L&DO in the name of the Plaintiff, he would intimate the Defendants in this regard who would then hand over the possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff on his making payment of the balance consideration. In case of conversion being granted in the name of the Defendants, they were required to execute and register a sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff.