S P SINGH CHANDEL Vs. UTAM SINGH THAPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for recovery of Rs 24,32,667/- as well as perpetual and mandatory injunction. It is alleged that on 18.06.2002, a Collaboration Agreement was executed between the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, for construction of a building on property No. D-100, measuring 40 square yards at Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi. Under the Collaboration Agreement, the plaintiff was to develop basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor, third floor, fourth floor, fifth floor, sixth floor of bearing property No. D-100, measuring 40 squre yards at Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi. The entire cost of construction was to be borne by the plaintiff. On construction, half basement, ground floor, third floor, half fourth floor, sixth floor and half of the terrace rights of the sixth floor were to come to the share of the defendants, whereas half basement, first floor, second floor, half fourth floor, fifth floor and half terrace rights of sixth floor were come to the share of the plaintiff. The passage, staircase, parking, etc. were to be common. The agreement was executed by defendant No. 1 for himself as well as on behalf of defendant No.2. He also executed a power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff, authorizing him to do all acts and deeds in respect of half basement, first floor, second floor with half terrace rights. The case of the plaintiff is that he constructed basement, ground floor and first floor as per collaboration agreement between the parties and thereafter, the construction was stopped due to litigation pending in District Court with respect to access to the suit property. The plaintiff claims to have spent Rs 24,32,667/- for the aforesaid construction.

(2.) IT is also alleged that on 13.11.2009, some persons visited the first floor premises which was in possession of the plaintiff and threatened the plaintiff asking him to vacate the first floor of the suit premises on the ground that defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell the first floor to them. On 08.04.2010, some persons again visited the first floor and threatened the plaintiff, asking him to vacate the same. The plaintiff has now sought recovery of Rs.24,32,667/- which he claims to have spent on construction. He has also sought an injunction restraining the defendant from creating any third party interest in the suit property and dispossessing the plaintiff from portion occupied by him.

(3.) THE plaintiff has filed his own affidavit by way of evidence in which he has supported, on oath, the case set out in the plaint.