INDIAN BANK Vs. TAJ WORLD FAME BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking alternative reliefs, one for possession of the disputed flat no. 6D in the multistorey constructed building on a plot of land bearing no. 10, Bhagwan Dass Road, Mandi House, New Delhi. The second alternative relief is for a money decree of Rs. 92.97 lacs being the costs as value of the disputed flat.

(2.) AS per the plaint, the plaintiff avers that the plaintiff/ bank agreed to purchase four flats bearing nos. 3B, 6D, 7C and 7D from the builders being the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in the building to be constructed at 10, Bhagwan Dass Road, Mandi House, New Delhi. Para-4 of the plaint says that the agreed price was paid. Para 5 of the plaint avers that the possession of all the four flats was handed over to the plaintiff on 19 th /20 th July, 1991 and 29 th July, 1991. In the plaint, it is further stated that the builder/defendant no.1 wanted the plaintiff /bank to give back the possession of flat no. 6D as it was required by the adjoining owner of flat no. 6C and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 (defendant no.2 being the authorized signatory of defendant no. 1) promised to handover a flat in substitution of flat no. 6D. The plaint further states that flat no. 6D remained un-allotted by the plaintiff to any of its officers and thus remained vacant for a long time because of which the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are said to have taken advantage by taking illegal possession of the same in June/July, 1993. Originally, the suit was filed against defendant nos. 1 and 2 however subsequently, the purchasers of the flat no. 6D were added as defendant nos. 3 and 4 in the suit. The amended plaint states that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 after taking illegal possession of flat no. 6D agreed to transfer the same to defendant nos. 3 and 4 who were stated to be in an unauthorized possession of the flat. The plaint concludes that the defendant nos. 3 & 4 being in illegal possession, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are liable to either handover the possession of the flat 6D or the value of the flat. Plaintiff also seeks relief of mesne profits against the defendants.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by defendant nos. 3 and 4, it has been averred that rights in the subject flat no. 6D were purchased by them under Flat Buyer 's Agreements dated 26.6.1990 and 10.8.1990, and possession was given to defendant nos. 3 and 4 by defendant nos. 1 and 2 on 18.11.1991. The case of the plaintiff/ bank is denied that the plaintiff /bank was in possession of the subject flat. It is stated that the plaintiff has no right in the subject flat and therefore qua defendant nos. 3 and 4, no relief can be granted in favour of the plaintiff /bank.