SUNITA SINHA Vs. LEELA BUILDERS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER the President of India, Late Shri R.N.Luthra held perpetual lease-hold rights in 48 Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, as per perpetual lease-deed dated November 30, 1961. He constructed a residential building consisting of 21/2 floors; a garage block with servant quarters on top. He executed a will on September 10, 1971 bequeathing 1/3rd undivided share to his two daughters Smt.Santosh Sethi and Smt.Nirmal Krishan and grandson Rajiv Luthra. Upon his death, on December 16, 1972 the will was got probated in Probate Case No.1/1974 as per order dated November 26, 1975 passed by this Court. Santosh Sethi executed a will on February 20, 1983 bequeathing her share to her son Sanjiv Sethi and upon her death on June 29, 1984, Sanjiv Sethi acquired 1/3 rd undivided share in the property. Nirmal Krishan executed a will on December 30, 1988 bequeathing her 1/3rd undivided share to her husband G.D.Krishan. But, during her lifetime, Nirmal Krishan along with Rajiv Luthra and Sanjiv Sethi executed an agreement to sell on January 24, 1989 in favour of 6 companies, impleaded as defendants No.1 to 6 in the suit filed by Sunita Sinha and Arvind Krishan Malhotra who are the daughter and son respectively of Nirmal Krishan and claim to be the owners of 1/3rd share in the property on the plea that upon Nirmal Krishan dying on October 03, 1990 her husband G.D.Krishan inherited her 1/3rd share in the property and upon G.D.Krishan dying intestate, they i.e. Sunita Sinha and Arvind Krishan Malhotra acquired 1/3rd share in the property.

(2.) THE agreement to sell records that the six companies who were acting through their Directors U.S.Sitani and Leela Sitani, impleaded as defendants No.7 and 8 in the suit, would pay Rs.80,70,000/- as sale consideration for sale of the house. It records Nirmal Krishan, Rajiv Luthra and Sanjiv Sethi having received Rs.10,50,000/- and envisages that upon clearance being obtained under the Income Tax Act within six months the six companies would pay another sum of Rs.62,40,000/- and the balance sum of Rs.7,80,000/- would be paid when sale deed would be executed. It stands further recorded that simultaneously upon receipt of Rs.62,40,000/- the sellers shall deliver vacant physical possession of such portion of the house which was self-occupied and symbolic possession of the rented portion to the buyers. The document records that the property had been re-entered by the lessor and envisages the purchasers to have the re-entry cancelled and such amount as was payable to the lessor would be paid by the purchasers, but the same would be adjustable from the amount payable to the sellers.

(3.) NOTING that the agreed sale consideration was Rs.80,70,000/- and out of which as per the agreement to sell Rs.10,50,000/- was received by the sellers, the stage for paying further sum of Rs.62,40,000/- was within six months of the execution of the agreement to sell on January 24, 1989 and that left balance sale consideration in sum of Rs.7,80,000/-, to be paid, but from which amount such sum which the purchasers had to pay to the lessor for revocation of the re-entry notice had to be deducted, suffice would it be to state that if the purchasers would have paid Rs.62,40,000/-, no further amount was payable to the sellers; rather it was the sellers who would have to make a refund to the buyers inasmuch as the buyers paid Rs.8,23,646.72 to the lessor.