RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY I T DEPTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading up to the filing of the writ petition are as follows. THE petitioner is one Raghbir Singh of 302-R, Model Town, Ludhiana-II. He was desirous of acquiring residential property in Delhi on ownership basis and accordingly approached respondent Nos. 3 to 9, who are Smt. Vidyawati, wife of late Shiv Saran Das and their six sons. Vidya Wati owned the property at No.27, Bazar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi. She had acquired the property under a registered gift deed in October, 1950. THE petitioner negotiated with Vidyawati and her sons for the purchase of the property. As a result of the negotiations, the petitioner is stated to have agreed to purchase the rights, title and interest in the whole of the terrace floor with mumty over the ground floor in the residential building owned by Vidyawati. THEse rights were to be acquired by him together with 50% undivided share in the plot of land underneath the building. THE total consideration was Rs. 3,25,000/-. An agreement to sell was accordingly entered into on 11.7.1992 between the petitioner on the one hand and Vidyawati and her sons on the other.

(2.) THE petitioner thereafter paid the consideration of Rs.3,25,000/- undertaken to be paid by him to Vidyawati. It is claimed that she delivered vacant possession of the terrace floor in part performance of the agreement and undertook to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and also to obtain all requisite permissions from the authorities. It is alleged that there was some delay by Vidyawati in discharging her obligations under the agreement to sell. At one point of time it appears that Vidyawati and her sons had offered to sell the entire property to the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs.53,50,000/-. However, this did not materialise. Instead, Vidyawati offered the rear side portion of the premises to the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs.7.50 lacs. This, it is stated, was accepted by the petitioner who paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the Vidyawati who also acknowledged the same.

(3.) IN terms of the order dated 04.03.1994 of the Court in the aforesaid suit the petitioner filed an application on 20.5.1994 before the appropriate authority constituted under Chapter XX-C of the INcome Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short) in Form No.37-I seeking clearance for the purchase of the property along with the agreement to sell dated 10.5.1994. IN the meantime, Vidyawati had moved an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court against the order passed by the Single Judge on 10.12.1993. After noticing the course of events and the various negotiations and settlements agreed upon between the parties the Division Bench dismissed the appeal by order dated 28.04.1994. Vidyawati then filed an application before the Single Judge under Sections 152 and 153 of the CPC and in the course of the proceedings before the learned Single Judge submitted that the agreement to sell between them and the petitioner had been executed, that the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Act were complied with and the permission to sell the property was expected to be received within two months. They also stated that public notice regarding the loss of original title deed in respect of the property had already been issued. Thus, the litigation between the parties came to an end.