DALMIA CEMENT BHARAT LTD Vs. HANSALYA PROPERTIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned before this court is the order dated 09.04.2008 vide which on a preliminary issue taken up by the Trial Court, the plaintiff had been directed to pay up the ad-valorem court fee on the amount of sale consideration of Rs.24,32,950/-. Plaintiff/petitioner is aggrieved by this finding.

(2.) Record shows that the present petitioner had filed a suit for perpetual, mandatory injunction and damages. Plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act; defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm comprising of defendant Nos. 2 to 4. In 1970, the father of the defendant No. 2 holding himself out as the owner of property bearing No. 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and in his capacity as a partner of Hansalaya Properties Ltd. had made a multi storied building on the aforenoted premises comprising of floors/flats; undertaking was that each flat would consist of individual flats and purchase would be on ownership basis carrying all rights which are necessary for a complete and proper utilization and enjoyment of the said floors/flats. Negotiations between the plaintiff and the defendants ensued; letter dated 30.09.1970 as also another communication dated 01.10.1970 was exchanged between the parties. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff had acquired rights of 11th and 12th floor of the said building; these rights had been purchased by the plaintiff. Other communications as noted in the plaint were also exchanged between the parties. Possession of the aforenoted flats was given to the plaintiff on 01.04.1977 and thereafter the parking area sold to the plaintiff was also handed over to the plaintiff-Company on 01.04.1978. Contention in the plaint is that the possession of the two floors was handed over to the plaintiff on 01.04.1977 and not on 31.03.1973 which was the stipulated date. Further contention in the plaint is that in spite of the entire sale consideration having been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, in fact an excess amount had been paid, sale deed has not been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Cause of action has been detailed in para 22 and the valuation of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is detailed in para 23 which reads as follows:-

(3.) The prayers made in the plaint are as follows:-