ANIL SHARMA Vs. MAHESH DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for declaration, injunction and specific performance of an agreement stated to have been executed by defendants No.1 to 19 in favour of the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs in this regard is that land measuring 11 bighas, 17 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 127(1-12), 128(3-03), 131(3-18) and 186/133(2-19) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Kalu Sarai, Old Mehrauli Road, presently known as 4, Aurbindo Marg, New Delhi, was owned by late Shri Parmeshwari Dass and on his death, it devolved on his five legal heirs, namely, Mahesh Dass, Damodar Dass, Shiv Charan Dass, Ganesh Dass and Durga Rani. It is further alleged that the suit land was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act followed by declaration under Section 6 of the said Act. The land, however, came to be released from execution on 23 rd September, 1986. It is stated in para 10 of the plaint that after the suit land was released from acquisition, defendants No.1 to 19 approached plaintiffs No.1 and 2 for selling the same to them for a consideration of Rs.5 crores, for the land as well as the super-structure existed on it. It is further alleged that defendants No.1 to 19 agreed to sell the aforesaid land for the price of Rs.5 crores and the plaintiffs paid Rs.2.95 crores to them as part-payment between September, 1987 to July, 1989. Another notification under Sections 4 & 17 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued on 19th February, 1990, which was challenged in this Court by way of a writ petition. It is stated in para 15 of the plaint that in continuation of the earlier agreement, another document dated 3rd January, 1994 was executed between plaintiffs No.1 & 2 and defendants No.1 to 19 whereby plaintiff No.3 was also inducted as a purchaser in respect of half of the suit land and the plaintiffs made further payment of Rs.50,99,000.00 between 3rd January, 1994 to 5th January, 1994, thereby raising the total amount paid by them to Rs.3.50 crores. The balance amount was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. According to the plaintiffs, they kept on making payment even after execution of the document dated 3rd January, 1994 and made further payment of Rs.49,98,000.00 to the defendants in the year 1995. They also claimed to have paid Rs.50 lakhs to the defendant towards expenses to be incurred for obtaining requisite permissions from the concerned authorities.

(2.) VIDE notice dated 14th January, 1998, defendants No.1 to 19 revoked the agreements and documents which they had executed and those documents included the General Power of Attorney dated 17th August, 1991 in favour of defendant No.12 � Shri Pradeep Kumar, whereby he had been authorized to execute a sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.1. It was further stated in the notice that the money which the plaintiffs had paid to defendants 1 to 19 stood forfeited.

(3.) IN their written statement, defendants No.3 to 7 and 9 to 19 have taken a preliminary objection that the suit is barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs were never ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and committed its breach by not fulfilling their promise and not making payment in terms of the said Agreement. It is alleged that the plaintiffs induced the defendants to enter into Agreement dated 3rd January, 1994 and certain earlier agreements on the strength of misrepresentations and false assurance that they would remove the deficiencies/discrepancies mentioned in para 3 of the written statement. These deficiencies according to the defendants included notification issued under Sections 4, 16 and 17 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The defendants have denied having received Rs.2.95 crores from the plaintiffs between September, 1987 to July, 1989. The defendants admit having received Rs.1,04,50,000.00 from the plaintiffs and claim to have forfeited the said amount, on account of breach of the agreement on the part of the plaintiffs. This is also the case of these defendants that after terminating the agreement with the plaintiffs, they had entered into agreements with defendants No.21 and 22, namely, Mr. Arun Goyal and Mr. Sandeep Goyal. It is also stated in the written statement that the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act were challenged by defendants No.20 and 21 by way of CWP 1289 of 1990 filed in this Court and this Court directed maintenance of status quo with respect to possession of the suit land. Thereafter, sometime in March, 1991, plaintiff No.1 Anil Sharma approached the sons and daughter of late Shri Parmeshwari Dass offering to purchase the suit property for a consideration of Rs.2 crores. He represented to them that he had contacts and was representing very powerful political persons and, therefore, would be able to have the suit property de-notified and would also have other obstacles removed so as to facilitate the sale of the suit property. Based upon these representations, the legal heirs of late Shri Parmeshwari Dass executed an undertaking dated 18th March, 1991 with plaintiff No.1, whereby he undertook to remove/clear the deficiencies pointed out earlier at his own cost. According to these defendants, they had not received any amount till 18th March, 1991 when the aforesaid undertaking was executed. It is further stated in the written statement that plaintiff No.1 paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000.00 to defendant No.12 � Pradeep Kumar on 25th March, 1992 and that was the first payment received by them as earnest money. Subsequently, plaintiff No.1 brought into picture plaintiff No.2 and both of them induced the defendants to execute an Agreement dated 20th April, 1993, which was signed by some of the owners of the suit property. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2, according to the defendants, failed to remove the deficiencies or arrange requisite funds to meet their obligations and roped in plaintiff No.3, 30 th whereupon another set of documents including an undertaking dated December, 1993 and an Agreement to Sell dated 3rd January, 1994 were executed. The plea taken by these defendants is that to ensure faithful compliance of the Agreement dated 3rd January, 1994 within the stipulated period of one year, the plaintiffs asked them to sign documents which contained a deterrent in the form of mentioning receipt of an amount of Rs.3 crores from the plaintiffs though in fact no such amount had been given and only a sum of Rs.51 lakhs was paid on 3rd January, 1994 against proper receipts. It is further alleged that after getting the documents signed from the defendants, the plaintiffs started playing taunt with them and avoided contact with them. It is further stated that on 15th July, 1995, plaintiff No.3 reluctantly made a further payment of Rs.50 lakhs to the defendants, thereby raising the total amount paid by the plaintiffs to Rs.1,04,50,000.00. According to the defendants, since the plaintiffs did not bother to perform their obligations and were not ready and willing to perform their part of contract, the Agreement dated 3rd January, 1994 automatically lapsed on expiry of one year, but as a matter of caution, they revoked the General Power of Attorney as well as all agreements vide notice dated 14th January, 1998.