SHOBHA DHALLA Vs. KRISHNA LUTHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has impugned the order dated 30th April, 2012 whereby the petitioner's suit has been dismissed and the respondent's application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short) was allowed. The petition seeks reversal of the same.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit for possession, mesne profits and injunction with respect to a portion of property bearing No. 197 -F, situated in Khasra No. 447 of the Revenue Estate of Village Khirki, Tehsil - Mehrauli, New Delhi. It was submitted by the plaintiff that she had purchased, from one Lachhi Ram, a plot of 555 square yards ('sq. yds.' for short) situated in Khasra No. 447, Revenue Estate of Village Khirki, Tehsil - Mehrauli, New Delhi ('the suit property' for short) by way of a registered GPA, Will, Agreement to Sell, SPA, all dated 17.11.2000 and possession of the same was handed over to the respondent/defendant. Number 197 was subsequently allotted to the plot of land by the Residents Welfare Association, Cariappa Marg, New Delhi. Out of this land, the plaintiff sold 455 sq. yds. to the defendant through GPA, Will, Agreement to Sell and this portion of 455 sq. yds. was numbered as 197 -F. Remaining area of 100 sq. yds. was retained by the plaintiff/petitioner. No partition wall could have been built since the Municipal Corporation of Delhi did not allow any construction in the area. The defendant, a permanent resident of London visited Delhi occasionally and stayed in the property No. 197 -F; that despite several requests she did not get the sale deed executed from the petitioner/plaintiff. The remaining 100 sq. yds., towards the north of the property was mutually agreed to be used as the passage for the plaintiff to reach in her portion but of late, the respondent/defendant has occupied it and does not allow its use by the plaintiff and her family members. The plaintiff's legal notice of 30.03.2012, seeking settlement of the dispute through arbitration, went unheeded. Hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) AFTER perusing the Agreement to Sell, the Trial Court concluded that the documents did not specify as to which portion of 555 sq. yds. was comprised in the 455 sq. yds. The Court was of the view neither the GPA nor the affidavit nor the SPA provided any description of the 455 sq. yds. which was sold to the defendant; that in the absence of any clarity regarding the location of the 455 sq. yds., land sold within the plot of 555 sq. yds, while allegedly retaining 100 sq. yds. of the said unsold portion with herself coupled with the fact that the petitioner herself had invoked arbitration clause, the case called for reference of the matter to the Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Act.