MEGHA SACHDEVA Vs. SANJEEV NARULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF has filed this suit against the defendant for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction as well as for specific performance of the three Agreements to Sell dated 15th January, 2013 and 16th January, 2013 respectively. In effect, main relief is that of specific performance of the Agreements to Sell and other reliefs are consequential to that relief.

(2.) PLAINTIFF has alleged that defendant, vide agreement to sell dated 15th January, 2013, agreed to sell the residential property bearing no. 1204, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana for a total sale consideration of Rs.40 lacs to the plaintiff. Rs.25 lacs was paid by way of online transfer from the account of plaintiff to the account of the defendant on 17th January, 2013. Further, a sum of Rs.10 lacs was paid in cash. Balance amount of Rs. 5 lacs was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. Another agreement to sell dated 16th January, 2013 was executed by the defendant; whereby defendant agreed to sell a commercial flat bearing no. 85, Block K, Sector - 18, Noida, UP to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.22 lacs, out of which Rs. 12.50 lacs was paid vide cheque no. 104482 dated 16th January, 2013 drawn on HDFC Bank, Greater Kailash and another sum of Rs.7.5 lacs in cash. Balance amount of Rs. 2 lacs was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. It is further alleged that vide agreement to sell dated 16th January, 2013, defendant agreed to sell a commercial flat bearing no. 86, Block K, Sector -18, Noida, UP for a total sale consideration of Rs. 22 lacs out of which Rs. 12.50 lacs was paid vide cheque no. 104483 dated 16th January, 2013 drawn on HDFC Bank, Greater Kailash and another sum of Rs.7.50 lacs in cash. Balance amount of Rs.2 lacs was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. Possession was given, however, sale deeds were not executed by the defendant despite repeated requests of the plaintiff, hence the suit.

(3.) IN para 21 of the plaint plaintiff has alleged that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the defendant is residing and working for gain within the jurisdiction of this Court and reliefs can be given by the personal obedience of the defendant himself, inasmuch as, cause of actions have arisen in Delhi from time to time as the plaintiff is permanent resident of Delhi and payments in cash as well as cheques were made in Delhi. Plaintiff has thus relied on Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the 'Code', for short).