MALIK BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. RAJ GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I would dispose of the two Application s IA No. 7379/2005 under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing on record the legal representatives of plaintiff No. 2, Col. Prithipal Singh Malik, who died on 29th April, 2003 due to cardiac arrest and IA No. 7380/2005, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing IA No. 7379/2005.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 32,18,800 being the balance sale consideration with interest @ 18% p.a. till realisation, a further relief for the recovery of Rs, 1 lakh on account of damages, and for declaration in relation to property No. 43, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. The plaintiffs along with their father were members of the HUF styled as 'Malik Mukhbain Singh HUF'. In that capacity, they were owners of property No. 43, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, which was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 6th December, 1948. The property was occupied by the family till the family partition took place on 31st March, 1981. The portions divided between the parties were duly shown in the site plan prepared by the parties at that time. Defendants No. 1 to 8 entered into seven agreements of purchase with the plaintiffs and Malik Mukhbain Singh on 22nd April, 1985. The intending purchasers had agreed to sell part of the said land and the total area covered by different agreements to sell to defendants No. 1 to 8 was 2969 sq. mts. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants were not paying the balance sale consideration despite their repeated requests and defendants No. 9 to 14 are the persons whom defendants No. 1 to 8 conveyed their rights title and interest in the said property while defendants No. 15 to 23 are the person who are living in different portions of the said disputed property. The plaintiffs also claims to have served a notice dated 30th June, 1988 on the defendants and an insertion to this effect was also got published in the daily 'Statesman' dated 3rd July, 1988 and as such the defendants were not entitled to act on behalf to the plaintiff without completing their obligations in terms of the said agreement. The defendants having failed to pay the balance consideration to the extent of Rs. 32,18,800, the plaintiffs have filed this suit with the afore-stated reliefs.

(3.) The suit was contested and the defendants pray that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief and are not entitled to recover the said amount with interest@ 18% per annum, and that the defendants had not committed any "breach of the terms of the agreement.