N K BHATIA Vs. R K SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the application of the plaintiff for the grant of an injunction for restraining the defendant from parting with possession or alienating any right or title of the terrace of the ground floor and first and second floor rights of the premises A/35, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi to a third party.

(2.) The facts, in short, are that the plaintiff on March 17, 1992. paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the defendant, who was the owner of the property being No A/35. Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi, as part consideration of a collaboration agreement, under which the plaintiff had agreed to construct a new building on the first and second floor of the property with servant quarter on the terrace of the second floor. Under the arrangement agreed between the parties, the plaintiff was to pay to the defendant a total sum of Rs.5,10,000.00 and the defendant was to hand over the vacant possession of the terrace to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was to construct the first floor and the second floor. The defendant was to get complete first floor along with two servant quarter and 2/3 shares on the terrace of the second floor roof along with 2/3 undivided share in the land underneath and the builder was to get complete second floor along with 1/3 share of second floor roof for construction of the servant quarter. Clause 3 of this receipt/arrangement reads as under : -

(3.) A few days after the execution of this receipt, the defendant on 28th March, 1992 wrote a letter to the plaintiff informing him that it had come to her know ledge that the plaintiff was intending to undertake illegal construction on the second floor for which she did not like to be a party. She, therefore, requested the plaintiff to give an undertaking in writing that no illegal construction would be undertaken by him in her house. When no reply was received, another letter was written on April 24, 1992 to the same effect. The plaintiff sent a reply dated May 21.1992 requesting the defendant to hand over vacant possession of the terrace to him so as to enable him to start construction as per building bye-laws. On receiving no undertaking from the plaintiff, the defendant terminated the arrangement by letter dated June 10, 1992 which resulted in the filing of the present suit by the plaintiff.