YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. V SATHYAPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed this suit on the allegations that the defendants by an agreement to sell dated 30h June, 1993 after receiving the total consideration, had agreed to sell the ground floor of the property R-82/5, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi to one Sh.R.K.Aggarwal. Besides the agreement to sell defendant No.2 as general attorney of defendant No. 1 had also executed a general power of attorney,, the special power of attorney and the Will and all these documents were registered before the Sub-Registrar. The receipt; affidavit and possession certificate were also executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the said Sh.R.K.Aggarwal. The said Sh.R.K.Aggarwal in turn by an agreement to sell dated 17th January, 1995 agreed to sell to plaintiff No. 1 one-half of the ground floor comprising of one big hall for a total consideration of Rs.2,11,000.00 . Plaintiff No.1 paid the said amount to the said Sh.R.K. Aggarwal and a receipt and possession letter was duly delivered by him to plaintiff No.l. General power of attorney and special power of attorney were also executed on 17th January, 1995 in favour of plaintiff No.1 wherein complete rights to deal with the property in whatsoever manner, were given to the said plaintiff. Vide an agreement dated 20th January, 1995 plaintiff No.1 inducted plaintiff No.2 as a tenant in the portion which he had purchased from Sh.R.K.Aggarwal. It is alleged that defendants started making illegal, dishonest and malafide demands for extra money from Sh.R.K. Aggarwal and on his refusing to meet these demands, the said defendant issued a letter dated 7th February, 1995 allegedly revoking the general power of attorney issued in favour of plaintiff No.2 and a suit was also filed by defendant No.2 against the said Sh.R.K.Aggarwal for a declaration that the documents executed by her in favour of the said Sh.R.K.Aggarwal were void on account of the same having been obtained by undue influence and coercion. It is further alleged in the plaint that the defendants had started unauthorised, illegal construction on the third and fourth floors of the property without any sanction or permission from the municipal authorities and by raising of this construction there was an apprehension and risk to the safety of occupants of the building including the plaintiffs and their employees as the building was not strong enough to bear the load of the additional floors i.e. third and fourth floors. The suit was, therefore, filed for an injunction restraining, defendants from raising any unauthorised construction on the third and fourth floors of the property and for mandatory injunction directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to take steps to demolish unauthorised construction raised by the defendants.

(2.) By an ad interim order passed on 18th October, 1995 this Court had restrained the defendants from raising any construction in the property. A local commissioner was also appointed to visit the property and give his report about the existing construction. The local commissioner has since filed his report and has stated that the suit property was already constructed upto the second floor and new construction was being raised on the third and fourth floors and a mumty upon the fourth floor. It has also been noted by the local commissioner that there was not even a single load bearing wall on the ground floor premises occupied by the plaintiffs and there were no columns on the right hand side of the building.

(3.) Written statement has been filed by the defendants and it is contended that the plaintiffs have no right title or interest in the property and they had not approached the Court with clean hands. The suit was also sought to be hit by delay and laches. The sale of the property in favour of Sh.R.K.Aggarwal is denied and it is stated that the said Sh.R.K.Aggarwal by exercising undue influence and by mis-representation and fraud got some documents illegally and fraudulently executed from defendant No.2 and the same would have no effect whatsoever on the title of the defendants. The defendants had, however, avoided to mention in the written statement as to whether the construction raised by them was sanctioned by the municipal authorities or that they were carrying out such construction with the permission of-municipal authorities.