R C PURI Vs. JAGDIP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA. 11238/95 is filed for injunction by the plaintiff seeking to restrain the defendant from alienating the property and in any manner creating third party interest in the suit property pending the disposal of the suit. First plaintiff R.C. Puri is the Managing Director of the second plaintiff R.C. Puri Developers (P) Ltd. According to the plaintiff, the property belonged to the husband of the defendant S. Parshottam Singh. He had executed a Will on 24.11.86 which was duly registered. He bequeathed the property in favour of the defendant. There is no dispute about the execution and registration of the Will. The property was properly mutated in the name of the defendant in the revenue records on 9.3.95.

(2.) On 2.5.95 the defendant agreed to sell the property to plaintiff No. 1 and defendant knew that plaintiff No. 1 was acting for and on behalf of the second plaintiff. The transaction is evidenced by a receipt- cum-agreement dated 2.5.95. A sum of Rs. 5,01,000.00 was paid to the defendant; Rs. 4,50,000.00 by way of cash and Rs. 51,000.00 by way of cheque. Pursuant to the arrangement the plaintiffs spending Rs. 1,73,620.00 - got the conversion of the leasehold rights of the plot of land into freehold by which the defendant became entitled to deal with the property as absolute owner. That was on May 18, 1995. The plaintiffs executed requisite forms and handed over those to the defendants for signatures to enable her to obtain necessary permission for effecting sale. The defendant did not respond. The plaintiffs received the notice dated 21.9.95 issued by the defendant through her advocate cancelling the agreement and for threatening to forfeit the payment of Rs. 5,01,000.00 paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant. The plaintiffs issued a telegram on 27.10.95 calling upon the defendant to fulfill her part of the agreement. It is asserted by the plaintiffs that in view of the rise of the value of the property the defendant's intention has become dishonest and the defendant is attempting to negotiate the suit property afresh with unwary customers for a higher consideration and is attempting to resile from the agreement to sell. It is stated in paragraph 12 of the plaint that in addition to the relief of specific performance the plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages and in case this Court holds that relief for specific performance cannot be granted, a decree for recovery of damages to the extent of Rs. one crore should be awarded. On these averments, the plaintiff has prayed for decree for specific performance and also, inter alia, in the alternative decree for recovery of Rs. one crore.

(3.) The defendant has filed reply to the petition for injunction stating that there was no agreement between the parties; that receipt was only evidencing token payment taken by the defendant and parties had clearly understood that there should be a complete agreement incorporating the bargain between the parties; that in June 95 first plaintiff Mr. Suri, while on his visit to United States, contacted Mr. Madanjeet Oberoi son of the defendant, who lives in Atlanta and the first plaintiff and her son had discussions. It would appear that the first plaintiff had made some proposals to defendant's son and he had given a fitting reply that the proposals made by the first plaintiff cannot be accepted because they were not in accordance with law of this country. The plaintiff had sent draft agreements to the son of the defendant; that the defendant had received a copy of the draft agreement to sell dated 24.7.95 sent by the first plaintiff to the defendant's son on 24.7.95. The proposals were contradictory. In page 3 A of the reply, the defendant made her position very clear by putting her case in the following terms :-