DAYANTIA SINGH Vs. RANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff claiming herself to be the co-owner of the property being No.B-68, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi along with defendants 1 to 4, has sought partition of her 1/5th undivided share in the said property. She has also claimed rendition of accounts from defendant No. 1 and defendants 5 to 8.

(2.) On or about 26th May, 1989 a suit for partitioning the ancestral properties of Sir Datar Singh, late grandfather of the plaintiff, was filed by one Anand Deep Singh in this Court and the property being No.B-68, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi was alleged to be belonging to late Sir Datar Singh and its partition was also, therefore, claimed by Anand Deep Singh. An order of status quo was passed in the said suit on 26th May, 1989. The suit was ultimately decreed on 28th May, 1993 after the parties in the said suit had entered into a settlement and in terms of the decree defendants 1 to 4 and the plaintiff were declared to be the co-owners of this property bearing No.B-68, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. Defendant No. 5 is stated to be a confirming party to the said settlement. It is alleged that with a view to avoid certain interim/adverse orders that were likely to be passed in the aforesaid suit being Suit No. 1495/89, a pre-dated construction agreement was entered into between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 6 purported to have been signed on 13th January, 1988. Under the said agreement a consideration of Rs. 135.00 per sq.ft. was agreed to be paid by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 6 for construction of the super structure and another sum of Rs. 25,00,000/ was agreed to be paid for the interior/wood work. In terms of the said agreement, on the failure of defendant No. 1 to pay to defendant No. 6 the cost of construction of the building, the said defendant was to take possession of 50% of the built up area and to sell the same to recover the cost of construction. Under another clause of the agreement, the right was given to defendant No. 1 to terminate the second part of the agreement regarding interior/wood work subject to either (i) by payment of a sum of Rs. 9,00,000.00 or (ii) by granting a lease in favour of defendant No. 6 or its nominee for the entire built up front portion of the house No.B-68, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi with a further right to the said defendant to sub let the said portion to any other person without further reference to defendant No. 1. It is alleged that acting on the aforesaid agreement, defendant No. 1 allegedly terminated the second part of the agreement and she in collusion with defendant No. 5 executed three separate lease deeds on 16th January, 1991 in favour of defendant No. 6 and its two nominees, namely, defendant No. 7 and defendant No. 8 by which front portion of the entire building was let to them on a rent of Rs. 7,500.00 per month. All the lease deeds were initially for a period of five years renewable at the request of lessee for a further period of fifteen years.

(3.) That on the strength of the aforesaid three lease deeds wherein right to sub let had been given to defendants 6 to 8, the premises being the front portion of the aforesaid property was let to defendant No. 9, namely, ANZ Grindlays Bank. A Memorandum of Understanding dated 1st May, 1991 was executed between defendant No. 5 for and on behalf of defendants 6 to 8 and ANZ Grindlays Bank. On 31st May, 1991 lease deeds were executed by defendants 6 to 8 in favour of defendant No. 9 letting out the aforesaid premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,50,000.00 as also further sum of Rs. 75,000.00 per month for the fittings and fixtures. The lease was to commence from Ist June, 1991 and was initially for a period of 9 years with an option to the sub-lessee to renew the same for a further period of 9 years.