SANJEEV NARANG Vs. PRISM BUILDCON PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I shall dispose of an application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 made by the plaintiff whereby plaintiff has sought an interim injunction that the defendant be restrained from transferring, alienating, encumbering or otherwise parting with possession of the property in question viz. agricultural land measuring 22. 8 bighas situated in Revenue Estate of Village: Lamaye Meval, Patwar Area: Sirohi, Tehsil: Ajmer, district: Jaipur (Rajasthan ). It is submitted by the plaintiff that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement to purchase the land in question from the defendant for a total sale consideration of Rs. 53,40,600/- @ Rs. 2,70,000/- per bigha. The plaintiff came to know that the above property was available for sale in the open market and then plaintiff made enquiries and found the property well suited to his needs and immediately agreed to purchase the same. However, the defendant company insisted that the defendant was going through financial crisis as such transaction should be concluded at the earliest and thus vide agreement to sell dated 9th January, 2008, the defendant company agreed to sell this property for above consideration to the plaintiff and a part payment of rs. 11,00,000/- was received by the defendant company, out of which Rs. 1,00,000/-was received by way of two bank drafts of Rs. 50,000/- each and Rs. 10,00,000/-was received in cash. The balance consideration was to be paid by the plaintiff at the time of registry of sale deed and the agreement was valid till 30th June, 2008. On 11th January, 2008, the plaintiff went to execute the deed of conveyance and to pay the remaining consideration to Mr. Mahipal Choudhary, director of the defendant and at that time, defendant informed the plaintiff that he was not prepared to execute the conveyance deed as he had got a higher offer. The present suit has been filed on the ground that defendant has turned dishonest with a prayer that Court should pass a decree of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in respect of the land in question and should pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its executors, successors, heirs from parting with possession of the land.

(2.) IN the written statement, defendant has stated that the plaintiff played a fraud upon the Court. The suit was not maintainable. The agreement to sell relied upon by the plaintiff dated 9th January, 2008 was a forged and fabricated document and was never executed by Mr. Mahipal Choudhary. The plaintiff mischievously deposited two drafts of Rs. 50,000/- each in the bank account of the defendant at HDFC Bank, at Delhi although the account of the defendant with HDFC Bank was at Jaipur. The plaintiff played a systematic fraud upon the defendant as well as at the Court and wanted plaintiff to produce the deposit slips of the said instruments in the Court. The defendant had not received cash of Rs. 10 lac as alleged. It is submitted that the plaintiff on or before 31st October, 2007 approached the defendant for purchase of the suit land. The plaintiff came to the office of the defendant with a written agreement to sell on a stamp paper along with cheque dated 31. 10. 2007 for Rs. 9,00,000/-, with a view to purchase the suit land @ of Rs. 6,50,000/- per bigha. The defendant declined to sell the same to him at the rate of RS. 6,50,000/- per bigha and therefore did not sign the agreement nor accepted the cheque. However, the plaintiff left the original agreement and the cheque with the defendant to consider his offer.

(3.) THE defendant has placed on record the original agreement left by the plaintiff in the office which is singed by the plaintiff and not signed by the defendant and also placed on record original cheque for Rs. 9,00,000/ -. The defendant submitted that it was surprising that he had not agreed to sell the land at Rs. 6,50,000/- per bigha in October, 2007 and he agreed to sell the same land @ Rs. 2,70,000/- per bigha. The defendant also raised objection about the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and stated that delivery of possession of the suit property was an integral part of the agreement, specific performance of which was sought and the suit was liable to be rejected under provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. On merits it was denied that the defendant had entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff for selling the entire land measuring 22. 8 bighas for a sum of Rs. 53,40,000/ -. It is stated that the agreement was a forged document. No consideration of cash amount was received from the plaintiff by the defendant, as alleged. The two drafts were deposited by the plaintiff himself at Delhi after learning the account number of the defendant.