CHANDRA ESTATES LTD Vs. TEJ PROPERTIES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this suit a decree for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 1.1.1983 as well as mandatory injunction compelling first defendant to obtain necessary permission and to pay dues of Defendant No.3 to secure its title deeds and execute the Sale Deed have been sought. Correspondingly a mandatory injunction against third defendant to handover title deeds to the property on payment of Rs.20 lacs is claimed. In the alternative the Plaintiff has sought a decree for Conveyance of the suit property in its favour subject to the third defendant's liability and for damages equivalent to the amount payable to the third defendant to get the title deeds of the property released less Rs.20 lacs being a balance consideration.

(2.) The suit averments are that the plaintiff is an incorporated Company represented through Shri Mohan Lal, its Director; the Defendant No.1 is a Limited company engaged in the business of construction, sale and purchase of immovable property. The 4th Defendant, Union of India has been made a party since the Plaintiff had sought quashing of an order then made under Section 269 UD of the Income-tax Act, compulsorily seeking to purchase the property in question. It is averred that negotiations for purchase of the property i.e. being Plot No.23, Block 172, Jor Bagh New Delhi measuring 1236 sq.yds had started in 1982 with the Defendants 1 and 2. It is claimed that at the defendant's request a sum of Rs.6 lakhs was issued by M/s William Jacks and Co., New Delhi on 2.9.1982 and another sum of Rs.5 lakhs was issued by the said M/s William Jacs and Co.; as earnest money. The Plaintiff also avers that M/s William Jacks and Co. were to be given possession of the premises by it (the Plaintiff) and, therefore, the latter had made payments. It is also alleged that possession of the property was later given by the Plaintiffs to the said M/s William Jacks and Co.

(3.) The plaintiff avers to entering into an Agreement to Sell on 1.1.1983 in respect of the said property (hereafter called the 'suit property') for a consideration of Rs.41.50 lakhs. The Plaintiff has set out the terms of the Agreement which mentioned about the payment of Rs.11 lakhs as part payment and a further sum of Rs.50,000/- and the plaintiff undertaking to pay the balance Rs.30 lakhs. The Defendants were to deliver peaceful and vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff as well as original documents of title, possession or power concerning the suit property. According to clause 4 the Defendants (Vendor) were to obtain necessary permission for purchase from the Land and Development Officer and clearance under Section 269AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and other such clearances. Clause 10 recorded that the sale would be completed as soon as necessary permissions/sanctions and certificates etc were obtained by the Defendants/Vendors which was also to pay the entire unearned increase of the land. The Plaintiff was to bear expenses of the sale deed, stamp duty, registration charges etc.