RAJEEV SINGH Vs. GURMEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of IAs. 10512/97 & 360/98 in S.No. 2414/97 and IAs. 11645 & 11717/97 in S.No. 2679/97.

(2.) Suit No. 2414/97 has been filed by Rajeev Singh against Gurmeet Singh and Jasbir Singh alleging that both the defendants are the owners of property No. 12, Krishna Market, Kalkaji, New Delhi and for sale thereof they entered into an agreement to sell dated 12th March, 1995 with the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 5,20,000.00 Plaintiff paid Rs. 5,00,000.00 to the defendants by means of three cheques on the date the agreement to sell was reduced into writing. It was stipulated in the aforesaid agreement that the balance amount of Rs. 20,000.00 will be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed by the defendants after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities. However, on the persuasion of the defendants the plaintiff paid the said balance amount to them on 1st June, 1995 on which date the aforesaid agreement was registered in the Office of the Registrar against registration No. 3100 entered in Addl. Book No. 1, Volume No. 482 at page A 79 to 81. It is further alleged that towards part performance of the aforesaid agreement the defendants put the plaintiff in actual and physical possession of the entire first floor and a portion of the ground floor of the property. One shop on the ground floor was in the tenancy of M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd., while second floor portion of the property was under the tenancy of Rajiv Verma. Plaintiff was also put in constructive possession of the tenanted portions by the defendants. M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. later on surrendered the tenancy and thus the entire ground floor of the property came to be occupied by the plaintiff. It is stated that the defendants on being contacted by the plaintiff in the morning on 13th November, 1997 to execute the sale deed, told the plaintiff that they would not take any steps nor, had they taken any steps so far to execute the sale deed. They refused to execute the sale deed. It was prayed that a decree of specific performance of the aforesaid agreement be passed against the defendants and they be ordered to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after completion of the requisite formalities of obtaining permission etc. from the concerned authorities. Decree of perpetual injunction is further sought to be passed restraining the defendants from entering into any sale agreement in respect of the said property in favour of a third person.

(3.) Defendants have contested the suit by filing joint written statement. It is, inter alia, pleaded that defendant No. 1 had full faith in the plaintiff they being old friends. Plaintiff persuaded the defendants to execute the agreement to sell, GPA and Wills in respect of the suit property in his favour on the pretext of protecting the property from their sisters. Plaintiff assured defendant No. 1 that he would re-transfer the property in defendants favour after sometime. No money was ever paid by the plaintiff to the defendants for executing the aforesaid documents. It is further pleaded that defendant No. 2 was minor at the time the agreement to sell in question was executed. It is denied that the defendants put the plaintiff into possession of the suit property as alleged. It is stated that the plaintiff on not being able to obtain forcible possession of the suit property, attacked defendant No.1 as a result whereof he was to be hospitalised for treatment.