RAMAN KUMAR SOOD Vs. K K RATTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of IA Nos. 8449/88, and 2024/93 for granting injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 4 and their agents from in any manner raising any construction, structure or any development or digging any tubewell in the suit land and from in any manner selling, alienating any vegetable, fruits or plants to any one till the disposal of the suit. IA No. 7095/95 under Order 39, Rule 4 for vacating the order of granting ad interim injunction by defendant No. 1 as of necessity is required to be disposed of along with the abovesaid application.

(2.) First the relevant facts in brief. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement dated 17th July, 1987 to sell 9 bighas 12 biswas 2 acres of land in Village Samalka, Tehsil Mehrauli within the Union Territory of Delhi at the agreed rate of Rs.3.57 lacs per acre of 4,840 sq. yds. and in the alternative, recovery of Rs.25,36,000.00 as well as for injunction against transfer etc. It is claimed that defendant No.1 through defendant No.2 represented himself to be the full-fledged owner of the abovesaid land. Defendant No.2 in addition to the representation made had sworn and compensated affidavit dated 17th April, 1987 swearing, inter alia, to the effect that such a general power of attorney has been executed by defendant No.1 in his favour on May 8, 1987 and had been duly registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurance at Chandigarh on May 11, 1987. He has also produced a copy thereof indicating the authority to manage and control, to enter and to sign and execute the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar on behalf of defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 is a property broker working in the name and style of Deepak Properties and in the name of M/s. Delhi Apartments Private Limited-defendant No.4. Defendants No.5 and 6 are pro forma defendants being real brothers of the plaintiff who formed part of the group along with the plaintiff.

(3.) The agreement was entered into for the sale of the land in suit at the rate of Rs. 3,57,000.00 per acre of 4,840 sq.yds. The plaintiff claims to have paid to the seller a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 vide cheque No. 128777 dated 17th July, 1987 by way of earnest money. The seller had acknowledged the receipt of the amount and agreed to hand over the possession at the time of registration of the sale deed. The defendants No.1 and 2 were supposed to obtain all necessary permission/clearances from the Income Tax, Wealth Tax, Estate Duty Authorities for the transfer of the said land before the execution of the sale deed and to get the property mutated in favour of the plaintiff. The purchaser would have the right to get the sale deeds executed and registered in his own name or in the name of some nominees. On the pretext that substantial delay was likely to be caused in getting mutation entries made and for completing other formalities, at the behest of defendant No.2, advance payment against all the 9 agreements of the gross sale value of about Rs. 60 lacs, additional sum of Rs. 5 lacs was agreed to be paid. The second defendant agreed to the same and gave the break up of the amount to be paid in the name of three different sellers. Rs.2.50 lacs was to be paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1. Acting on the understanding and in deference to the wishes of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff paid to them a sum of Rs.2.50 lacs on 14th August, 1987 as part payment of the price of the land in suit payable. Another sum of Rs. 50,000.00 was paid for defendant No.5 to defendant No.2 in connection with the agreement between sixth defendant and Kanwaljit Singh Bindra's group against duly stamped receipt of the second defendant and a sum of Rs. one lac was paid by the plaintiff, Rs. 50,000.00 on behalf of plaintiff and Rs. 50,000.00 on behalf of S.K. Sood defendant No.5 were paid to the second defendant who happened to be attorney of Inderjit Singh Bindra. The defendant No.2 continued to delay and postpone the performance of their part of the contract. After the proposed new national highway No.8 link was started in August/September, 1987, the continuous rise in the land prices in and around Delhi, specially relating to the land abutting on the new national highway 8 link and the lands immediately adjacent thereto, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 turned dishonest and went on postponing performance of the contract. They did not furnish necessary clearance from Income Tax or other Authorities. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent letter dated February 16, 1988 to defendants No.1 and 2. The registration cover came back with the report "no one available". Thereafter, several legal notices were sent to defendant Nos. 1,2 and 3. Neither defendant No.1 nor defendant No.2 sent any reply. It appears that the defendants No.1 and 2 entered into conspiracy to cheat the plaintiff. As a consequence, the suit has been filed for specific performance of the contract and for permanent injunction as mentioned above and in that connection, injunction application IA No. 8461/88 has been filed.