SHIKHA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. S BHAGWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff company's application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed in their suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction, for ad interim orders : a) staying operation of the alleged cancellation of General Powers of Attorney dated 16 November 1983 and b) restraining them from interfering in or causing hindrance in the plaintiff's peaceful use and enjoyment of and their dealing with the suit properties being blocks no.A & C of the Regal Building, New Delhi.

(2.) The defendants owned the aforenoted property. They entered into agreements to sell dated 2 November 1983 and 15 November 1983, registered respectively on 10 November 1983 and 17 November 1984, agreeing to sell and transfer all their rights, title and interest in blocks A & C of the said building to the plaintiff company for consideration as mentioned therein. As per the terms of the agreement to sell, all liabilities for damages/misuse of the property and other Government dues like municipal taxes etc., claimed by the authorities in respect of the demised blocks were to be discharged by the plaintiff company. It was also agreed that till such time the registration of the conveyance/sale deed was done, the plaintiff was free to deal with the property; manage the same in any manner they like, deal with the tenants and occupants of the property, create any lease or sub lease in favour of any person or persons, company or companies and the defendants were to have no objection whatsoever in that behalf. It seems that the defendants had some dispute with the L&DO concerning the subject property, for which they had initiated certain legal proceedings and with a view to enable the plaintiff to pursue these matters and effectively exercise their rights under the two agreements to sell, they executed two general powers of attorney in favour of the Directors of the plaintiff company in terms of clause 15 of the agreements to sell. The plaintiff claims that full and final consideration for sale of the said properties has been received by the defendants, constructive possession thereof has been delivered to it; the defendants informed the tenants in the properties about the deal of the subject properties, who attorned in favour of the plaintiff, and have been paying rent to them since then and the defendants were left with no right, title or interest in the said properties or any part thereof. However, on account of appreciation in the value of the property, with a view to set up illegal demand and cause mischief and confusion, among the tenants, the defendants informed the plaintiff company that they have revoked the general power of attorney dated 16 November 1983 w.e.f 9 May 1995 in respect of block A and threatened to cancel the other power of attorney relating to block C as well, leading to the filing of the present suit by the plaintiff company seeking: (i) declaration declaring the alleged revocation/cancellation of the general power of attorney dated 16 November 1983 as null and void; (ii) restraining by way of perpetual injunction the defendants from revoking and/or cancelling the said power of attorneys, pending completion of sale transactions in terms of the aforesaid agreements to sell and (iii) restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering in and/or causing any obstruction to the peaceful use, enjoyment and dealing with the subject properties.

(3.) The defendants in their written statements and reply to the application admit execution of the two agreements to sell relating to blocks A and C and the two general powers of attorney, both dated 16 November 1983, authorising the plaintiff to deal, lease and manage the properties and for the sale deeds to be executed. However, without specifying the amounts still due from the plaintiff in terms of the two agreements to sell, they deny the receipt of the total sale consideration. The suit is contested, inter alia, on the pleas that: it is not maintainable as framed without the plaintiff seeking specific performance of the agreements; the power of attorneys having been cancelled the relief claimed in respect thereof has become infructuous; the plaintiff has failed to fulfil their obligations under the two agreements to sell in as much as they neither settled the disputes with the L& DO nor got compounded the breaches alleged by the said authority, entitling the defendants to revoke the power of attorneys, which they have done. On these and other pleas raised in resistance to the suit, issues have already been struck.