GANESH PRASHAD SETH Vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the. judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court dated 4th February, 1997, dismissing an application (I.A.No. 9849/94) filed by defendant No.1 in the.suit. The plaintiff in the suit is respondent No.1 in this appeal. Since the main relief in the application was sought against the plaintiff' notice in this appeal was confined to respondent No.1

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. In order to appreciate the controversy in'the appeal a reference'to certain basic'facts is necessary.

(3.) The appellant is the owner of 1/3rd share of property No. 85-A, Panchkuan Road, New Delhi, The other 2/3rd share in the property belongs to the respondents 2 to 4. The appellant entered into an. agreement dated 27th July, 1987 with respondent No.1 regarding sale of certain portions of the multi-storyed building which was being constructed on the said plot by the appellant. The'agreement. entered into by the appellant was with respect to his 1/3 rd share, in the property. The agreement contains recitals to the effect that the land use in respect of the property had been changed to commercial pursuant to .the provisions of Delhi Development Act and notification No. K-13011/15/79 dated 22nd April, 1983. It is further stated New Delhi Municipal Committee vide its letter No. 2068/CA/RP dated 22nd July, 1983 sanctioned the building plan for construction of multi-storyed Commercial Complex in the name of "RISHYAMOOK" on the said plot. The Land, and Development Officer had also granted permission to construct a multi storeyed commercial building on the said property. Reference has also been made to a compromise arrived at between the appellant and respondents 2 to 4 who are none other than the appellant's own father, mother and sisters, in Suit No, 232/83 in this Court, in pursuance whereof'the appellant was given 33% share in the said property for self .and as karta of his smaller Hindu Undivided Family, ln pursuance of the-said compromise the parties agreed to construct separately In their respectively portions of the plot and were Tree to sell the same or any part there of Accordingly the appellant constructed a building in his 33% portion of the said plot The building consists of two basements, ground floor and three upper floors.