CHAGAN LAL TIWARI Vs. GANGA APARTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present suit was instituted by the plaintiff praying for a decree of declaration declaring as null and void any and all documents including any agreement, general power of attorney executed by defendants 3 to 6 in favour of any third parson including defendant No.1 in respect of plots No.1/50 and 2/71, Lalita Park, Vikas Marg, Delhi. The plaintiff has also sought for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.3 to 6 from executing and getting registered any document evidencing transfer of their respective shares in the aforesaid plots and also restraining the defendant No.1, its servants, agents from in any manner selling, transferring, alienating, encumbering and parting with possession and/or disposing of the said suit property. The plaintiff has also sought for a decree directing defendant No.1 to render accounts pertaining to the aforesaid plots disclosing therein the amount paid to defendants No.3 to 6 and also money received against the said property.

(2.) It is pleaded in the plaint that defendants No.3 & 4 were the joint owners with 1/2 share belonging to each in respect of the land covered by plot No.50 of the suit property. Similarly the defendants No.5 & 6 are also stated to be joint owners to the extent of 1/2 share belonging to each in respect of the land covered by plot No.71 located at the rear of the land covered by plot No.1/50. It is further pleaded that by separate agreements to sell dated 28.11.1990 defendants No.3,4, 5 & 6 agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff and defendants 2 & 3. It is further pleaded that in pursuance of and in furtherance to the aforesaid agreements to sell the plaintiff alongwith defendant No.2 entered into a collaboration agreement dated 3.12.1990 with the defendant No.1 whereby the defendant No.1 undertook to and was granted license to raise and/or construct a multi-storeyed building with a total covered area of approximately 1600 Sq. Ft. of the said plots. The plaintiff has set out and reproduced some of the relevant clauses of the said collaboration agreement in paragraph 5 of the plaint. In pursuance thereof physical possession of the suit property was also handed over to defendant No.1 for implementing the said collabo- ration agreement and for raising construction thereon. Subsequent thereto defendant No.1 started raising construction of the multi-storeyed building on the said plots which is yet to be completed. It is stated that since defendants 3 to 6 have already sold their respective shares in the said plots neither of the defendants 3 to 6 are entitled to sell their respective portions in the said plots or any part thereof to defendant No.1 or to anyone else, nor the defendant No.1 is entitled to sell, transfer or dispose of any portion or portions comprised within the said property contrary to the terms of the said collaboration agreement and without the express consent of the plaintiff. Since such actions are allegedly being taken the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants. The defendants No.1 & 2, on service of summons and notices appeared in the suit.

(3.) On perusal of the records I find that on 26.7.1995 counsel appearing for defendant No.1 sought for time before the court to file documents, reply and written statement. On such prayer being made on behalf of the defendant No.1, the court granted 4 weeks time to defendant No.1 to file documents, reply and written statement. However, immediately thereafter, the defendant No.1 filed an application in this court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act which was registered as I.A.No.8591/1995. The defendant No.2 also filed a similar application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act registered as I.A. No.8711/1995.