R K APARTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ARUNA BAHREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendants 1 & 2 is directed against an order dated November 17, 1994 of the learned Single Judge allowing IA 967/93, dismissing IA 2127/93 and confirming the ex-parte injunction order passed in IA No. 967/93 on January 27, 1993.

(2.) Suit was filed, inter alia, alleging that the land measuring 11 Bighas and 10 Biswas in Village Kharera now forming part of Hauz Khas was purchased by plaintiffs 2,3,7 and Mrs. Prakash Bhandari, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff No.1 from Mirza Ayub Beg under separate sale deeds, all dated March 22, 1957. Sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs 2 & 7 were for 2 Bighas and 17 Biswas each while favouring plaintiff No.3 and Mrs. Prakash Bhandari for 2 Bighas and 18 Biswas each. Mrs. Prakash Bhandari gifted her share in the land to her daughter, plaintiff No.1 under a registered gift deed dated January 28, 1970. There had been dispute between the plaintiff No.1, her son Vidur Bahree, defendant No.3 and her brother Deepak Bhandari, defendant No.4 about the land and that was referred to arbitration under the agreement dated March 27, 1989. By the award dated March 31, 1990, plaintiff No.1, defendants 3 & 4 were held to be entitled to one-third share each in the land purchased by said Mrs. Prakash Bhandari. It is further alleged that plaintiff No.3 gifted one-fifth share each of the land purchased, to her sons Anand Kumar Chopra, Satish Kumar Chopra, plaintiff No.4 and Ajit Kumar Chopra, plaintiff No.5 under three separate registered gift deeds, all dated April 27, 1968. Remaining 2/5th share was later on gifted under a registered gift deed dated March 6, 1985 by plaintiff No.3 in favour of her two daughters Dr. (Ms.) Kusum Chopra, plaintiff No.6 and Mrs. Malti Anand, defendant No.5. It is stated that the aforesaid land was sought to be acquired by Delhi Administration and the proceedings for quashing the acquisition were pending in the High Court. Defendants 1 & 2 approached the plaintiffs and defendant No.5 through a common friend to enter into joint venture agreement(s). Plaintiffs 1 & 7 as also plaintiffs 4 & 5 (jointly) entered into three separate joint venture agreements, all dated 1st March, 1985 with defendant No.1. Two identical joint venture agreements were executed by plaintiff No.2 and plaintiffs 3 & 6 & defendant No.5 jointly with defendants 1 & 2 dated March 11, 1985. Under the joint venture agreements dated 1st/11th March 1985, defendant No.1 agreed to develop and construct commercial and residential complexes on the said land at its own cost and with its resources and in consideration thereof it was entitled to execute transferable rights to the extent of 65% of the total built up and parking area etc. This ratio was subsequently reduced to 63% on March 15, 1985. It is alleged that defendants 1 & 2 made payments of Rs. 25,000.00 in respect of each of the aforesaid joint venture agreements at the time of their execution and Rs. 75,000.00 each were to be paid at the time the land became free from acquisition and clearance obtained under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the Act). The acquisition proceedings in respect of the said land were quashed by the judgment dated August 14, 1987. Clause 20 of the aforesaid joint venture agreements provide as under :-

(3.) "That in case inspite of the best efforts on the part of the builders, the plot of land in question and the clearance is not obtained under Urban Land & Ceiling Act and all impediments to construction not removed within a period of five years from the date of this agreement, this agreement would become null and void and the builders would be entitled to get back only their security deposit and no other expense incurred by the builders will be reimbursed by the owners."