SURESH GULATI Vs. RAJIV CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, in this suit - which seeks decree for specific performance, seeks to implead a third party, (by I.A. No. 7566/2009) who, the defendant claims, is owner of the suit property; he also seeks amendment to the suit, to incorporate the claim for cancellation of the sale deed, executed in favour of the said third party respondents (hereafter called "proposed defendant"). The plaintiff also seeks confirmation of the injunction granted earlier, (in I.A. No. 13084/2008) and for an order restraining the proposed defendants from transferring the suit property, or altering the status quo. (I.A. No. 7906/2009). The defendant also seeks vacation of the injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff by order dated 24-10-2008, (by I.A. No. 9657/2009).

(2.) THE facts, to the extent they are not disputed, are stated as follows. The plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase property, from Defendant No.1 (hereafter "the builder") on 23-2-2005. The said defendant was concededly not the owner of the property; he had entered into a "collaboration agreement" with the then owners of the property, i.e. Defendant Nos. 2-4 ("owners") they are not parties to the said agreement to sell (executed in favour of the plaintiff). The said owners had entered into a collaboration agreement with the builder, whereby he was asked to construct on the property, and also authorized to negotiate and sell the suit property. The plaintiff says that the total consideration agreed to be paid was Rs. 28 lakhs; according to him, Rs. 18 lakhs was paid. The builder does not admit payment of Rs. 18 lakhs, but concedes that Rs. 14 lakhs was paid to him. It is not in dispute that the property was sealed by orders of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, on the allegation that the construction was not in accordance with the sanctioned plan.

(3.) THE defendants filed their written statements; the owners disclosed that the suit property had been sold to the proposed defendant, through a registered sale deed dated 30-4-2008, for a total consideration of Rs. 54 lakhs; the purchasers were proposed defendants, sought to be impleaded in the suit. A reading of the written statement of the builder and the owners (i.e. Defendant Nos. 2-4) shows that according to them, the plaintiff interfered with the manner of construction of the property, which led to the sealing of the premises. It is alleged by the builder that the plaintiff was not interested in completing the transaction. The builder further argues that the owner had filed a suit, seeking declaration that the collaboration agreement was not lawful and binding; on being advised, the builder agreed not to interfere with the said owners' rights, as a result of which the suit was disposed of, by the trial court, on 28-4-2008. A copy of that order has been produced.