AGGRESSIVE EXPORTS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD Vs. RAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has filed this application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking injunction against the defendant so as to restrain the defendant, his legal heirs, representatives, nominees etc. from creating any third party interest in the suit property.

(2.) THE case of plaintiff is that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement to sell with defendant to purchase his 1/16th share in respect of agricultural land comprising in M. No. 25, Khasra No. 9 (4-0), 10 (3-0), 11 (3-14), 12 (3-12), 16 (4-16), 20/2 (1-17), M. No. 56, Khasra No. 13 (2-16), M. No. 32 Khasra No. 11 (4-16), 12 (4-6), M. No. 31 Khasra No. 11/2 (1-16), 12 (4-16), 18 (4-16), 19 (4-16), 20 (4-16), 21/1 (2-10), M. No. 38 Khasra No. 1/1 (2-10) and ia No. 6941/2009 in CS (OS) No. 956/2009 Page 1 of 7 1/8th share of agricultural land comprising in M. No. 38 Khasra No. 1/2 (2-6), 2 (4-16), 3 (4-16), 4/1 (2-3), 9/1 (2-13), M. No. 32 Khasra No. 21 (4-16), 22/1 (3- 11), M. No. 32 Khasra No. 6 (4-16), 15 (4-16), 16 (4-16), M. No. 24 Khasra No. 24 (4-16), M. No. 23 Khasra No. 10 (4-4), 11/2 (4-14), 20/2 (2-18), 21/1 (0-10), M. No. 24 Khasra No. 15/1 (1-15), 16/1 (1-15), 25/1 (1-10) M. No. 32 Khasra No. 5/1/1 (0-1) in Village Samalkha, tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.

(3.) AS per plaintiff, the price settled between the parties was Rs. 15 crore for the share of the defendant in the above land. The plaintiff paid rs. 1,50,00,000/- as earnest money by Pay Order to the defendant and balance amount was payable against execution and registration of Sale Deed on 24th august, 2006, i. e. the date as agreed. The Pay Order was encashed by the defendant. In the same Khasra numbers Ramanand and another person Kisna also had their shares. Ramanand had the same share as the defendant had and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the share of Ramanand also for the same amount of Rs. 15 crore and paid Rs. 1. 5 crore as earnest money. Shri Kisna had share double the share of the defendant and plaintiff had agreed to purchase his share also for a sum of rs. 30 crore. It is submitted that it was recorded in the agreement that proceedings for a part of the said land were pending under Section 81 of the delhi Land Reforms Act in the Court of Revenue Authority (South and West) (SDM), delhi and as soon as the proceedings were over the land was to be transferred in favour of the plaintiff. While the plaintiff had all along been willing and ready to pay the balance consideration, the defendant kept on promising the plaintiff that as soon as since the proceedings would be concluded, steps would be taken for applying of NOC and transaction would be completed. The defendant took further payment of Rs. 5 crore form the plaintiff assuring that the proceedings under Section 80 (1) of Delhi Land Reforms Act were likely to be quashed/set aside and the execution of sale deed would be done soon. Thus, the defendant received a sum of Rs. 6. 5 crore against a total consideration of Rs. 15 crore, from the plaintiff. The defendant again approached plaintiff and demanded a further sum of Rs. 1 crore. The plaintiff handed over a cheque of ia No. 6941/2009 in CS (OS) No. 956/2009 Page 2 of 7 Rs. 1 crore in the name of the defendant but made it clear that said amount shall be paid, provided defendant applied for NOC with Revenue Authorities for sale of the said land and it was an understanding between the parties that the cheque shall be presented only after application for obtaining NOC was made. However, defendant did not make an application for NOC before the Revenue Authorities and presented the cheque for clearance. The plaintiff issued instructions to banker to stop the payment thus, the cheque got dishonoured. The defendant issued a legal notice invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This notice was duly replied by the plaintiff giving the facts and circumstances. Thereafter, plaintiff requested defendant to take necessary steps for fulfilling his contractual obligation under the agreement to sell but defendant was not inclined. Other co-owner of the land Shri Kisna had also not fulfilled his obligation under agreement to sell and plaintiff filed a suit being CS (OS) No. 427/2007 against Kisna which is pending before the Court. The defendant instead of fulfilling his contractual obligations started influencing the plaintiff to withdraw the suit filed by the plaintiff against Kisna. Since the plaintiff was not inclined to meet the demands of the defendant, plaintiff also sent a notice and a reminder to the defendant for fulfilling its contractual liability. However, the defendant failed to obtain NOC and thereafter to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the land in question. It is submitted by the plaintiff that defendant turned dishonest and despite receiving substantial part of consideration out of total consideration of Rs. 15 crore, the defendant had told the property broker of area to find buyers for the land and the defendant was likely to enter into another agreement to sell with another buyer. Under these circumstances, prayer is made that the defendant should be restrained from creating any third party interest or entering into an agreement to sell with a third person in respect of the suit land. Prayer is also made that defendant be also restrained from parting with the possession of the suit property.