MADHU MANGOTRA Vs. VEENA PAINTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties allegedly entered into an agreement on 2.10.1997 whereby the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff the property bearing no.C-410 Defence Colony, New Delhi for a total consideration of Rs.48 lacs. A sum of Rs.11 lacs was paid by means of a cheque drawn on the Corporation Bank, Greater Kailash II, New Delhi as advance by the plaintiff for purchase of the aforesaid property. A receipt dated 2.10.1997 was issued by the defendant acknowledging the receipt of the aforesaid amount towards sale of the aforesaid property to the plaintiff. This receipt is alleged by the plaintiff to be the agreement to sell. On the alleged refusal of the defendant to sell the property to the plaintiff the present suit for specific performance of the said agreement to sell was filed by the plaintiff. Alongwith the suit the plaintiff filed an application being IA No.4809/98 for an injunction restraining the defendant from selling, transferring, alienating and/or parting with possession of the property to any other person. The case came up for hearing before the Court on May 26,1998 when counsel for the defendant appeared in the court and accepted notice of the suit as well as of the application and the court directed the defendant not to dispose of the suit property till the next date of hearing. Another application being I.A.No.5281/98 was filed during summer vacations of 1998 by the plaintiff alleging that the tenant who was occupying the first floor of the property had vacated the same on 23rd June,1998 and that the defendant should be restrained from letting out the sa to any other person. The Court on June 26,1998 without notice to the defendant restrained her from letting out and/or parting with possession of the property in suit or any part thereof until further orders. On being served with the order of the court and notice of the application the defendant filed an application being I.A.No.9006/98 under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code for vacating the order of injunction dated 26.6.1998 due to the plaintiff having made false and misleading statements in relation to the material particulars in I.A.No.5281/98. Inspite of opportunity having been given to the plaintiff, reply was not filed to I.A.No.9006/98, however,I have heard arguments both on IAs 4809/98 and 5281/98 filed by the plaintiff as well as the application of the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code . and this order will accordingly dispose of all the aforesaid applications.

(2.) Though it is the contention of the defendant that the receipt dated 2.10.1997 is not an agreement which could be specifically enforced, however,for the purpose of deciding these applications, I am at this stage not going into the question as to whether the receipt dated 2.10.1997 is an agreement which could be specifically enforced. The short question involved between the parties for deciding these applications is whether on the execution of the agreement to sell any charge is created on the property in favour of the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff is entitled to an order of injunction restraining the defendant from using the property in any manner he likes till the matter is finally decided by the court.

(3.) Relying upon the judgment reported as J.K.Rajgarhia V. Dr.Ravi Singh & Others, 1995 (34) DRJ 199 and Kulbir Singh Vs.Yashbir, 58(1995) DLT 179 it is contended by Mr.Aggarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff that directions can be given to the defendant to maintain status quo in regard to possession of the property.