VANDANA DEVELOPERS Vs. JAY PALI BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Advocates. This is a suit of plaintiffs' for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 9/10/1985 and for other reliefs. There are two sets of properties in the suit as described in Exhibits 'A' to 'F' and Exhibits 'U-1' to 'U-4' of the plaint. The Motion is taken out for injunction against all the defendants in respect of properties described in Exhibits 'A' to 'F' and plaintiffs claim appointment of Receiver in respect of the properties described in Exhibits 'U-1' to 'U-4' of the plaint. The plaintiffs asserts that he was and he is in possession of properties described in Exhibits 'A' to 'F' and that properties described in Exhibit 'U-1' to 'U-4' was mortgage and still the suit is decided, Receiver should be appointed.

(2.) ARGUMENTS were advanced by all the Advocates at length. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant Nos. 6 to 39 own different properties by different agreements dated 24/4/1980, 15/10/1980, 29/10/1980, 29/10/1980, 17/3/1981 and 3/12/1982, all of them agreed to sell their respective properties to defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and in turn defendant Nos. 1 to 5 by an Agreement dated 9/10/1985 agreed to sell all these properties to the plaintiff for consideration of R.36.00 lacs. The plaintiff paid Rs.5.00 lacs initially and was placed in possession of properties described in Exhibits A to F in part of one of such Agreements. According to the plaintiffs, they had filed form No.37(1) under the Income-tax Act, had obtained No Objection Certificate, that goods to indicate their interest in the properties were installed and that security guards were kept.

(3.) IT is further the case of the plaintiff that from 1985 or 1987 the defendants failed to performed their part of the contract and in 1992 February the plaintiff learnt that the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were attempting to sell their rights in the above mentioned properties described in exhibits A to F, therefore on 17/2/1992 plaintiff gave a notice to the defendants by Registered Post A.D. but the packet was returned by the postal Authorities with remark "Intimation Post". In those circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit and took out the present Notice of Motion.