LANDMARK BUILDERS Vs. RICHARD GREGORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiffs have filed this suit against the Defendants seeking a declaration that the agreement dated April 22, 1986 and irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated April 21, 1986 being Exhibits A and A1 to the plaint are valid subsisting and binding upon the Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 be ordered to specifically perform the agreement dated April 22, 1986. In the suit filed, the Plaintiffs have also sought other incidental reliefs.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiffs have also impleaded Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 as party-Defendants to the suit as it is the case of the Plaintiffs that after the suit is filed they learnt that Defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement dated October 23, 1992 assigning the right of development of property to Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 in spite of already subsisting valid and binding agreement between the Plaintiffs and Defendants Nos. 1 to 4.

(3.) IT is the case of the Plaintiffs that there is even today a valid subsisting and binding agreement between the parties and, therefore, the rights of the Plaintiffs need to be protected. It is further case of the Plaintiffs that the agreement between Defendants No.1 to 4 and Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 is a sham and bogus agreement which has been arrived at merely with a view to defeat the rights of the Plaintiffs. It is also the case of the Plaintiffs that there is no termination of the agreement as after the termination there were negotiations between the parties and the Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have executed a letter of Indemnity and an affidavit on the basis of which I.O.D. has been granted in favour of the Plaintiffs and therefore, the rights of the plaintiffs need to be protected.