RUKHANA ENTERPRISES Vs. ASHOKA MARKETING LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiffs chamber summons to amend the plaint by impleading the respondent as defendant No. 5 and seeking various reliefs against the respondent, including a declaration that a deed of conveyance dated 31 st October, 2007 executed between defendant No. 1 and the respondent in respect of the suit property is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and an order directing the respondent to carry out all acts for the transfer and vesting of the suit property, mentioned in the plaint and handing over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

(2.) The suit is filed for specific performance of an alleged agreement dated 28th July 2005 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, as allegedly modified. Defendant No. 1 is the owner of the suit property. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the heirs of the person in possession of the suit property. In this chamber summons it is not necessary to consider merits of the rival contentions of the parties. Suffice it to say that according to the plaintiff, the agreement between defendant No. 1, one K.P. Subhash, the predecessor of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and the plaintiff for the sale of the suit property namely land admeasuring 3592 sq. yards area was modified on 20th July, 2005 in a meeting in the office of the solicitors of defendant No. 1. Pursuant thereto a draft agreement was prepared and finalized on 24th October, 2005. A copy of the alleged final agreement is annexed as Exhibit "A" to the plaint. It is the plaintiffs case that the same was e mailed to the Solicitors of defendant No. 1 and was accepted by the defendants with minor changes as set out in the email, annexed at Exhibit "B" to the plaint. After the alleged finalization of the agreement the said K.P. Subhash expired on 17th November, 2005. Thereafter the defendants refused to perform the alleged agreement.

(3.) For the purpose of this chamber summons, I have proceeded on the basis that the plaintiffs case for specific performance is that there was an alleged agreement for sale of the suit property entered into between the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and the predecessor of defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, although the plaint, to say the least, lacks clarity.