RAJIV Vs. GURJOT SINGH WALIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court impugning the order dated 8.1.2015 passed by the learned lower appellate court, whereby the order passed by the trial court in an application filed by the petitioner plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, was reversed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the petitioner is owner of a big chunk of area forming part of his residential house. To raise funds for immediate need, on a portion of land, he carved out four plots and agreed to sell plot No. 3 measuring 245 square yards to Gurjot Singh Walia son of Jasbir Singh vide agreement to sell dated 3.6.2013. Total sale consideration of Rs.2,80,00,000.00 was settled between the parties. A sum of Rs.1,50,00,000.00 was paid at the time of execution of agreement to sell. Balance was to be paid at the time of getting the sale deed registered. The possession of the plot was handed over to the vendee on 3.6.2013. Special power of attorney was executed by the petitioner in favour of Navjot Singh son of Kedar Nath for getting the sale deed registered. Navjot Singh is admittedly a relative of vendee. After entering into the agreement to sell, the petitioner-plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.10,80,747/- on account of copy fee, development charges, water fee, local fee, cess, and land use change fee for area measuring 245 square yards with the Municipal Corporation, Patiala. The balance was to be paid after deducting the amount spent for getting permission for sale etc. from the Municipal Corporation, Patiala, which respondent No. 2, father of the vendee being Tehsildar had promised. A sum of Rs.55,00,000.00 was spent in total for taking permissions for all the four plots. Out of sale consideration of Rs.2,80,00,000.00, Rs.75,00,000.00 were still to be paid, hence, a mutual compromise was signed between the vendee and the petitioner on 24.3.2014 to that effect. It was duly signed by both the parties. Immediately after signing the aforesaid mutual compromise and having due knowledge thereof, the vendee got the sale deed of the plot in question, registered through power of attorney holder, namely, Navjot Singh on 7.4.2014. It was despite the fact that while executing the aforesaid mutual compromise, the power of attorney for agreement executed earlier stood cancelled. The factum of execution of the compromise agreement is duly established even from the facts recorded in the sale deed, where the total sale consideration was shown to be Rs.1,83,15,000.00 as against Rs.1,50,00,000.00 shown in the agreement to sell. It was mentioned in the sale deed that the a sum of Rs.33,15,000.00 was paid to the owner in cash, for which no proof was produced. There was no good reason for paying this amount if the entire sale consideration as mentioned in agreement to sell had already been paid.

(3.) Having come to know about execution of the sale deed on the basis of the power of attorney, which already stood cancelled, the petitioner plaintiff immediately filed a suit challenging the sale deed. The sale deed pertained to sale of a show room, whereas, the agreement to sell was pertaining to a plot. Along with the suit, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure for interim injunction was filed restraining the defendants from raising construction and also from creating any third party right by letting out or mortgaging the property in dispute. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide interim order dated 27.1.2014, after the agreement to sell was executed by the petitioner, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi had restrained the petitioner from alienating the property in dispute. Hence, even the sale deed could not be executed.