Back
High Court Of Delhi
RAJIV SINGH - Appellant
Versus
GURMEET SINGH - Respondent
Interim Application 10512 of 1997
Decided On : 04/27/1998
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - AGREEMENT TO SELL - SUIT FOR - POSSESSION - INJUNCTION - Plaintiff seeking specific performance of agreement to sell and injunction restraining defendants from selling or creating any charge on property - Defendants claiming agreement to sell was executed under duress and plaintiff was not put in possession of property - Court held that plaintiff was in possession of property and balance of convenience lay in his favour - Injunction granted.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell property and injunction restraining defendants from selling or creating any charge on the property. Defendants claimed that the agreement to sell was executed under duress and that the plaintiff was not put in possession of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff was in possession of the property and that the balance of convenience lay in his favour.
Issues: Whether the agreement to sell was executed under duress.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff was in possession of the property and that the balance of convenience lay in his favour. Therefore, the court granted the injunction.
Final Decision: The court granted the injunction restraining the defendants from selling or creating any charge on the property.
( 2 ) SUIT No. 2414/97 has been filed by Rajeev Singh against Gurmeet Singh and Jasbir Singh alleging that both the defendants are the owners of property No. 12, Krishna Market, Kalkaji, New Delhi and for sale thereof they entered into an agreement to sell dated 12th March, 1995 with the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 5,20,000. 00 Plaintiff paid Rs. 5,00,000. 00 to the defendants by means of three cheques on the date the agreement to sell was reduced into writing. It was stipulated in the aforesaid agreement that the balance amount of Rs. 20,000. 00 will be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed by the defendants after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authorities. However, on the persuasion of the defendants the plaintiff paid the said balance amount to them on 1st June, 1995 on which date the aforesaid agreement was registered in the Office of the Registrar against registration No. 3100 entered in Addl. Book No. 1, Volume No. 482 at page A 79 to 81. It is further alleged that towards part performance of the aforesaid agreement the defendants put the plaintiff in actual and physical possession of the entire first floor and a portion of the ground floor of the property. One shop on the ground floor was in the tenancy of M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. , while second floor portion of the property was under the tenancy of Rajiv Verma. Plaintiff was also put in constructive possession of the tenanted portions by the defendants. M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. later on surrendered the tenancy and thus the entire ground floor of the property came to be occupied by the plaintiff. It is stated that the defendants on being contacted by the plaintiff in the morning on 13th November, 1997 to execute the sale deed, told the plaintiff that they would not take any steps nor, had they taken any steps so far to execute the sale deed. They refused to execute the sale deed. It was prayed that a decree of specific performance of the aforesaid agreement be passed against the defendants and they be ordered to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after completion of the requisite formalities of obtaining permission etc. from the concerned authorities. Decree of perpetual injunction is further sought to be passed restraining the defendants from entering into any sale agreement in respect of the said property in favour of a third person.
( 3 ) DEFENDANTS have contested the suit by filing joint written statement. It is, inter alia, pleaded that defendant No. 1 had full faith in the plaintiff they being old friends. Plaintiff persuaded the defendants to execute the agreement to sell, GPA and Wills in respect of the suit property in his favour on the pretext of protecting the property from their sisters. Plaintiff assured defendant No. 1 that he would re-transfer the property in defendants favour after sometime. No money was ever paid by the plaintiff to the defendants for executing the aforesaid documents. It is further pleaded that defendant No. 2 was minor at the time the agreement to sell in question was executed. It is denied that the defendants put the plaintiff into possession of the suit property as alleged. It is stated that the plaintiff on not being able to obtain forcible possession of the suit property, attacked defendant No. 1 as a result whereof he was to be hospitalised for treatment.
( 4 ) SUIT No. 2679/97 was filed by Gurmeet Singh and Jasbir Singh against Rajeev Singh after the filing of S. No. 2414/97 seeking cancellation of the agreement to sell dated 12th March, 1/st June, 1995, GPA and the Wills both dated 14th March, 1995 in respect of property No. 12, Krishna Market, and also restraining Rajeev Singh from taking possession of the second floor of the property and trespassing into the said property. Allegations made in the plaint are somewhat similar to those taken in the joint written statement filed by both these plaintiffs in S. No. 2414/97. Case set up in the wr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
