Back
High Court Of Delhi
SHIKHA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
S.BHAGWANT SINGH - Respondent
Interim Application 4726 of 1995
Decided On : 07/09/1998
Held:
The agreements to sell and the irrevocable power of attorneys executed, for consideration for sale received by the defendants, in favor of the plaintiff company were meant not only to get the sale deeds executed, but also conferred rights on the plaintiff to manage the properties and deal with the tenants, create leases or sub-leases. Pursuant to their execution, the properties being in occupation of tenants/occupants, constructive possession of the properties appears as handed over to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff has been dealing with the tenants, recovering rent and virtually exercising ownership rights all this while. As noticed above, and us is evident from the pleas raised in support and resistance to the suit, briefly referred to above, serious questions requirting trial and decision, on the pleas set up by the parties arid the issues struck, arise in the suit and it will neither be proper nor desirable to express any opinion on them at this stage, for the purpose of this application for temporary injunction, the court has to take only a prima facie view of the matter.
If an irrevocable power of attorney is executed for consideration, the same cannot be cancelled, and having regard to the fact that the plaintiff company has been managing the suit properties all the while right from the year 1983, 1 feel that the plaintiff has a prima facie case and the balance of convenience lies in itsfavour. If the operation of the impugned notice, revoking the general power of attorneys, is not stayed and the •• defendants are given a free hand to deal with the subject properties the way they like, the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable injury.
The instant case, prima facie, is covered by Section 202 of the Contract Adas admittedly, having paid consideration for sale and having been dealing with the suit properties practically as owners, for fairly long, the plaintiff appears to have vital "interest" in it, requiring protection till it is held as washed away or nullified on the pleas raised by the defendants, which can be determined only after full trial.
For all these reasons and balancing the equities between the parties, I would direct that till the disposal of the suit, the parties shall maintain status quo regarding management and recovery of rent of the property from the tenants and further to secure the property, the plaintiff shall not sell, transfer, alienate or otherwise make any substantial alterations in the subject properties except routine repairs. Since it is alleged by the defendants that substantial amount of property tax etc. is due to the Municipal Corporation against the suit properties, the rent to be realised by the plaintiff from the tenants, in future shall be deposited in this Court. The plaintiff shall also file in this court quarterly returns for the rents realised from all the tenants in the said properties and deposited in Court as above.
( 1 ) THIS is plaintiff company s application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed in their suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction, for ad interim orders : a) staying operation of the alleged cancellation of General Powers of Attorney dated 16 November 1983 and b) restraining them from interfering in or causing hindrance in the plaintiff s peaceful use and enjoyment of and their dealing with the suit properties being blocks no. A and C of the Regal Building, New Delhi.
( 2 ) THE defendants owned the aforenoted property. They entered into agreements to sell dated 2 November 1983 and 15 November 1983, registered respectively on 10 November 1983 and 17 November 1984, agreeing to sell and transfer all their rights, title and interest in blocks A and C of the said building to the plaintiff company for consideration as mentioned therein. As per the terms of the agreement to sell, all liabilities for damages/misuse of the property and other Government dues like municipal taxes etc. , claimed by the authorities in respect of the demised blocks were to be discharged by the plaintiff company. It was also agreed that till such time the registration of the conveyance/sale deed was done, the plaintiff was free to deal with the property; manage the same in any manner they like, deal with the tenants and occupants of the property, create any lease or sub lease in favour of any person or persons, company or companies and the defendants were to have no objection whatsoever in that behalf. It seems that the defendants had some dispute with the Landdo concerning the subject property, for which they had initiated certain legal proceedings and with a view to enable the plaintiff to pursue these matters and effectively exercise their rights under the two agreements to sell, they executed two general powers of attorney in favour of the Directors of the plaintiff company in terms of clause 15 of the agreements to sell. The plaintiff claims that full and final consideration for sale of the said properties has been received by the defendants, constructive possession thereof has been delivered to it; the defendants informed the tenants in the properties about the deal of the subject properties, who attorned in favour of the plaintiff, and have been paying rent to them since then and the defendants were left with no right, title or interest in the said properties or any part thereof. However, on account of appreciation in the value of the property, with a view to set up illegal demand and cause mischief and confusion, among the tenants, the defendants informed the plaintiff company that they have revoked the general power of attorney dated 16 November 1983 w. e. f 9 May 1995 in respect of block A and threatened to cancel the other power of attorney relating to block C as well, leading to the filing of the present suit by the plaintiff company seeking: (i) declaration declaring the alleged revocation/cancellation of the general power of attorney dated 16 November 1983 as null and void; (ii) restraining by way of perpetual injunction the defendants from revoking and/or cancelling the said power of attorneys, pending completion of sale transactions in terms of the aforesaid agreements to sell and (iii) restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering in and/or causing any obstruction to the peaceful use, enjoyment and dealing with the subject properties.
( 3 ) THE defendants in their written statements and reply to the application admit execution of the two agreements to sell relating to blocks A and C and the two general powers of attorney, both dated 16 November 1983, authorising the plaintiff to deal, lease and manage the properties and for the sale deeds to be executed. However, without specifying the amounts still due from the plaintiff in terms of the two agreements to sell, they deny the receipt of the total sale consideration. The suit is contested, inter alia, on the pleas that
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
