SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Del) 272

High Court Of Delhi
VINOD SINGH - Appellant
Versus
PHUTORI DEVI - Respondent
Decided On : 02/10/2006

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Sections 16 & 20 - Specific performance of agreement to sell — Entire consideration paid by the plaintiff — Prior permission from DDA is not a condition precedent — Appropriate directions can be issued by the court to the vendor to apply for permission — The agreement to sell is enforceable and not contrary to public policy — Decree of specific performance to agreement to sell granted.

A. K. SIKRI, J.

( 1 ) IN this suit for specific performance and injunction filed by the plaintiff, following prayers are made:" (a) Pass a decree for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to obtain lease deed from the office of the Delhi Development Authority and thereafter execute proper and requisite sale deed for transferring lawful and marketable title free from all encumbrances, right of ownership in respect of plot No. 37 area admeasuring 334 sq. mts. Sector-10, Dwarka Residential Scheme Dwarka, New delhi. That this Hon ble Court may further be pleased to direct that in case if the defendant fails, neglects, refuses or otherwise does not carry out the directions as prayed above, all such acts and things be carried out by any of the officials of this Hon ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. (b) That in case if for any reason this Hon ble Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 2. 5. 1996 in that even grant a decree for recovery of Rs. 32,00,000/- with 24% interest thereof be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant with pendelite and future interest till the date of recovery of the amount. (c) Grant of decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant while directing the defendant not to alienate, transfer, sell or encumber any right, title and interest in favour of any 3rd party except the plaint and not to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. (d) Grant such other relief or reliefs which this Hon ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. "

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, late Mr. Mange Ram, husband of the defendant was the owner and in possession of the agricultural land situate in the revenue estate of village Mehrauli, New Delhi. This land was acquired by the Union of India for the purpose of planned development of Delhi in the year 1961. There was large scale acquisition in the said year and the government came out with the Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, development and Disposal of land under which alternative plots were allotted to the eligible persons whose lands were acquired. On acquisition of land late Mr. Mange Ram his case was also recommended by the Delhi administration for allotment of alternative land. The DDA accordingly allotted a plot bearing No. 37 admeasuring 334 sq. mts. , Sector-10, Dwarka residential Scheme, Dwarka, New Delhi vide letter dated 12th January, 1996. However, before the possession of this land could be given to him, mr. Mange Ram died and rights in the suit allotment were inherited by the defendant as all other legal heirs executed relinquishment deeds in her favour in respect of the sait property. Consequently, the DDA mutated the suit property in favour of the defendant and the defendant became the absolute owner thereof.

( 3 ) THE defendant vide agreement to sell (hereinafter referred to as the agreement ) dated 2nd May, 1996 agreed to sell the said property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 32,00,000/ -. A sum of Rs. 10 lacs was paid as earnest money on the same date. Out of this, Rs. 8 lacs were paid in cash and Rs. 2 lacs vide cheque bearing No. 000089 dated 2nd May, 1996 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Bamnoli, New Delhi. The receipt of Rs. 10 lacs as earnest money was acknowledged in the agreement. Since certain payments were yet to be made to the DDA, it was also agreed in clause 2 of the agreement that out of the balance sale consideration to be paid to the dda, the plaintiff shall deposit the amount of DDA as demanded against this plot and net balance amount shall be paid to the defendant within one month after the possession and execution of the lease deed of the aforesaid plot. The DDA raised a demand of Rs. 4,25,183/- on the defendant. The defendant approached th

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top