Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. (Oral)

1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance or, in the alternative, for recovery of damages in respect of property bearing No. 60, Poorvi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi measuring 819 sq. yds.

2. The plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for ad interim injunction in respect of the property in question along with the suit and interim orders were granted on 11.5.2005 directing status quo to be maintained in respect of property at the stage when the summons were issued in the suit. Thereafter certain directions were passed for the plaintiff to appear in court along with documents to show that the plaintiff was capable of making the payment of Rs.9.3 crores which was the stated consideration by the plaintiff in respect of the property in question and for the plaintiff to produce Income Tax Returns and pass book of bank accounts maintained by her. The plaintiff filed an affidavit with Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2005-2006 along with details of bank account. The bank account showed meagre amounts of couple of thousand rupees. It was found that the plaintiff was not in a position to pay the stated consideration and thus the application was dismissed.

3. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the said order filed an appeal before the Division Bench and the appeal was disposed of by the order dated 10.8.2005. This order was passed on agreement of the counsel for the parties that in view of the documents filed by the plaintiff, matter required a deeper consideration. The plaintiff showed a document from the HDFC Bank showing the financial capacity and that document was permitted to be filed in court. It is in view thereof that the application has come up again for hearing.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to first deal with the averments made in the plaint. There is no dispute that the defendants No.1 and 2 are the owners of the property while defendant No.3 is their son. All the three defendants are based in France. Defendant No.4 is the property broker who is alleged to have contacted the plaintiff and offered to sell the property in suit. It is stated that the defendant No.4 claimed that he was authorised by defendant No.1 and 2 and copies of relevant documents of title including the perpetual sub-lease deed dated 11.3.1969, occupancy certificate and conveyance deed were handed over the plaintiff. The plaint goes on to state that in pursuance to the discussion between the plaintiff and defendant No.4, a total sale consideration of Rs.9.3 crores was finalised between the parties and that defendant No.1 and 2 confirmed the sale consideration but desired that the entire amount would be payable by the plaintiff to the said defendants in one installment at the stage of registration of the sale deed. The sale was to be completed within four or five months period of time. Since defendant No.1 and 2 were old, it was represented that the defendant No.3, their son, would be duly authorised to execute the sale deed on their behalf. Defendant No.1 and 2 are stated to have informed the plaintiff that defendant No.3 would enter into all communications with the plaintiff and would settle the terms of the sale deed. In order to satisfy defendants No.1 and 2 of the creditworthiness of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got issued a letter/certificate dated 23.11.2004 regarding her creditworthiness. Not only this, another certificate dated 25.11.2004 was got issued from Vijaya Bank, Hauz Khas, New Delhi certifying that the plaintiff was solvent enough to make payment ofRs.9.3 crores. Discussions are stated to have been held between defendant No.3 and and defendant No.4 in respect of the draft sale deed and the same is stated to have been settled and finalised. Even the terms of the Special Power of Attorney to be executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 were discussed. Defenda

Click Here to Read the rest of this document