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

2014 Supreme(Del) 1461

High Court of Delhi
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & JAYANT NATH, JJ.
Sapan Chopra & Another
Versus
M/s. Ultimate Builders & Developer (P) Ltd.
RFA. No. (OS) 146 of 2013
Decided on : 22-05-2014

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:Rajesh Yadav, Ruchira, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R.L. Kohli with Varun Yadav, Advocates.

Headnote:

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 14(b) and (d) - Contract - Agreement - Breach of obligation - Specific performance - Builder and developer sought specific performance - Enhancement of sale consideration - Agreement for refurbishing by carrying out extensive repairs, additions and alterations in the existing building - Owner of the house entered into an agreement with a Builders & Developers - As pr the terms of the agreement, additions and alterations was to be made in the ground floor and purchase the first and the second floor with roof rights - Consideration was fixed Rs. 43,50,000/- -Rs. 8,00,000/- as earnest money-cum-part sale consideration - Builders & Developers was wanting the sale-deed to be registered at a sale consideration of Rs. 12,50,000/- - Owner did not agree and this was the real reason, apart from the trust deficit between the parties - Builders & Developers must fail his readiness and willing to perform its obligations - Agreement had a dual character - Composite composition for the sale of the first floor and second floor was not only the payment of the agreed money but even the execution of civil, electrical, plumbing, drainage and sanitary works - Performance of the contract involves the performance of a continuous duty which the Court cannot supervise - Agreement cannot be severed into two parts concerning sale of the first floor and the second floor for an agreed consideration and reconstruction and renovation of the ground floor at an agreed consideration - Appeal is allowed - Willingness of defendant to refund Rs. 8,50,000/-received by them from Builders & Developers - Interest should be awarded was left to the discretion of the Court - Simple interest @ 12% per annum as awarded - Appeal is disposed of decreeing suit filed by the respondent against the appellant.

Judgment :

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Sapan Chopra son of Late Sh.V.K.Chopra and his mother Madhu Chopra are the owners of plot bearing Municipal No.72, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi on which a 2½ storeyed building exists. Desirous of refurbishing by carrying out extensive repairs, additions and alterations in the existing building, and having no finances to do so, Sapan and his mother Madhu entered into an agreement, Ex.P-1 on August 11, 2004, with M/s.Ultimate Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Sh.Subhash Gupta. As per the agreement, M/s.Ultimate Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. agreed to renovate, make additions and alterations in the ground floor and purchase the first and the partly constructed second floor above together with roof rights at a consideration of Rs. 43,50,000/- (Rupees Forty Three Lacs and Fifty Thousand only). As recorded in Ex.P-1, M/s.Ultimate Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. paid Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs only) as earnest money-cum-part sale consideration to Sapan and his mother Madhu.

2. Since Sapan and Madhu had inherited the property from the original allottees Tilak Raj Chopra and Kiran Bhatija and mutation in the Government record had yet to be effected in their favour, thus, vide clause 1 in Ex.P-1, it was recorded that the balance sale consideration shall be paid either within three months from the date of execution of Ex.P-1 or from the date when Sapan and his mother obtained mutation in their names; whichever is later. Simultaneously upon receipt of balance sale consideration, sale documents would be executed concerning the first floor and the second floor. The agreement Ex.P-1, vide clause 4, required M/s.Ultimate Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. to renovate, make additions and alterations in the ground floor as per working plan. Clause 7 of the agreement records:-

“That the first party have delivered the actual and physical vacant possession of the property to the second party to resume the construction work at site.”

3. Vide clause 12 and 13 of the agreement Ex.P-1, the quality of the wood to be used for the door and window frames as also the doors and the windows as also glass was referred to.

4. Vide clause 27 and 28 the nature of the civil works to be executed was detailed qua the specification thereof i.e. for

(i) plastering, (ii) brick work, (iii) RCC, (iv) flooring, (v) tiles, (vi) GI pipes, (vii) TI pipes, (viii) CP fittings, (ix) sanitary and (x) electrical works. Clause 28 reads as under:-

“28. That the material to be used in construction of the ground floor shall be of good quality as per details given hereinunder:-

i) Plastering Walls 1:5

Roof Plastering 1:4

ii) Brick work 1:6

iii) RCC 1:4:3


iv) Flooring : Rajender Marble of value of Rs. 40 per sq.ft. The quality of marble to be used on the ground floor shall be in similarity to the flooring of the first floor and upper floors.

v) Tiles : Kajaria/Johnson (1st quality), the value of the bathroom tiles shall be Rs. 400 per Box with coverage of 16.75 sq.fts. per box.

vi) Electric Switches Anchor/North West.

vii) G.I.Pipe : Jindal B Class

viii) C.I.Pipe : SIF (ISI Mark)

ix) Sanitary fittings : Classica

x) C.P. fittings/Taps : Volga brand”

5. Clause 18 of the agreement stipulates that the ground floor shall be completed i.e. additions, alterations and renovations effected as per the sanctioned building plan within ten months from the date when plans were sanctioned.

6. Alleging breach of their obligations under Ex.P-1 by Sapan and his mother Madhu, M/s.Ultimate Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. sought specific performance of Ex.P-1 by filing a suit which was registered as CS (OS) No.299/2005. The plaint was instituted on March 02, 2005.

7. After pleading parties having executed Ex.P-1, it was averred in the plaint that whereas the plaintiff assisted the defendants in obtaining a sanction from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to effect reconstruction and that the sanction letter was issued on December 30, 2004
















































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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top