BADAR DURREZ AHMED, SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Rajni Jain – Appellant
Versus
Parag Jain – Respondent
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
1. The Appellants have filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 17.11.2014 whereby the application of the Appellants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.
2. The Respondent (Plaintiff) before the trial court filed a suit for specific performance, declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of property E-142, Preet Vihar, Delhi-92.
3. It is contended by the Respondent (Plaintiff) in the Plaint, that the Appellant No. 1 (Defendant No. 1) is the owner of the suit property and the Appellants (Defendant Nos. 1 and 2) had approached the Respondent through a property dealer for sale of the said property.
4. It is contended that an Agreement to Sell was executed between the parties on 08.02.2013 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 3,15,00,000/-. Rs.35,00,000/- in cash and Rs.25,00,000/- by cheque was also handed over by the Respondent to the Appellants at the time of execution of the Agreement to Sell. As per the Respondent, another payment of Rs.65,00,000/- was to be made on or before 17.02.2013 and the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,90,00,000/- was to be paid by
C. Natrajan Vs. Ashim Bai [(2007) 14 SCC 183]
Ram Prakash Gupta Vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta [(2007) 10 SCC 59]
Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. Vs. Hede and Co. [(2007) 5 SCC 614]
Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. Vs. Vessel M.V. Fortune Express [(2006) 3 SCC 100]
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable Vs. Asstt. Charity Commr. [(2004) 3 SCC 137]
Saleem Bhai Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 1 SCC 557]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.