V.K. Shali, J.

I.A. No.17960/2011 (under Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff)

1. The question to be decided by this order (in I.A. No.17960/2011) is as to whether the plaintiff company is to be given permission for the purpose of raising construction on the property bearing No.61, Golf Links, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property), which was agreed to be sold by D-1 to D-4 to the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 29.07.2005. This permission is sought by the plaintiff after having filed an undertaking that in case such a permission is granted, he shall not claim special equities in respect of the construction so raised on the plot in the event of suit being decided against them. A direction to L&DO is also sought to give a ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the plaintiff to carry out the construction.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to the filing of the present application (as averred in the plaint) are that Bhai Manjit Singh (HUF), D-1, is a Hindu Undivided Family, Mrs. Maheep Manjit Singh, D-2, wife of Bhai Manjit Singh, Vikramjit Singh, D-3, Mohanjit Singh, D-4 and Bhai Manjit Singh, D-5, father of D-3 & D-4. The D-2 to D-4 are the members of HUF, D-1. The D-1, acting through its karta and manager D-2 entered into an agreement to sell dated 29.07.2005 whereby the HUF, D-1, agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.9.25 crores subject to such terms and conditions as stipulated in the agreement. The D-3 and D-4 acted as the confirming parties to the said agreement. At the time of execution of the aforesaid agreement, it was represented by the defendants that in pursuance to the family settlement arrived at amongst the members of HUF, D-1, D-5 had resigned as a member and the karta of HUF and it thereafter consisted only of three persons, that is, D-2 to D-4.

3. Pursuant to the agreement the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.8,99,14,974/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.9.25 crores which was inclusive of all charges that were required to be paid to the Central Government for conversion of the said property from leasehold to freehold. It also included payment of all stamp duty, municipal taxes, registration charges, exclusive of transfer charges that may be payable to the Central Government under the perpetual lease. The consideration was paid to the various parties at the instance of the HUF, D-1, itself, details of which are given in the agreement to sell itself. An amount of Rs.29,19,447/- was also deposited with the L&DO towards the conversion charges.

4. Simultaneously with the execution of the agreement to sell, D-2 acting as karta of the HUF, D-1, executed a power of attorney on 12.8.2005 in favour of one Abhay Aggarwal, who was the Director of the plaintiff company. He was authorized to take all steps regarding development of the said property. Both the documents, that is, agreement to sell dated 29.7.2005 and the power of attorney dated 12.8.2005 were duly registered with the Sub-Registrar and further the plaintiff was also put into physical possession of the suit property with right to construct the property. It continues to be in his possession uninterruptedly till date.

5. It is averred that simultaneously with the execution of these two documents, HUF, D-1, applied for conversion of the leasehold property to freehold and members of the HUF kept on extending assurances to the plaintiff that all the requisite steps are being taken to secure the conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold but despite persistent follow-up action of the plaintiff with the members of the HUF, D-1, the said conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold did not materialize. The HUF, D-1 and its members, D-2 to D-4 are alleged to have kept on giving one excuse or the other for the delay in disposal of the application for conversion not being allowed by the competent authority.

6. The plaintiff was informed that the application for conversion cou