Manmohan Singh Manmohan Singh, J. (Oral):--

1. By way of this order, I propose to decide the application being I.A. No. 3125/2013 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC filed by defendant No. 1 seeking for rejection of the plaint.

2. The plaintiff has filed the above said suit for recovery of damages for a sum of Rs. 20,10,000/- against the defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement to sell dated 31st August, 2007 in respect of the entire first floor with one servant quarter having common toilet/bath (temporary structure) for use only on the top terrace, with full structure standing therein, fittings and fixtures installed therein, of the property bearing No. A-63, Defence Colony, New Delhi, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 90 lacs. It is stated in the plaint that defendant No. 1 had assured the plaintiff that the suit property is free from all kinds of encumbrances. The sale deed was executed on 5th September, 2007 and after obtaining the possession of the property, the plaintiff surprised to find that the servant quarter along with common toilet/bathroom was not there. The plaintiff’s family engaged a full time servant and such provision of a servant quarter was every much essential. Therefore, the said property was purchased. The family of the plaintiff consists of his wife, son and daughter. The nonexistence of the servant quarter and the sparing of one room exclusively for the servant have affected the personal life of the children and their studies. The children are forced to carry on their studies amongst the family members and the noisy surroundings due to lack of an exclusive study room. As the plaintiff has suffered loss and damages, the same are restricted and assessed at a sum of Rs. 20,10,000/- and the value of the servant quarter with temporary toilet and bathroom is assessed at a sum of Rs. 25 lacs. But the plaintiff in total restricts his claim of damages to the tune of Rs. 20,10,000/-.

3. It is the admitted position that defendant No. 1 had sold the suit property by way of General Power of Attorney executed by the owner of the property, namely, Mr. Joginder Singh Bhasin. It is also the admitted position that prior to the above said suit, the plaintiff earlier filed the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction as well as for damages on 22nd April, 2010 on the same cause of action being CS(OS) No. 772/2010 against defendant No. 1 and also against Mr. Joginder Singh Bhasin who was the original owner of the suit property. During the pendency of the said suit, Mr. Joginder Singh Bhasin expired on 25th November, 2009 and his legal heirs were brought on record as defendants No. 1(a), (b) & (c). The said defendants revealed in their written statement that defendant No. 1 was merely a General Power of Attorney holder on behalf of their father in furtherance of Collaboration Agreement dated 9th January, 2006 along with one Mr. S.S. Saluja who agreed to develop the property as per the Collaboration Agreement.

4. It is stated in the application that defendant No. 1 had sold the suit property to the plaintiff by way of General Power of Attorney executed in his favour by Mr. Joginder Singh Bhasin, the original owner of the suit property. It is stated that the damages which have been claimed are stated to have arisen out of the transaction pertaining to the sale deed dated 5th September 2007. It is further stated that the defendant No. 1 as an agent was appointed to act for the Principal namely, Mr. Joginder Singh Bhasin who had executed the sale deed. The plaintiff along with the plaint has filed copies of the General Power of Attorney as well as Agreement to Sell and Sale Deed.

5. It is alleged that the plaint is liable to be rejected as it is barred under the provisions of Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act as defendant No. 1 cannot be personally bound by the document i.e. the sale deed dated 5th September 2007 as well as other documents exec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document