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

2016 Supreme(Del) 3255

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG and PRATIBHA RANI, JJ.
SHRI MUKESH KAPIL – Appellant
Versus
SHRI PARAG P. TRIPATHI & ORS – Respondents
FAO (OS) 476 of 2013 & CM No. 3939 of 2014, FAO(OS) 495 of 2013 & CM No. 3940 of 2014, RFA(OS) 47 of 2014 & CM No. 3401 of 2014
Decided On : 01-09-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. J.C. Mahindro, Advocate with Ms. Sapna S. Kapil, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Mr. Kunal Bahri, Ms. Suveni Bhagat and Mr. Abhijeet Srivastava, Advocates

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 23 Rule 3 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Consent decree - Settlement signed - Violation - Legality of - Consent decree passed on October 03, 2001 - It conforms to the settlement signed by the appellant was filed - Terms of the perpetual lease prohibited the appellant's predecessor-in-interest from assigning, selling or creating any interest in the suit property - This permission not being maintained invalidates the agreement to sell executed - Held, agreements to Sell entered in to between the respondent No. 3 and predecessor-in-interest of the appellant - Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not transfer, sell, assign, or create any interest in the suit property in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - They were not in violation of the terms of the perpetual lease - Suit property has been converted to free-hold.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 23 Rule 3 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 54 - Execution of perpetual lease - Construction of building - Agreement - Non execution of - Demolition of existing construction and re-build a building thereon - As per agreement a basement, a ground floor, a first floor and a second floor to be constructed and additionally Rs.15,00,000/- to be paid to late D.L.K - Ground floor was to belong to D.L.K and the remaining floors were to belong to respondent No. 3 - Terrace rights were to vest with late D.L.K - Disputes arose between the parties - Numerous proceedings came to be filed - Settlement agreement between the parties concerning a staircase - It is to be erected from the second floor to the roof above has no concern - Appellant may seek execution of the consent decree or file a suit or resort to such proceedings as the appellant is advised - All occupants of the building are entitled to water - If there are various co-owners of a building owning different floors this trivial issue has to be sorted out by mutual agreement - Letters written by NDMC and DUAC shows an issue concerning FAR and permission to construct the staircase from the second floor to the terrace - This issue does not impact the dispute between the appellant and respondents No.1 and 2 - Three applications are dismissed - Terms of the consent decree contained distinct and mutually exclusive obligations - Rights inter-se the appellant and respondents No.1 and 2 and inter-se the appellant and respondent No. 3 - Three appeals and the three civil miscellaneous applications are accordingly dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The disputes in the 3 captioned appeals relate to property bearing municipal number 14, Bazar Lane, Babar Road, New Delhi.

2. By and under a perpetual lease executed by the Governor General Council on April 04, 1939 land ad-measuring 212 sq.yards bearing municipal No. 14, Bazar Lane, Babar Road, New Delhi was demised in perpetuity in the name of late Darshan Lal Kapil, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant in the three appeals. He constructed a building thereon and after a few years desired redevelopment thereof. On February, 1992 he entered into an Agreement with Ranjit Towers India Pvt. Ltd., impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the three appeals.

3. It is a typical collaboration arrangement. Respondent No. 3 undertook to demolish the existing construction and re-build a building thereon incurring expenses and additionally pay money to the owner of the land and in lieu thereof a share in the reconstructed building being its. In the instant case, the agreement dated February 17, 1992 required a basement, a ground floor, a first floor and a second floor to be constructed and additionally Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs only) to be paid to late Darshan Lal Kapil. As per the agreement the ground floor was to belong to late Darshan Lal Kapil and the remaining floors were to belong to respondent No. 3. The terrace rights were to vest with late Darshan Lal Kapil.

4. Relevant would it be to highlight that the Agreement dated February 17, 1992 empowered respondent No. 3 to negotiate the terms of the sale of the floors falling to its share along with proportionate rights in the land underneath and to receive the sale consideration from the prospective purchasers. In this regard, specific mention may be made to clauses 6, 11, 18, 20 and 26 of the Agreement dated February 17, 1992, which read as under:-

“6. That the owners agree to sell, transfer and convey to the developers or their nominees rights for basement, first and second floors with proportionate land rights in consideration of the Developers developing basement, ground floor, first floor and second floors plus the consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen laksh only). The interest in land will be available to the prospective purchasers proportionately in respect of basement, first and second floor only. The terrace rights over second floor be with the owners for further construction whenever it is permissible under the law, however, the usage of terrace shall be common for all occupants till further construction is done.

xxx

11. That the Developer shall always be fully competent to settle terms for the transfer of their basement, first floor and second floor in the building and proportionate land underneath to any persons at any time either during or after the building is fully completed and the Developers can enter into the Agreement to Sell for the sale of Developer’s portion and accept cash, cheques, pay order, drafts etc. from all such would be transferees in their (Developer’s) own name and at their own risk and responsibility can issue receipts for all such payments made to them. In this context, the Owners herein agree, declare and record that they shall always join in all such Agreements for sale/conveyance deeds to be given to prospective unit buyers of the Developer’s portion on such terms as the Developers may deem fit at their absolute discretion. In case of conversion from leasehold to freehold the betterment charges shall be proportionately borne by the parties.

xxx

18. That the Developers shall have the right to construct and sell the single unit on basement, first and second floor to the prospective buyers and the sale consideration received by such sale shall be exclusively of the Developers and the Owners will have no objection to the same.

xxx

20. That after development and construction of the building mentioned herein above, for the portion allocable to the Builders/Developers, the owners also undertake to give po





















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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