Point of law : While scrutinizing the plaint averments, it is the bounden duty of the trial Court to ascertain the materials for cause of action. The cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant.

ORDER :

1. This order will dispose of the objections raised by the defendants to the maintainability of the present suit.

2. The suit has been filed for specific performance, possession and injunction. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff was approached by the defendant No.2 being the Karta of the defendant No.1 for the sale of the property bearing No 28A, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi, admeasuring 3727 square yards ("suit property"). After negotiations, it was agreed that the total sale consideration would be Rs.28,00,00,000/-. It was also agreed, according to the plaintiff, that the total consideration would be paid in parts as the suit property was a leasehold property with the L&DO, New Delhi and the defendants had undertaken to get the same converted into freehold before transferring it in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.l,64,50,000/- to the defendant No.1 against various receipts issued by the defendants acknowledging the payments made by the plaintiff such as on 12th April, 2004 of Rs.31,00,000/-, on 14th April, 2004 of Rs.20,00,000/-, on 22ndApril, 2004 of Rs.10,00,000/-, on 26th April, 2004 of Rs.10,00,000/-, on 7th May, 2004 of Rs.8,00,000/-, on 25th May, 2004 of Rs.10,00,000/-, on 29th May, 2004 of Rs.18,00,000/-, on 3rd June, 2004 of Rs.20,00,000/-, on 16th July, 2004 of Rs.12,00,000/-, on 19th July, 2004 of Rs.3,00,000/-, on 22nd July, 2004 of Rs.10,00,000/-, on 2nd August, 2004 of Rs.10,00,000/-, on 24th December, 2004 of Rs.2,00,000/- and on 3rd January, 2005 of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, the total sum of Rs.1,64,50,000/- was paid as earnest money by the plaintiff to the defendants.

3. The plaintiff further claims that he was handed part physical possession of the suit property vide Letter of Possession dated 22nd April, 2004. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had assured that the suit property was free from all encumbrances and, therefore, it was agreed that once the title to the suit property would be cleared from all encumbrances and converted from leasehold to freehold, the remaining balance payment would be made by the plaintiff to the defendants.

4. It is stated in the plaint that thereafter, in the month of June, 2020, the defendant No.2 approached the plaintiff for payment of the balance consideration as the title had been cleared of all encumbrances, but when the plaintiff sought documentary proof of the clear title, the defendants did not provide any such document to the plaintiff. Rather, on noticing the malafide conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff issued a public notice on 18th July, 2020 in the Hindustan Times, notifying the public at large about the agreement between them for the sale of the suit property. One objection was received on 20th July, 2020 sent by the Punjab and Sindh Bank, Rajendra Place, New Delhi staking claim over the suit property as it had been mortgaged by the defendant No.2 for securing the loan granted to one, Montari Industries Limited. Two other objections were received both dated 22nd July, 2020, one from SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited and the other from SREI Equipment Finance Limited, also claiming that the suit property had been mortgaged with them. On 23rd July, 2020, the defendant No.1 sent a letter to the plaintiff to the effect that there was no agreement between the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff for sale of the suit property and sought documents on the basis of which the plaintiff was staking such a claim.

5. Thus, the defendants for the very first time, vide this letter dated 23rd July, 2020, had refused to perform their obligations to conclude the sale transaction in respect of the suit property. They also malafidely published a notice in the Hindustan Times on 13th August, 2020 refuting the plaintiff’s public notice dated 18th July, 2020. The plaintiff also responded to the letter of the defendants on 27th August, 2020 which was again refuted by the defendant No.1 vide its letter dated 22nd September, 2020, also claiming t