IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT BANSAL, J.
Vibhor Kumar Gupta & Ors. - Plaintiffs
Versus
Anupama Kapoor & Ors. - Defendants
CS(OS) No. 13 of 2020, IA No. 3028 of 2020 (u/S.151 of CPC) & IA No. 3029 of 2020 (of the defendants u/O.VII R.11 of CPC)
Decided On : 19-04-2022
Misrepresentation - Specific Performance - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 4 - The court vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction granted to the plaintiffs as there was doubt about the existence of an oral agreement to sell, and the consideration paid by the plaintiffs was too insignificant in relation to the total consideration, which disentitled the plaintiffs for grant of interim relief.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to sell three portions of a contiguous land. The defendants denied the existence of any agreement and raised doubts about the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform their part of the alleged contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was doubt about the existence of a valid and binding agreement between the parties. The consideration paid by the plaintiffs was too insignificant in relation to the total consideration, which disentitled the plaintiffs for grant of interim relief. The court vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction.
Issues: The main issues were the existence of a valid and binding agreement, the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform their part of the alleged contract, and the grant of interim relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction due to doubts about the existence of a valid and binding agreement and the insignificance of the consideration paid by the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The ex parte ad interim order was vacated, and the applications filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants were allowed and dismissed, respectively. The case was listed for further hearing on a specified date.
JUDGMENT :
Amit Bansal, J.
IA No. 430/2020(u/O.XXXIX R.1&2 of the CPC) & IA No. 3030/2020 (u/O.XXXIX R.4 of CPC)
1. By the present order, I propose to dispose of the application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for grant of interim injunction and the application filed on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC seeking vacation of ex parte ad-interim injunction granted by this Court vide order dated 15th January, 2020.
2. Vide order dated 15th January, 2020, this Court had granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from creating any third party rights in respect of the three suit properties being, (i) land admeasuring 4 bighas 17 biswas bearing Khasra Nos. 1029 Min. (0-5), 1025(0-5) and 1028 Min (4-7) with the structure standing thereon situated in Village Chhattarpur and also known as part of Farm No. 15, North Drive, DLF Chhattarpur Farms, New Delhi, (ii) land admeasuring 5 bighas 5 biswas bearing Khasra No. 1012 Min (3-0), 1029 (2-0) and 1013 (0-5) with the structure standing thereon situated in Village Chhattarpur and also known as part of Farm No. 15, North Drive, DLF Chhattarpur Farms, New Delhi and (iii) land admeasuring 4 bighas 17 biswas bearing Khasra No. 1027 (4-17) with the structure standing thereon situated in Village Chhattarpur and also known as part of Farm No. 15, North Drive, DLF Chhattarpur Farms, New Delhi.
Case set up in the plaint
3. The case set up by the plaintiffs in the plaint is that:-
ii. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are real sisters and they had executed a registered Power of Attorney dated 21st August, 2018 in favour of the defendant No. 4, who is the husband of the defendant No. 3, in respect of the entire suit property. On the basis of the aforesaid Power of Attorney, defendant No. 4 entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 6th May, 2019 in favour of the defendant No. 5 qua the entire suit property.
iii. Plaintiffs entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 6th July, 2019 with the defendant No. 5 in respect of the entire suit property for a consideration of Rs. 14,00,00,000/-. Out of the aforesaid consideration of Rs. 14,00,00,000/-, the plaintiffs paid a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- as an advance through cheque in favour of the defendant No. 5 and a receipt was also executed by the defendant No. 5 qua the said payment.
iv. It was further agreed between the parties that the plaintiffs would purchase the entire suit property in three parts and therefore, three different Sale Deeds would be executed in respect of different portions of the entire suit property, as detailed above.
v. On 9th August, 2019, three demand drafts of Rs. 30,00,000/- each were prepared by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively and handed over to the defendant No. 5, in respect of which, a receipt was executed by the defendant No. 5. Further, a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- was paid in cash to the defendant Nos. 4 and 5, in respect of which, a receipt was executed by the defendant No. 5.
vi. On 21st August, 2019, a public notice was issued by the plaintiffs in the newspapers in respect of its agreement to purchase the suit property.
vii. The plaintiffs also purchased the e-stamp papers for the Sale Deeds to be executed in their favour and also got prepared the demand drafts in respect of the remaining sale consideration. Since the defendants did not confirm any date for execution of the Sale Deeds, the plaintiffs got the demand drafts cancelled on 13th September, 2019.
viii. On 14th
Aggarwal Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Focus Properties (P) Ltd.
Amarjit Singh Johar & Company (DC) v. Shri Prakash Chand Brahmin
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Ltd. v. KS Infraspace LLP Ltd.
Anil Kumar v. Seema Thakur & Ors.
AI
The delay in taking action after objections were raised, and the sale transaction to the new purchasers, did not warrant the grant of interim injunction.
(1) Merely because property is sold on lesser consideration then previous one, it does not ipso-facto make subsequent transaction illegal or malafide – Unregistered agreement to sell can be considere....
It is well settled principle of law that in an appeal against the exercise of 'discretion' by Court of first instance, power of Appellate Court to interfere with exercise of discretion is restrictive....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that readiness and willingness to perform an Agreement to Sell, as well as the obligations of the parties under the Agreement, are crucial factors ....
The main legal point established is the application of principles for granting interim injunctions, the interpretation of time as the essence of a contract, and the significance of fulfilling recipro....
The court affirmed that consistent readiness to perform contractual obligations supersedes delays due to external factors, justifying the grant of specific performance and interim injunction.
Multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the weighty considerations and becomes part of facet of balance of convenience, for, if the disputed property is allowed to be transferred from one hand to ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's affirmation of the specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 05-8-1995, and the rejection of the 4th defendant's claim as a b....
The court held that specific performance of an agreement for sale is unenforceable without consent from co-parceners and proof of legal necessity, emphasizing the court's discretion in granting such ....
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.