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

2022 Supreme(Del) 455

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiffs : Mr. N.S. Dalal, Mr. Devesh Pratap Singh, Mr. Alok Kumar & Ms. Rachana Dalal.
For the Defendants : Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Mr. Amer Vaid & Mr. Madhav Bhatia.

Doubt about the existence of a valid and binding agreement and the insignificance of the consideration paid by the plaintiffs disentitled them for grant of interim relief.

Headnote:

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:-

    i. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the owners of land measuring 14 bighas 19 biswas in Khasra No. 1012 Min. (3-0), 1013 Min. (0-5), 1025 (0-5), 1027 (4-17), 1028 Min. (4-7) and 1029 (2-5) with boundary wall, tube well, electric connection and structure standing thereon situated in Village Chhattarpur, Tehsil Saket, New Delhi and also known as Farm No. 15, North Drive, DLF Chhattarpur Farms, New Delhi (‘suit property’).

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

                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                  1
                  2
                  3
                  4
                  5
                  6
                  7
                  8
                  9
                  10
                  11
                  Judicial Analysis

                  AI

                  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