JUDGMENT :

EX. APPL. (OS) 682/2012 (u/S 47 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908)

1. This is a case where the dream of the Decree Holder to own a home became a reality when the Suit for Specific Performance of an Agreement to Sell was decreed with alacrity in less than two months. However, it turned into a mirage as she embarked on a long and arduous journey on the path of execution since 1988, which continues even after 38 years. The adage by an unknown Writer “The Hurrier I Go, The Behinder I Get” aptly explains the dilemma of Decree Holder. The journey to realize the fruits of the Decree may still not end with the determination of these Objections.

2. This case reflects the archetype challenges of an adversarial litigation system and urgently requires the attention of all the stakeholders to assume responsibility to work out a mechanism to ensure that the person with a Decree is not left only with papers which do not materialize into fruition.

3. The Objections under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC, 1908”) have been filed on behalf of Ms. Meena Rani Gupta and Ms. Nalini Gupta (hereinafter referred to as “Objectors”) in the Execution Petition filed on behalf of Ms. Veena Mahajan, Decree Holder (hereinafter referred to as “DH”) for execution of the Judgment and Decree dated 29th April, 1988 in Suit No. 553/1998 for Specific Performance of an Agreement to Sell which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/DH.

4. The suit property got subjected to chain transactions of Sale on the basis of Agreements to Sell and other ancillary documents. Mr. V.N. Verma, Judgment Debtor (hereinafter referred to as “JD”), the original owner, sold his Property bearing Plot No. 40 situated at Chitra Vihar behind Radhu Cinema in the Village Khreji Khas, Elaka Shahdara, Delhi-110092 (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”) to the DH Ms. Veena Mahajan vide Agreement to Sell dated 14th February, 1986. The JD again entered into a sale transaction in regard to this property on 21st January, 1988 by executing an Agreement to Sell, Undertaking/affidavit & Registered Will in favour of Kamlesh Gupta and Registered Special Power of Attorney & General Power of Attorney in favour of her husband, Mr. Gagan Prasad Gupta. In part performance of the Agreement to Sell, they were put in physical possession of the suit property by the JD, and under the Agreement to Construction, they were fully authorized to raise or construct the building and further use the building for the residence of himself/herself or his/her nominee or to let out the property to anybody in part or full, and collect the rent from such tenants.

5. In the integrum, Civil Suit bearing No. 533/1988 titled Veena Mahajan vs. V.N. Verma for Specific Performance and Possession and in the alternative for Refund of the Part Payment and Damages was filed by the DH on 07.03.1998 (i.e., after the execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 21st January 1988 in favour of Kamlesh Gupta).

6. This Court vide Order dated 14th March, 1988 passed an interim order restraining the defendant i.e., V.N. Verma (JD) by way of temporary injunction from selling or parting with the possession or creating any third-party rights in the property.

7. The Suit was decreed vide Judgment dated 29th April, 1998. The operative part of judgment reads as under:

“This suit on this coming day for final disposal before this court in the presence of the counsel for the parties as aforesaid, it is ordered that a decree for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 14.02.1986 with regard to plot No, situated at village Khureji Khas, measuring 3602 sq. yards in Chitra Vihar, be and the same is hereby passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant directing:

(i) the plaintiff to deposit the sum of Rs. 70,000/- on or before 31.07.1998:

(ii) on the plaintiff depositing the amount, the defendant shall execute necessary document in favour of the plaintiff within thirty day