Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Raghbir Singh Chhabra – Appellant
Versus
Holy Star Natural Resources Ltd. & Others – Respondent
CS(COMM) 7 of 2015
Decided On : 29-03-2023
POSSESSION - AGREEMENT TO SELL - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - LIMITATION
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant no.1, alleging non-compliance with agreements to sell for certain properties. The defendant no.1 denied the existence of the agreements and claimed ownership of the properties. The suit was transferred to the High Court due to pecuniary jurisdiction. Subsequently, the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint to include additional reliefs for specific performance and declaration against a sale deed executed by the defendant no.1 in favor of other parties. The defendants filed applications seeking vacation of the interim order restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff and creating third-party interests in the properties. The defendants also challenged the validity of the agreements and the plaintiff's possession, while the plaintiff claimed continuous possession and acknowledgment of the agreements by the defendant no.1 in various proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the defendants engaged in misrepresentation, concealment, and suppression of facts, and were not bonafide purchasers. It held that the plaintiff was in possession of the properties and that the defendants' challenge to the validity of the agreements was not tenable. The Court also ruled that the relief of specific performance was not barred by limitation, as the amendment to the plaint related back to the date of the suit. The Court dismissed the defendants' applications and directed all parties to maintain status quo with regard to the properties.
Issues: Misrepresentation, concealment, and suppression of facts by the defendants; Bonafide purchase by the defendants; Validity of the agreements to sell; Plaintiff's possession of the properties; Applicability of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act; Bar of limitation for the relief of specific performance.
Ratio Decidendi: The defendants' misrepresentation, concealment, and suppression of facts disqualified them from obtaining relief. The plaintiff's continuous possession and acknowledgment of the agreements by the defendant no.1 in various proceedings supported the plaintiff's claim. The amendment to the plaint related back to the date of the suit, allowing the relief of specific performance.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the defendants' applications and directed all parties to maintain status quo with regard to the properties.
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J.
I.A. 8146/2022 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC on behalf of the plaintiff) & I.A. 1468/2023 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of CPC on behalf of the plaintiff), I.A. 7439/2022 (O-XXXIX R-4 of CPC on behalf of the defendant no.5), I.A. 10596/2022 (O-XXXIX R-4 of CPC on behalf of the defendant no.6), I.A. 11708/2022 (O-XXXIX R-4 of CPC on behalf of the defendants no.2, 3 and 4)
BRIEF FACTS
1. The present suit was originally filed as a suit for perpetual injunction before the Court of Additional District Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts on 3rd July, 2014 by the plaintiff against the defendant no.1, Holystar Natural Resources Private Limited.
2. The case set up by the plaintiff was that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement to sell dated 11th July, 2011 for sale of semi-furnished first floor measuring about 18 ft. X 68 ft. and second floor with terrace/roof above, measuring 18 ft. X 68 ft. forming part of freehold property bearing municipal no.10463 and 10466 built on plot no.42 and 43 situated in Western Extension Area, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The total sale consideration was Rs.10,50,00,000/-, out of which plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.10,00,00,000/- to the defendant no.1, as noted in Clause 1 of the agreement to sell.
3. Yet another agreement to sell dated 20th February, 2013 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 for sale of one shop on ground floor ad measuring 9 ft. X 37-6 ft. along with basement forming part of freehold property bearing municipal No.10466 built on plot no.43, Western Extension Area, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The total sale consideration was Rs.5,00,00,000/-, out of which the plaintiff had paid Rs.3,97,00,000/- to the defendant, as noted in Clause 1 of the agreement to sell. As per the said agreement to sell dated 20th February, 2013, the defendant no.1 had to clear the amount payable to one M/s Rare Finance Pvt. Ltd. on or before 15th May, 2013 and Sale Deed could be executed only thereafter.
4. The portions of the properties covered under both the agreements to sell shall be collectively referred to as `suit properties..
5. Under the clause 8 of the agreement to sell dated 11th July, 2011 and clause 6 of the agreement to sell dated 20th February, 2013, the defendant no.1 had to complete the construction before registration of the sale deeds. Along with agreements to sell, possession letters were also issued stating that physical possession has been delivered to the plaintiff.
6. On 26th June, 2014, an ex parte ad interim injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant no.1 not to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit properties without adopting the process of law, till further orders.
7. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 before the District Court on 30th July, 2014, it was stated that the defendant no.1 took a loan of Rs.2,65,00,000/- from the plaintiff and in respect of the said loan, the plaintiff got some blank papers and cheques signed from the defendant no.1 as a measure of security. It was specifically denied that any agreement to sell was executed between the parties. It was further stated that the two agreements to sell dated 11th July, 2011 and 20th February, 2013, the receipts and the possession letters are forged and fabricated. The suit properties were sealed on 2nd May, 2013 on account of violation of the Delhi Master Plan 2021. The defendant no.1 continued to be the lawful owner of the suit properties and never gave the possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff.
8. Subsequently on 19th November, 2015, the present suit was transferred to this Court on account of pecuniary jurisdiction.
9. A public notice dated 6th September, 2014 issued by HDFC Bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act for taking symbolic possession of the suit properties on account of defendant no.1 defaulting in repayment of loan of Rs.11,28,47,780/- taken from HDFC Bank, for which the
The court emphasized that the rejection of a plaint cannot be done in a piecemeal manner and must be rejected as a whole. The subsequent events of abatement/dismissal of the suit in Saket Court were ....
Civil Law - Dismissal of suit for permanent injunction and restoration of possession in suit property - provision of order VII, Rule II(b) that a Court has to come to a finding that relief claimed ha....
Point of law: Termination of lease - Default in payment of rent - Oral Agreement to sell - Prime property fetching a rent of Rs. 2,30,000/- per month cannot possibly be agreed to have been sold for a....
The plaintiff's lawful ownership and entitlement to recovery of possession were established, and the defendants' possession was found to be unlawful.
An agreement holder whose suit for specific performance has been dismissed cannot invoke the protection of part performance, as the failure to obtain a decree indicates a lack of the requisite readin....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
