JUDGMENT

1. IA No.13912/2018 of the defendants no.1 to 3 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC read with Sections 18 and 34 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (DRT Act) is for consideration.

2. The counsel for the plaintiffs was heard at length on the said application on 5th December, 2018 when, after recording the submissions made and the queries of the Court, further opportunity was given to the plaintiffs to make submissions. The senior counsel for the plaintiffs appearing today, the senior counsel for the defendants no.1 to 3 and the counsel for the defendant no.6 Indian Bank have been heard. The counsel for the defendants no.4 and 5 has made only one submission, that it is the choice of the plaintiffs, whether to proceed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)/its Recovery Officer or before this Court.

3. The plaintiffs instituted this suit, initially for the reliefs of, (i) declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of property no.47, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi-110 024 and that the defendants no.1 to 3 have no right, title and interest in the said property; (ii) mandatory injunction directing the defendant no.5 to refund the amount of Rs.5,20,000/- entrusted by the plaintiffs to the defendant no.5 for conversion of leasehold rights in the land underneath the said property into freehold; (iii) mandatory injunction directing the defendant no.5 to get the property converted from leasehold to freehold and execute the sale deed of the property in favour of the plaintiffs; and, (iv) permanent injunction restraining the defendants no.1 to 3 from representing themselves to be the owners of the property.

4. In the suit as initially filed, the defendant no.6 Indian Bank was not a party.

5. The suit, in which issues had already been framed, was listed before the undersigned on 7th December, 2016 when on being informed that the lease of the land underneath the property and the property is in the name of the defendant no.1, of which defendants no.2 and 3 are the Directors and that the plaintiffs were only claiming an Agreement to Sell by the defendants no.4 and 5 coupled with registered General Power of Attorney with respect to the property in their favour, it was enquired as to how the plaintiffs, without having any title to the property could seek a declaration of being the owners of the property. The said question arose in the light of the dicta of the Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 7 SCC 363 and (2012) 1 SCC 656.

6. Thereafter the application of the defendants no.1 to 3 under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint in the suit as originally filed came up for consideration before the undersigned on 1st March, 2017 when again after recording detailed submissions and drawing attention of the counsel for the plaintiffs to the dicta of the Courts holding that Agreement to Sell merely creates a right to seek specific performance and does not vest any right, title or interest in the property subject matter thereof, on the request of the counsel for the plaintiffs, the hearing was adjourned.

7. Thereafter the plaintiffs sought amendment of the plaint to seek the relief of specific performance of the Agreements to Sell in their favour and for seeking other reliefs including of impleadment of defendant no.6 Indian Bank and the plaint as it stands today is for the reliefs of (a) declaration that the plaintiffs are the sole, absolute and exclusive owners of the property and the defendants no.1 to 3 and 6 have no right, title and interest of any nature whatsoever in the property; (b) specific performance directing the defendants no.4 and 5 to cooperate with the plaintiffs in getting the leasehold rights in the land underneath the property converted to freehold on the basis of General Power of Attorney dated 27th March, 1997 executed by the defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.5 and to thereafter execute the sa