A plaint cannot be rejected in part; prior contractual rights supersede subsequent title claims, reinforcing the binding nature of earlier agreements in property disputes.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through this appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 and Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”], the Appellant [Defendant No.5 in the original Plaint] assails the Judgement dated 18.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS (OS) No. 1081/2014 captioned Murari Mirchandani vs. Jatinder Sardana & Ors., wherein an application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC filed by the Appellant/Defendant No.5 was dismissed holding that no ground was made out for rejection of the plaint, with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. Admittedly, Sh. Surender Kumar Sardana was the owner of the property bearing No. S-94, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"], who passed away on 05.04.2011. He was a bachelor and died intestate, leaving behind only Class II legal heirs:

i. Late Sh. Jatinder Sardana/Respondent No. 2 (Brother)

ii. Ms. Sushma Dewan/Respondent No. 3 (Sister)

iii. Late Ms. Sushila Arora/ Respondent No. 4 (Sister)

iv. Late Ms. Pushpa Mediratta/ Respondent No. 5 (Sister)

3. It is the case of Sh. Raj Narain Singh/Appellant that Late Sh. Surender Sardana had executed a General Power of Attorney [hereinafter referred to as “GPA”] and Agreement to Sell [hereinafter referred to as “ATS”] dated 24.02.1986, pertaining to the suit property in his favour on receipt of Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Only) in cash. The suit property was executed vide Conveyance Deed dated 12.08.2013 in favour of the Appellant by the Delhi Development Authority [hereinafter referred to as the “DDA”], based on the said GPA/ATS.

4. After the death of Late Sh. Surinder Sardana, his brother, Respondent No.2, for himself and on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 to 5, executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.01.2012 in favour of Sh. Murari Mirchandani/Respondent No.1 for the purchase of the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.19,00,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Crores Only). Thereafter, an ATS dated 11.04.2012 was executed by Respondent No.2, for himself and on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 and 4, in favour of Respondent No. 1 for their 3/4^th share in the suit property for a total consideration of Rs. 14,75,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Crore and Seventy-Five Lakhs Only). Notably, Respondent No.5 and Appellant did not execute the ATS. However, the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 failed to fulfil their obligation under the MOU and the ATS and therefore, Respondent No.1 was compelled to file a suit for specific performance.

5. Respondent No.1 [Plaintiff in the Original Suit] has prayed for the following reliefs in the underlying suit:

“(a) pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby declaring GPA and Agreement to Sell dated 24.02.1986 in favour of Defendant No.5 as well as the Conveyance Deed dated 12.08.2013 executed by DDA in favour of Defendant No.5 with respect to the property bearing house bearing No.S-94, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi as null, void and not binding on the Plaintiff.

(b) pass a decree of specific performance in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby directing the Defendants to specifically perform the MOU dated 18.01.2