CS (OS) No. 2204 of 2007

Page 1 of 11

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

30.

+

CS (OS) No. 2204 of 2007

DIDI MANJEET KAUR PAVLICEK

..... Plaintiff

Through: Mr. A.S. Dateer, Advocate.

versus

REKHA DAGAR & ANR.

..... Defendants

Through: Mr. Amar Nath, Advocate for D-2.

Mr. Pallav Pandey, Advocate for D-1.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

O R D E R

%

11.12.2013

1. Didi Manjeet Kaur has filed this suit against Smt. Rekha Dagar and Maa

Gayatry Properties, Defendants 1 and 2 respectively seeking specific

performance of an agreement-cum-receipt dated 22^ndJune 2007 whereby

Defendant No.1 agreed to sell to the Plaintiff the property being MIG Flat

No. 96, Third Floor, Block-A-2, Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi-110085 shown in

red in the site plan (hereafter ‘suit property’) in favour of the Plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff describes herself as an Indian born American citizen. She has

filed this suit through her attorney Smt. Meena Rani, a resident of Rohini,

Delhi. The Plaintiff states that Smt. Meena Rani is her maternal aunt and that

she executed a General Power of Attorney (‘GPA’) dated 19^thSeptember

2013:DHC:6388

CS (OS) No. 2204 of 2007

Page 2 of 11

2007 in her favour. The original of the GPA has been placed on record by

the Plaintiff.

3. The case of the Plaintiff is that pursuant to negotiations that took place

between Defendant No.1 and the Plaintiff’s power of attorney (‘PoA’) and

husband a receipt-cum-agreement dated 11^thJune 2007 was prepared by the

property dealer, Defendant No.2. It is stated that the sale consideration was

settled at Rs.28.50 lakhs. Rs.50,000 was paid as earnest money to Defendant

No.1. According to the Plaintiff, the balance sum of Rs.28 lakhs was to be

paid by August 2007. A sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs towards tax, water and

electricity bills was to be paid by Defendant No.1 before 14^thJune 2007.

4. The Plaintiff states that since Defendant No.1 could not arrange to pay for

water, tax and electricity, a further sum of Rs.4 lakhs was paid by the

Plaintiff to Defendant No.1. A fresh consolidated receipt dated 22^ndJune

2007 for the sum of Rs.4.5 lakhs was executed by Defendant No.1. A

‘Bayana Agreement’ was also executed and typed on a stamp paper. Under

the Bayana Agreement it was agreed that the balance sum of Rs.24 lakhs

“shall be paid by the second party to the first party on or before 14^thAugust

2007”. The original of the said Bayana Agreement has been placed on

record. It has been attested by two persons. It has been signed by the Plaintiff

2013:DHC:6388

CS (OS) No. 2204 of 2007

Page 3 of 11

and the maternal uncle of the Plaintiff, Shri Devender Singh.

5. The Plaintiff states that at the time of negotiations, the Plaintiff was

informed that a loan had been obtained from HSBC Bank by deposit of title

deed and that Defendant No.1 still has to pay the balance sum of Rs.15

lakhs. With the sale deed not being executed in terms of the Bayana

Agreement, Defendant No.1 insisted that a further sum of Rs.15 lakhs should

be paid by the Plaintiff to enable Defendant No.1 to clear the loan and

retrieve the original title deeds. It is further averred that Defendant No.2

represented to the Plaintiff that he could get the time for execution of sale

deed extended by one month if the Plaintiff paid Rs.40,000 which was one

month’s interest on the loan amount which Defendant No.1 had to pay to the

HSBC Bank. The Plaintiff states that she readily agreed to pay the said sums

which she gave to Defendant No.2.

On 13^thAugust 2007 when the

Plaintiff’s PoA contacted the Defendants to enquire if the loan amount of the

HSBC Bank had been cleared, no satisfactory answer was forthcoming.

6. The Plaintiff states that with the Defendants not coming forth to execute

the sale deed, a legal notice dated 11^thSeptember 2007 was sent which was

answered by Defendant No.1 in an evasive manner. In the above

background, the present suit was filed seeking a decree of specific

2013:DHC:6388

CS (OS) No. 2204 of 2007

Page 4 of 11

per