Back
High Court of Delhi
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Samarjit Chakravarty & Another
Versus
M/S. Tej Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Others
CS(OS) Nos. 1474 & 1523 of 2008
Decided on: 25-07-2014
Fraudulent Misrepresentation - Property Dispute - Arbitration Act, 1940, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - The court discussed the suits concerning land ownership, partnerships, and legal proceedings, and found that the challenge to the decree for specific performance had failed and attained finality. The court held that the plaintiffs had no locus to challenge the decree and that the suits were by way of re-litigation and in abuse of the process of the Court. The court dismissed the suits and disposed of another suit as infructuous, burdening the plaintiffs with costs for indulging in re-litigation.
Fact of the Case:
The suits concerned land ownership, partnerships, and legal proceedings, including a challenge to a decree for specific performance. The court found that the challenge to the decree had failed and attained finality.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had no locus to challenge the decree and that the suits were by way of re-litigation and in abuse of the process of the Court. The court dismissed the suits and disposed of another suit as infructuous, burdening the plaintiffs with costs for indulging in re-litigation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiffs had the right to challenge the decree for specific performance. Other issues included the validity of the compromise and the effect of the discharge of the mortgage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs had no locus to challenge the decree and that the suits were by way of re-litigation and in abuse of the process of the Court. The court dismissed the suits and disposed of another suit as infructuous, burdening the plaintiffs with costs for indulging in re-litigation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suits and disposed of another suit as infructuous, burdening the plaintiffs with costs for indulging in re-litigation.
1. On 15th April, 2014, the following order was passed in these suits:
“1. The files are taken up today as 14th April, 2014 was declared a holiday.
2. The two suits, vide order dated 5th March, 2014, were ordered to be consolidated for the purposes of trial and decision and are listed today for framing of consolidated issues.
3. Though the counsel for Samarjit and Arati and the counsel for Tej and Prabhjit handed over proposed issues but while the issues proposed by counsel for Samarjit and Arati are found to be suit-wise and not consolidated, from the issues proposed by counsel for Tej and Prabjit, no clarity emerged. Owing to cases of two days being listed, there was no time to peruse the voluminous pleadings in the Court, accordingly, the files were sent to chamber, for framing appropriate issues after perusing the pleadings.
4. The position of the parties in the two suits is as under:
5. The position which emerges upon going through the pleadings in the two suits is as under:
(i) the suits concern land admeasuring 8 bighas and 5 biswas situated in Village Chattarpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi;
(ii) the said land was owned by Sushil K. Chakravarty who had mortgaged the same to New Bank of India succeeded by Punjab National Bank (PNB);
(iii) Sushil K. Chakravarty was a bachelor and had no heirs within the meaning of Class I of the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956;
(iv) Sunil and Arun are brothers and were related to Sushil K. Chakarvarty;
(v) Arati is the wife of Sunil and Samarjit is the brother of Arati;
(vi) Sushil K. Chakravarty, Sunil and Samarjit were partners in the partnership firm M/s ESPI Industrial Corporation Ltd.;
(vii) Sushil K. Chakravarty, Samarjit and Arati were partners in another partnership firm M/s ESPI Trading Company;
(viii) disputes and differences arose with respect to the aforesaid partnerships and the following three legal proceedings were filed:
(a) Arbitration Suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 being CS(OS) No.1479A/1989 was filed by Samarjit against Sushil K. Chakravarty;
(b) Sushil K. Chakravarty filed CS(OS) No.1964/1989 against Samarjit; and,
(c) Sunil filed CS(OS) No.1275/1990 against Sushil K. Chakravarty;
(ix) vide order dated 12th June, 1989 in CS(OS) No.1479A/1989 aforesaid, Sushil K. Chakravarty was restrained from alienating or transferring in any manner or creating any third party interest in the aforesaid land;
(x) Sushil K. Chakravarty vide Agreement to Sell dated 17th March, 1992 agreed to sell the aforesaid land to Tej for a consideration of Rs.60 lakhs of which Rs.22 lakhs was paid as advance and Rs.38 lakhs was payable subsequently;
(xi) disputes and differences arose between Sushil K. Chakravarty and Tej also with respect to the said Agreement to Sell;
(xii) Sushil K. Chakravarty instituted CS(OS) No.1348/1996 for declaration that the Agreement to Sell stood terminated and for recovery of possession of the said land from Tej;
(xiii) Tej instituted CS(OS) No.2501/1997 for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell;
(xiv) Sushil K. Chakravarty died on 3rd June, 2003 without leaving any Class-I heirs and Sunil and Arun claimed to be the Class-II heirs of Sushil K. Chakravarty;
(xv) Sunil and Arun got themselves substituted as legal heirs of Sushil K. Chakravarty in the three legal proceedings aforesaid relating to the partnership businesses;
(xvi) a compromise dated 11th November, 2005 was arrived at in the three suits aforesaid relating to the partnership businesses, between Sunil and Arun as legal heirs of Sushil K. Chakravarty on the one hand and Samarjit and Arati on the other hand, whereunder it was agreed that the said land will be sold and the sale proceeds thereof, left after discharging the dues of PNB, will be distributed between Samarjit, Arati and Sunil and Arun;
(xvii) however Sunil and/or Arun as legal heirs, did not take any steps for substitution in the two suits aforesaid between Sushil K. Chakravarty and Tej;
(xviii) resultant
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
