Tue. Jul 14th, 2020

Praleen Chopra vs Smt. Honey Bhagat & Ors on 23 March, 2020

3 min read

(v) mandatory injunction directing defendant no.5 to deliver vacant,

CS(OS) No.190/2018 Page 1 of 31
peaceful and physical possession of the property to the plaintiff; and, (vi)
recovery of mesne profits.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff in the plaint, (i) that the plaintiff is the
Director of M/s Earthz Urban Spaces Pvt. Ltd. (EARTHZ) and has been
authorized by the Board of Directors of EARTHZ to institute the present
suit; (ii) that on the basis of the Collaboration Agreement dated 18th
February, 2008 and registered General Power of Attorney dated 2nd
November, 2010, the plaintiff became absolute owner and acquired title and
exclusive possession of third floor Northern side portion, ad measuring area
of 142.66 sq.mts., of property No.47, Northern Avenue Road, West Punjabi
Bagh, New Delhi; (iii) that the defendants no. 1 and 2 as Directors of
defendant no.3 agreed to purchase the said property along with terrace
thereon from the plaintiff for Rs.7,31,00,000/- but represented that they had
applied for home loan to the defendant no.4 which had sanctioned the
housing loan for Rs.4,54,99,809/- only; (iv) that the plaintiff in good faith
executed and registered a Sale Deed dated 1st November, 2013 in favour of
defendants no. 1 to 3 with respect to the third floor aforesaid without terrace
thereon; (v) simultaneously, with the execution of the Sale Deed, on 1 st
November, 2013 itself, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed
between the plaintiff on the one hand and defendants no. 1 to 3 on the other
hand whereunder the defendants no. 1 to 3 undertook to pay the balance sale
consideration of Rs.2,81,00,000/- on or before 31st December, 2013 to the
plaintiff and did not take possession of the third floor of the property with
respect whereto Sale Deed was executed, as security to pay the balance sale
consideration of Rs.2,81,00,000/-; (vi) owing to typographical errors in the

CS(OS) No.190/2018 Page 2 of 31
Sale Deed dated 1st November, 2013, a Rectification Deed dated 12 th
December, 2013 was also executed between the plaintiff on the one hand
and defendants no. 1 to 3 on the other hand; (vii) that under the MoU dated
1st November, 2013, the defendants no.1 to 3 had no right to sell the third
floor with respect to which Sale Deed was executed in their favour, without
paying the balance consideration of Rs.2,81,00,000/-; (viii) that the
defendants no. 1 to 3, in violation of the MoU dated 1 st November, 2013,
have executed the impugned Sale Deed dated 25 th May, 2016 with respect to
the third floor of the property in favour of defendant no.5, without even
paying the balance consideration of Rs.2,81,00,000/- to the plaintiff; (ix)
that the defendants no.1 to 3 had handed over post-dated cheques to the
plaintiff for the said sum of Rs.2,81,00,000/- but the said cheques were also
dishonoured; (x) that the defendants no.4 initiated proceedings before the
Debt Recovery Tribunal and managed the affairs in the said proceedings at
the back of the plaintiff, to deliver the possession of the property to the
defendant no.5; (xi) that since the Sale Deed dated 25th May, 2016 executed
by the defendants 1 to 3 with respect to the third floor of the property in
favour of defendant no.5 is in violation of the prohibition contained in the
MoU dated 1st November, 2013, the Sale Deed dated 25th May, 2016 is void;

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply