Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 287 (HP)

RAJINDER PAL PURI v. REDDYS LABORATORIES LTD

2005-08-11

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2005
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.—By this judgment five appeals are being disposed of since they involve common questions of law and the facts of the cases are also very similar. 2. In all these cases the appellant is Rajinder Pal Puri, (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff). He filed five suits for specific performance of contract and for declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of Dr. Reddys Laboratories, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), are null and void. In the alternative damages have been claimed. It would be pertinent to mention that prior to the filing of the present five suits the plaintiff had filed five suits for permanent prohibitory injunction against the persons with whom he had entered into an agreement to purchase certain portions of land. The defendants in those suits have been referred to as the original defendants. The facts of each case are set down hereinbelow:— 3. In FAO No. 51 of 2005 the case of the plaintiff is that one Matu Ram, had entered into an agreement, dated 11.6.2003 with Bhagat Ram, Ranjit Singh and Daler Chand to sell 3 bighas of land bearing khasra Nos. 869 and 875 comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 6 min/6 min situate in village Khol, H.B. No. 186, Pargana Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.R at the rate of Rs. 98,000/- per bigha. It is further alleged that the plaintiff wanted to set up an industrial unit in industrial area Baddi and, therefore, he entered into an agreement dated 7th July, 2003 whereby the aforesaid Bhagat Ram, Ranjit Singh and Daler Chand had agreed to sell the said land in favour of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 1,67,500/ - per bigha, i.e. for a total consideration of Rs. 5,02,500/-. It is further alleged that Rs. 1,00,000 has been paid as advance and the remaining amount was to be paid on or before 20.12.2003 by which date the sale deed was to be executed. The plaintiff thereafter filed a suit in the court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh against Bhagat Ram, Ranjit Singh, Daler Chand and Matu Ram in which it was prayed that the defendants intend to sell the suit property to some other person and they may be restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from selling the suit land to any other person. It is alleged that at that time he did not file a suit for specific performance as no cause of action had arisen for the same. It is further alleged that despite the pendency of the said suit, Matu Ram sold the suit land to Dr. Reddys Labs (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) vide sale deed dated 2.8.2004 registered on 5.8.2004 for a total consideration of Rs. 17,43,000/-. 4. In FAO No. 52 of 2005 the case of the plaintiff was that the original defendants, Sukh Ram, Bant Ram and Suchha Singh had entered into an agreement dated 26.6.2003 to sell the suit land measuring 3 bighas 16 biswas comprised in Khasra Nos. 831, 862 and 864 in Khata/Khatauni No. 15/15 min, situated in Village Khol, H.B. No. 186, Pargana Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.R at the rate of Rs. 1,67,000 per bigha i.e. a total consideration of Rs. 6,36,500. The claimant paid earnest money of Rs. 20,000 and it was agreed that he would pay 10% of the remaining sale consideration on or before 7.7.2003, 15% by 7.10.2003 and the remaining consideration on or before 7.1.2004 by which date the sale deed was to be executed. The plaintiff thereafter filed a suit in the court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh against Surat Ram, Bant Singh and Suchha Singh in which it was alleged that the defendants are threatening to sell the suit land to some other person. It was further alleged that during the pendency of the original suit, the defendants have sold the suit land to Paramjit Singh, defendant No. 4 on 22.11.2003 who in turn sold the suit land alongwith some other land to the respondent Dr. Reddys Laboratories at the rate of Rs. 4,15,000 per bigha. 5. In FAO No. 53 of 2005 the case of the plaintiff is that he had entered into an agreement with one Balia who was the predecessor-in-interest of Diwan Chand for purchase of 2 bighas 12 biswas of land vide agreement dated 26.6.2003 at the rate of Rs. 1,67,500 per bigha, i.e., a total consideration of Rs. 4,35,500. Out of this amount the plaintiff paid earnest money of Rs. 10,000. 10% of the remaining sale consideration was to be paid to Balia by 7.7.2003 and further 15% by 7.10.2003 and the remaining amount on or before 7.1.2004 by which date the sale deed was to be executed. 1,67,500 per bigha, i.e., a total consideration of Rs. 4,35,500. Out of this amount the plaintiff paid earnest money of Rs. 10,000. 10% of the remaining sale consideration was to be paid to Balia by 7.7.2003 and further 15% by 7.10.2003 and the remaining amount on or before 7.1.2004 by which date the sale deed was to be executed. The plaintiff thereafter filed a suit in the court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh against Balia in which it was prayed that the defendants intend to sell the suit property to some other person and may be restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from selling the suit land to any other person. It was further alleged that despite the pendency of the suit, Balia sold the suit land to Paramjit Singh vide sale deed No. 1817, registered on 22.11.2003. Paramjit Singh in turn sold the suit land alongwith other property to respondent Dr. Reddys Laboratories at the rate of Rs. 4,15,000 per bigha vide sale deed dated 2.8.2004 registered on 5.8.2004. 6. In FAO No. 54 of 2005 the case of the plaintiff is that one Nand Lal entered into an agreement dated 26.6.2003 to sell 3 bigha 8 biswas of land bearing Khasra Nos. 855, 882, 884, 886, comprised in Khewat/ Khatauni No. 66 min/66 min, situated in village Khol, Pargana Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. at the rate of Rs. 1,67,500 per bigha, total amounting to Rs. 5,69,500. He paid an advance of Rs. 15,000 to Nand Lala 10% of the remaining sale consideration was to be paid on or before 7.7.2003 and the remaining 15% by 7.10.2003 and the balance consideration was to be paid on or before 7.1.2004 by which date the sale deed was to be executed.. The plaintiff thereafter filed a suit before the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh against Nand Lal in which it was prayed that the defendants intend to sell the suit property to some other person and may be restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from selling the suit land to any other person. It was further alleged that despite the pendency of the suit, Nand Lal sold the suit land to Paramjit Singh, defendant No. 2 vide sale deed No. 1518, dated 22.11.2003, who in turn sold the suit land alongwith some other property to Dr. Reddys Laboratories vide sale deed dated 2.8.2004, registered on 5.8.2004. It was further alleged that despite the pendency of the suit, Nand Lal sold the suit land to Paramjit Singh, defendant No. 2 vide sale deed No. 1518, dated 22.11.2003, who in turn sold the suit land alongwith some other property to Dr. Reddys Laboratories vide sale deed dated 2.8.2004, registered on 5.8.2004. 7. In FAO No. 55 of 2005 the case of the plaintiff is that Matu Ram, defendant No. 2 had entered into an agreement dated 11.6.2003 with Nand Lal, defendant No. 1 to sell 1 bigha 15 biswas of land bearing Khasra Nos. 866, 872, 873, 931 comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 6 min/6 min situated in Village Khol, Pargana Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P H.B. No. 186, at the rate of Rs. 98,000/- per bigha. It was further alleged that he wanted to set up an industry and, therefore, he entered into an agreement dated 7.7.2003 whereby the aforesaid Nand Lal agreed to sell the land in favour of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 1,67,500 per bigha, i.e. for a total consideration of Rs. 2,43,125. Out of total consideration, the plaintiff paid earnest money of Rs. 50,000 and the remaining amount was to be paid on or before 20.12.2003. It was further alleged that despite the pendency of the said suit, Matu Ram sold some portion of the land measuring 11 biswa in Khasra No. 931 to defendant No. 4, M/s. FDC Limited vide sale deed dated 4.6.2004 and the remaining land was sold to respondent No. 3, Dr. Reddys Laboratories vide sale deed dated 2.8.2004 registered on 5.8.2004 for a total consideration of Rs. 17,43,000. 8. While the previous suits were pending the plaintiff filed the present five fresh suits in the court of District Judge, Solan. In these suits he prayed for a decree for specific performance of the contracts entered into by him with the original defendants and also for a declaration that the sale deeds entered into by the original defendants with the respondent (Dr. Reddys Laboratories) are null and void. He also claimed damages in each of the cases. It would not be out of place to mention that I have been informed at the Bar that after the second set of five suits were filed, the previously instituted suits were withdrawn by the plaintiff. 9. Reddys Laboratories) are null and void. He also claimed damages in each of the cases. It would not be out of place to mention that I have been informed at the Bar that after the second set of five suits were filed, the previously instituted suits were withdrawn by the plaintiff. 9. During the pendency of the cases before the learned District Judge, Solan, the appellant filed applications under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. for restraining the respondent Dr. Reddys Laboratories by way of temporary injunction from changing the nature of the suit land or raising any construction thereupon suprisingly, none of the other defendants were made party to these applications. Even in the present appeals the said persons were not arrayed as respondents despite specific objection having been taken by the respondent and noted by this court in its order dated 17.3.2005. 10. The respondent contested this application on various grounds and took up the plea that it was a purchaser for bona fide consideration and had spent huge amount of money on the purchase of the property. It was also averred that the second set of suits were not maintainable and were barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. since the plaintiff had failed to pray for the relief of specific performance in the earlier instituted suits. It was also alleged that the suit were not properly assessed for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction. 11. The learned trial court considered the applications and came to the conclusion that the respondent had spent huge amount of money for purchase of the land. It had also invested huge amount for purchase of the machinery and establishment of the plaint. The trial court held that the plaintiff had failed to make out a case for grant of temporary injunction and dismissed the application. Hence the present appeal. 12. I have heard Mr. Anup Rattan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent. 13. By now the principles with regard to grant of temporary injunction are extremely well settled. Hence the present appeal. 12. I have heard Mr. Anup Rattan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent. 13. By now the principles with regard to grant of temporary injunction are extremely well settled. The party praying for the relief of temporary injunction must prove; (i) that it has a prima facie case in his favour; (ii) that the balance of convenience is in his favour (iii) that in case the temporary injunction is not granted in his favour, he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of costs. Some courts have also taken the view that in addition to the above three settled principles, the plaintiff must also prove that he does not have an alternative remedy available to him. 14. At the outset it may be noticed that in FAO Nos. 51 and 55 the land in question belong to Matu Ram. No agreement was entered by the plaintiff with Matu Ram. It has been argued on his behalf that since Matu Ram had agreed to sell the land to Bhagat Ram, Ranjit Singh and Daler Chand in one case and to Nand Lal in the other case, who in turn had agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff, therefore, it should be presumed that Matu Ram had agreed to sell his land to the plaintiff. I am afraid this argument is without any basis whatsoever and has to be rejected. In fact in these two case there appears to be no privity of contract between Matu Ram who was the real owner of the land and the plaintiff." 15. Admittedly the plaintiff had previously filed five separate suits. In the said suits he had prayed for an injunction against the original defendants to the effect that they should be restrained from selling the land to any other person. No explanation has been given as to why the plaintiff did not pray for the relief of specific performance. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that no cause of action had arisen in favour of the plaintiff to file suits for specific performance. This contention is absolutely ridiculous. The averments in the earlier suits were that the defendants are not selling the land to the plaintiff and were intending to sell the land to some other person. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that no cause of action had arisen in favour of the plaintiff to file suits for specific performance. This contention is absolutely ridiculous. The averments in the earlier suits were that the defendants are not selling the land to the plaintiff and were intending to sell the land to some other person. This by itself was sufficient ground for the plaintiff to have filed a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff did not file any application under Order 2 Rule 2 seeking leave of the court to reserve his right for seeking the relief of specific performance in subsequent suits. The second set of suits prima facie appear to be barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2. 16. The plaintiff by way of these suits has challenged the sale deeds whereby the land has been sold in favour of the respondent. The value of these sale deeds is more than Rs. 10,00,000 in each case. Court fees has not been paid upon the sale consideration of the sale deeds. Further more, the trial court would not even have jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the valuation of the suit is more than Rs. 10,00,000 in each case. 17. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, has contended that since the sale deeds were executed during the pendency of the previous suits, they are hit by the principles of lis pendens. Normally the principles of lis pendens would apply to any transaction involving the suit property which takes place during the pendency of the suit. However, the suit must be taken to its logical conclusion and be decreed in favour of the plaintiff to enable him to claim that the sale deed executed is in violation of a subsequent decree and is hit by the principles of lis pendens. In these cases the previous suits were withdrawn without seeking leave of the court or reserving any right. Therefore, apparently the principles of lis pendens will not apply to the present cases. For the aforesaid reasons it appears that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. 18. In the present case the plaintiff has not come to court with clean hands. The plaintiff entered into various agreements with different parties for purchase of small plots of land. He paid nominal amount as earnest money. For the aforesaid reasons it appears that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. 18. In the present case the plaintiff has not come to court with clean hands. The plaintiff entered into various agreements with different parties for purchase of small plots of land. He paid nominal amount as earnest money. The time for execution of the sale deed as per various agreements expired in December, 2003 or January, 2004. The plaintiff till that time did not file any suit for specific performance. He only filed suits for injunction. He did not show his bona fide by offering to pay the balance amounts to the owners of the land. He did not pay or offer to pay the installments as agreed to by him under the various agreements he had entered into. According to the plaintiff the original defendants did not come to receive the amount. This explanation does not hold water. It was his duty to offer this amount. Even during the pendency of the previous suits, he did not deposit the money in court or offer to pay the same to the vendors. It appears that he was only speculating in property and was out to make a fast buck since the property prices in the area were rising at a rapid pace. 19. The case set up by the plaintiff was that he had entered into these agreements to purchase the land for setting up an industry. Except for this bald assertion, no document has been placed on record to show what sort of industry was sought to be set up on the spot. On the other hand, the respondents have placed sufficient material on record to show that they have obtained requisite permissions from various authorities to purchase the land. They have spent a huge amount for purchase of the land and lacs of rupees on the stamp duty itself. The respondent intends to invest more than Rs. 50,00,00,000 in the project. Therefore, even the balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff, but is in favour of the respondent. 20. Lastly the plaintiff, if at all he succeeds, can be well compensated by grant of damages. He has admittedly let the time for execution of the sale deed go past before filing the civil suits. The relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief. 20. Lastly the plaintiff, if at all he succeeds, can be well compensated by grant of damages. He has admittedly let the time for execution of the sale deed go past before filing the civil suits. The relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief. Therefore, the court while coming to its final conclusion can, even if it decides the matter in favour of the plaintiff, award him compensation. 21. In view of the above discussion I find that the plaintiff has failed to satisfy any of the principles for the grant of interim relief. He has failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour. He has also failed to show the balance of convenience is in his favour or that he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if the injunction is not granted. The impugned orders of the trial court are, therefore, upheld. 22. It is, however, made clear that any observations made in this judgment or in the judgments of the trial court are only for the purposes of deciding the application for interim relief and the trial court shall not be influenced by the same while deciding the main cases on merits. Needless to say, the respondents shall be bound by the final judgment passed and shall not claim any equity in its favour on the ground that during the pendency of the suit it has raised construction or spent huge amount. 23. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 2,000/- for each appeal i.e. Rs. 10,000 for all the appeals.