Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1394 (DEL)

L. M. MANILAL v. ANIL KUMAR RAMPAL

2007-07-17

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2007
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) THE decree holder filed a suit for specific performance against one Shri K. L. Rampal in 1977. The judgment debtor filed a suit for possession against the decree holder and a partnership firm being CS (OS) 866/1981. These two suits were in respect of plot of land measuring 800 square yards located at B-15, westend, New Delh. ( 2 ) IN the suit for possession filed by the judgment debtor herein, a compromise was recorded on 2. 11. 1998. The compromise marked as Ex. 'c1' is a memorandum of understanding dated 30. 5. 1998 which was directed to form a part of the decree and a decree sheet was directed to be prepared in terms thereof. ( 3 ) THE settlement arrived at between the parties provided that property No. B-15, westend, New Delhi, which was in the possession of decree holder, would be handed over to the judgment debtor. A further settlement was that in view of the decree holder having given up their rights of specific performance as also surrendering possession, the judgment debtor was to make available two flats and half basement in Vasant Vihar for the benefit of the decree holder apart from the payment of a sum of Rs. 35. 00 lacs, to be paid to the decree holder. ( 4 ) THE problem did not get solved and the judgment debtor filed a contempt proceeding alleging violation by the decree holder. Once again in the contempt proceedings, a settlement was recorded on 19. 12. 2000. It may be noticed that the judgment debtor is actually represented through an attorney (who is stated to be a builder ). The settlement recorded on 19. 12. 2000 is in the following terms: ? (a) The respondents shall vacate and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property B-15, West End Colony, New Delhi, to the petitioner through attorney Sh. Lalit Mohan Madan and shift to the two flats and half basement of property No. E 9/24, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi on 15. 1. 2001 and the same be supervised by a Local Commissioner to be appointed by this Hon'ble Court and in the presence of the counsel for the parties and the documents shall be executed by the Sellers in favour of the respondent and handed over to Sh. Girish aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. (b) On 16. 1. 2001 and the same be supervised by a Local Commissioner to be appointed by this Hon'ble Court and in the presence of the counsel for the parties and the documents shall be executed by the Sellers in favour of the respondent and handed over to Sh. Girish aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. (b) On 16. 1. 2001, necessary registration of documents shall be got done by the parties before the concerned Sub Registrar and the same will be handed over for custody to Sh. Girish Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. (c) On 18. 1. 2001, at the public hearing before the Delhi Development authority, the respondents, who have filed complaints with regard to the suit property will withdraw the complaints by giving necessary statements to the DDA so that the process of conversion of the property from lease hold to free hold can be completed by the DDA and after the said statements have been made by the respondents to the DDA, Sh. Girish Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents, may hand over the receipts for the registration of documents and other documents to the respondents. (d) That before shifting on 15. 1. 2001, the respondents would obtain no due certificate from the Delhi Vidyut Board/delhi Jal Board towards electricity and water charges having been paid and no amount being due, so that against the said no due certificates, on 15. 1. 2001, the petitioner, through his attorney will hand over the balance sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Only) as per the compromise dated 2. 11. 1998, to the respondents. ? ( 5 ) IT may be noticed that there is no dispute about the fact that both the parties understood the terms of settlement which was binding between the parties in furtherance of the decree. ( 6 ) A further order was passed on 31. 1. 2001 in the same contempt proceedings. The relevant portion is as under: ?the petitioner undertakes that he will take steps for conversion of flats to free hold and will complete all formalities including registration of sale deed in the name of the respondent. ? ( 7 ) THE implementation of the decree is complete except to the extent of the dispute raised herein. The dispute relates to the fact as to what is meant by the aforesaid order recorded on 31. 1. ? ( 7 ) THE implementation of the decree is complete except to the extent of the dispute raised herein. The dispute relates to the fact as to what is meant by the aforesaid order recorded on 31. 1. 2001 since it is the claim of the decree holder that the stamp duty for purchase of property had to be borne by the judgment debtor, which is not acceptable to the judgment debtor. ( 8 ) IN sum and substance, the submission of learned counsel for the judgment debtor is that it is always the purchaser who bears the cost. The judgment debtor did what was required to be done by arranging for conversion of property into free hold and by execution of the agreements and power of attorney in favour of the decree holder/family members. Further submission of learned counsel for the judgment debtor is that there can be no execution of this part. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the decree holder, on the other hand, submits that the orders were passed in furtherance of the decree and must be given its true meaning and intent which is that the judgment debtor has to bear the cost of the stamp duty. ( 10 ) ON hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my considered view, normally the position cannot be disputed that it is the purchaser of the property who has to bear the cost of registration of a document. However, one would have to see whether something different was envisaged in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. A reading of the settlement followed by the subsequent order shows that there were further acts to be completed like conversion and registration of documents. The order dated 31. 1. 2001 must, thus, be read in furtherance of the decree and it cannot be said that the same is not executable. ( 11 ) THE judgment debtor herein had undertaken to this Court that he would take steps for; (i) conversion of flats into free hold; and (ii) complete all formalities including registration of sale deed in the name of the decree holder. The first aspect has been completed by conversion of the flats to free hold. The judgment debtor further had also agreed to complete all formalities including registration of sale deed in the name of the decree holder. The first aspect has been completed by conversion of the flats to free hold. The judgment debtor further had also agreed to complete all formalities including registration of sale deed in the name of the decree holder. Such registration of sale deed can only be done on stamp paper of the requisite value. ( 12 ) I am, thus, of the considered view that in pursuance to the compromise and the agreement arrived at between the parties, the judgment debtor had undertaken to complete the process right upto the stage of registration of sale deed and it was not directed that the same would be at the cost of the decree holder, which would have been a position in the normal course where the purchaser pays for the property. ( 13 ) IT cannot be lost sight of that the present case is not one of a normal conveyance of title. The decree holder agreed to hand over possession and not enforce the rights in respect of the property at Westend. As a consideration thereof, the judgment debtor, through attorney, agreed to make available the flats in terms of the agreement and complete all formalities in the name of the decree holder/family members. The conversion has also been got done by the judgment debtor without any cost to the decree holder. It appears that the judgment debtor is now shying away from meeting the cost of the purchase of the stamp duty since the amount is large. This cannot be permitted as the judgment debtor has enjoyed the benefit of a valuable property at Westend in pursuance to the withdrawal of the claim by the decree holder who was also in possession of the property. ( 14 ) I am, thus, of the considered view that the burden of the stamp duty must fall on the judgment debtor who will have to bear the cost thereof. ( 15 ) THE judgment debtor is directed to take necessary steps for execution of the sale deed in favour of the decree holder. ( 16 ) THE power of attorney is already in favour of the decree holder/their representatives. Thus, the only thing to be done by the judgment debtor is to purchase the stamp paper of the requisite value. ( 16 ) THE power of attorney is already in favour of the decree holder/their representatives. Thus, the only thing to be done by the judgment debtor is to purchase the stamp paper of the requisite value. The decree holder to inform the judgment debtor within 15 days as to in whose name the stamp paper is to be purchased and the judgment debtor to do the needful within one month thereafter. ( 17 ) EXECUTION petition stands disposed of with liberty to seek further directions, if so required.