Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 37 (DEL)

Design Atelier v. Loh Vanijya (P) Ltd

2011-01-07

V.K.JAIN

body2011
V.K. Jain, J. (Oral) 1. This is a suit for specific performance of the agreement alleged to have been executed by defendant No. 1 M/s Loh Vanijya (P) Ltd. in favour of the plaintiff for sale of property No. B-190, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell the above-referred property to it for a consideration of Rs. 31,01,000/- and two payments one of Rs. 1,20,000/- and the another of Rs. 5,00,000/- were made to it by the plaintiff. Further payments of Rs. 2,20,000/-, Rs. 1,50,000/- and 3,00,000/- on 08.07.2001, 21.07.2001 and 07.08.2001 respectively are also alleged to have been made to her. The prayer made in the suit was for specific performance of the agreement to sell. 3. Written statement was filed by M/s Loh Vanijya (P) Ltd. In the written statement, defendant M/s Loh Vanijya (P) Ltd. took the stand that the suit property had already been sold by it to Mrs Mallika Kaushik, W/o Mr. Rohit Kaushik vide registered Agreement to Sell dated 25th August, 2004 and the possession had also been handed over to her. It was further alleged that Mrs Mallika Kaushik had thereafter sold/transferred the suit property to Mrs Gurinder Kaur, W/o Mr. Jaswinder Singh and the possession had also been handed over to him. Mrs Malikka and Mrs Gurinder were impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 vide order of this Court dated April 24, 2006. 4. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff had filed IA No. 248/2005 seeking interim injunction during pendency of the suit. The injunction sought by the plaintiff was against alienation, transfer or parting with possession of the suit property to any third party, during pendency of the suit. 5. The grievance of the plaintiff is that despite the status quo order passed by this Court, which was extended in the presence of defendants 2 & 3 on 24th April, 2006, defendant No. 3 has raised a building on the suit property on which only a temporary structure on a part of the plot existed on the date this suit was filed as also on the date status quo order passed by this Court. The case of the plaintiff is that once the status quo order was passed by the Court, the defendants could not have made any construction on the suit property and could not have altered the existing construction in any manner. 6. The application has been opposed by defendant No. 3, who has denied having disobeyed the status quo order passed by this Court. The plea taken by defendant No. 3 is that the order of the status quo has to be read and understood in the light of the prayer made in the suit and the application for grant of ad interim injunction and, therefore, raising construction does not amount to disobedience of the order of status quo passed by the Court on 31st January, 2005 and 24th April, 2006. 7. The application has also been opposed by defendant No. 1, who has claimed that since the possession of the suit property had been transferred by it prior to filing of the suit, there could be no question of any disobedience of the status quo order by it on account of construction raised on the suit property. 8. In my view, the order of status quo passed by this Court cannot be read in abstract and divorced from the prayer made in the suit and the application for grant of interim injunction. If read out of the context, an order directing status quo can be interpreted to mean anything and may result in different interpretations of the same order by various parties to the suit. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property, the prayer of the plaintiff is for execution of the title deed in his favour and delivery of the possession of the property subject matter of the agreement to him. The purchaser of the property is not in any manner adversely affected if any construction is raised on the property subject matter of the agreement, so long as there is no transfer of title or possession of the suit property and no third party interest is created therein. 9. A perusal of the application for grant of interim injunction would show that the plaintiff itself did not ask for any injunction against raising of any construction on the suit property and the prayer made by him was confined to the title and possession of the property subject matter of the agreement. 9. A perusal of the application for grant of interim injunction would show that the plaintiff itself did not ask for any injunction against raising of any construction on the suit property and the prayer made by him was confined to the title and possession of the property subject matter of the agreement. Therefore, in my view, the order of status quo passed by this Court first on 31st January, 2005 and then on 24th April, 2006 meant only this much that the defendants were required to maintain status quo with respect to the title and possession of the property subject matter of the agreement dated 04th July, 2001. Though they could not have created any third party interest therein, this order did not come in the way of their raising any construction on the property during pendency of the suit. 10. A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in S. Anand Deep Singh v. Ranjit Kaur and Ors., ILR (1991) I Delhi : 2000 (54) DRJ 284 . In that case, in a suit for partition, rendition of accounts and declaration, the plaintiff had obtained an interim order directing status quo to be maintained in relation to the properties mentioned in the two Schedules, annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff filed a Civil Contempt Petition stating therein that one of the defendants had carried out construction activity in one of the properties mentioned in one of the Schedules and had thereby violated the status quo order passed by the Court. The prayer made by the plaintiff in the application for grant of interim injunction was confined to restraining the defendants from alienating or parting with possession of the disputed property. Dismissing the Contempt Petition, this Court, inter alia, held as under: "There is no doubt that in IA 4224/89 status quo orders were passed regarding properties in Schedules I & II on 26th May, 1989. However, the exact import of the words "status quo' will have to be judged in the light of the prayer made in IA 4224/89. The prayer in this application is that the defendants should be restrained from selling, alienating, encumbering or in any manner parting with the possession of the properties. There is no prayer in the entire application that the respondents/defendants 1 to 5 should be restrained from proceeding with the construction in GK property. The prayer in this application is that the defendants should be restrained from selling, alienating, encumbering or in any manner parting with the possession of the properties. There is no prayer in the entire application that the respondents/defendants 1 to 5 should be restrained from proceeding with the construction in GK property. None of the words used in IA4224/89 can be stretched to mean that the plaintiff ever desired by means of this application a restraint order against the respondents/defendants 1 to 5 from proceeding with the construction on the Gk property. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Lekhi that under status quo orders, the respondents/defendants 1 to 5 should not have proceeded further with the construction of the GK property does not seem to be tenable." 11. A similar issue arose in Suit No. 1547/1999, Eastman Collaborator v. S.K. Mehta, 91(2001) DLT 401 : 2001 (59) DRJ 55 where the parties were directed to maintain status quo in the light of the report of the Local Commissioner who had inspected the property to identify the occupation of the premises. Another Local Commissioner was appointed by the Court on an application filed by the defendant. The Local Commissioner found that changes have been made in the suit premises and gave description of those changes in his report. Noticing that the dispute between the parties was with regard to the possession of the suit property and it was in this context that the Court had passed an order directing the Local Commissioner to visit the disputed premises and identify the occupant of those premises, it was held by this Court that the Court did not intend the suit property to remain as it was and, therefore, status quo was to be maintained only with respect to the possession. It was held that the defendant was not correct in his contention that no changes could be made in the suit premises. 12. It was held that the defendant was not correct in his contention that no changes could be made in the suit premises. 12. In the case before this Court also, since the dispute between the parties is only with respect to the agreement to sell, alleged to have been executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and the only prayer made in the petition for grant of interim injunction was with respect to title and possession of the suit property during pendency of the suit, the order of status quo passed by this Court, in my view, did not come in the way of any of the defendants raising any construction on the suit property so long as they did not create any third party interest therein and did not part with title or possession of the suit property in favour of any other person. No disobedience of the order of this Court is, therefore, made out. The application is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. CS(OS) No. 37/2005 I am informed that the admission/denial of documents has not been carried out so far. The parties are granted one last and final opportunity to carry out admission/denial of documents on 24th February, 2011.