Suresh Chand Jain v. M/S Phalphor Builders P Ltd. Cd+

S. RAVINDRA BHAT,J DECEMBER 08, 2010

Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + PRONOUNCED ON : 08.12.2010 CS(OS) 1781/1995 & I.A. NO. 7974/1995 SURESH CHAND JAIN ..... Plaintiff Through : Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Advocate. versus M/S. PHALPHOR BUILDERS P. LTD. ..... Defendant Through : Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers YES may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest? MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. In this suit, the plaintiff seeks following reliefs: (a) A decree of cancellation, cancelling the sale deeds executed by defendant No.2 in favor of defendant Nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7 on 24.06.1993, 10.09.1991 and 05.01.1993 for the portions of the property No. 3/104, Parmanand Estate, Opposite Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, and the sale deeds dated 12.09.1994, 06.09.1994, 10.10.1994 and executed by the defendants No. 6 & 10 in favor of defendant No. 8 & 9; (b) A decree for possession in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants as a consequential relief of cancellation of the sale deeds; (c) A decree for declaration that the defendant No.1 to 10 have acted Page 2 illegally, dishonestly without any power or authority of law and the actions of the defendants are null and void; (d) A decree for injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 to 10 from further executing any agreement to sale or sale deeds in favor of any person of any portion of the property No. 3/104, Permanand Estate, opposite Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. 2. The plaintiff entered into a collaboration agreement, with the first three defendants, whereby the latter were to develop, and construct upon the suit property, and give possession of a certain portion of the built up area. The plaintiff contends that he was paid a sum of `10 lakhs as initial advance as Security Deposit and that the first three defendants did not comply with the other terms of the agreement, dated 09.01.1989. In terms of that agreement, the plaintiff was entitled to retain an area of 5000 square feet, after construction; the total constructed area was to be 13,000 square feet. Another admitted fact is that the plaintiff had constituted the said defendant collaborators, as his General Power of Attorney holder, to apply to municipal and other authorities, for clearances, to complete the construction, which was the subject matter of the agreement 3. The plaintiff contends that in terms of Clause-10 of the Collaboration/Building Agreement dated 09.01.1989, the right to sell the newly constructed portions was reserved with him, (i.e. the plaintiff). It is urged that contrary to these terms, the first three defendants started entering into agreements with third parties to create rights in the suit property. The plaintiff submits that therefore, , he was constrained to revoke the Power of Attorney initially issued in favor of the defendants. The notice dated 20.03.1991 purporting to revoke and the Power of Attorney dated 09.01.1989, (an unregistered one, and produced as PW-1/7). was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/8. The plaintiff also relies upon UPC Receipts (Ex. PW-1/9) to evidence that the revocation notice was served on first three defendants. The plaintiff further states that the general public were put to notice about the revocation through publication on 27.03.1991 (produced as Ex. PW-1/10). 4. The plaintiff further submits that in terms of Ex. PW-1/6 agreement, the builder defendants were to construct 13,000 sq. ft. according to the plan, out of which 5000 sq. feet were to be reserved and retained by the plaintiff for his use. The first defendant in Page 3 turn had to be paid Rs. 300/- per sq. feet as construction costs/fee. It is stated that acting upon the agreement (Ex. PW-1/6), the first three defendants obtained the plaintiff's signatures on the proposed site plan but filed another site plan for approval with MCD, by forging the plaintiff's signatures. The suit contends that the 5000 sq. ft.