It was also the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the plaintiff was also put in possession.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession in the alternative with companysequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
It was the case of original defendant number.
By the impugned judgment and order dated 29.2.2016, the High Court has allowed the said appeal and companysequently set aside the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court and dismissing the suit qua other reliefs and has restored the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2010 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.
2 and 3 on a meagre amount of sale companysideration by executing the sale deed dated 28.1.2002.
In the alternate, it was also prayed for decree of possession of the suit property by directing the original defendant number 1 to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, with companysequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the original defendant number.
Ltd. hereinafter referred to as M s Ansal Properties However, by an Agreement to Sell dated 20.4.1987 executed by the original defendant number 1 being the original allottee from M s Ansal Properties in favour of the plaintiff, original defendant number 1 sold agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff.
159 of 2004, the original plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.
109 of 2010 in the Court of learned District Judge, Gurgaon.
159 of 2004 against the respondents herein original defendants seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit property Plot No.
4.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
2 and 3 by setting aside the judgment and order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon and, companysequently, has dismissed the suit preferred by the appellant herein original plaintiff .
2 3 that they are the bona fide purchasers of the suit property for companysideration.
4.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned first Appellate Court setting aside the order of the learned trial Court, original defendant number.
4A. Whether the defendant number 2 and 3 are bonafide purchasers as alleged?
2 and 3 that unless the plaintiff renounces the plea of his title, he cannot seek decree of specific performance.
2 and 3 from further selling alienating transferring the suit property in question to anyone else, except the plaintiff, in any manner whatsoever.
Whether the plaintiff has numberlocus standi to file the present suit?
It was also the case of the original plaintiff that thereafter the plaintiff paid the stamp duty.
2 and 3 that the suit is companylusive between the plaintiff and original defendant number 1.
4.1 That the first Appellate Court allowed the said appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and, companysequently, decreed the suit by holding that the original plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 28.1.2002 executed by the original defendant number 1 in favour of original defendant number.
2 and 3 by original defendant number 1 as illegal, null and void.
Whether the sale deed dated 28.1.2002 executed by defendant number 1 in favour of defendant number 2 and 3 is illegal, null and void on the ground alleged in plaint?
2 and 3 that the suit is number within the limitation.
Whether the suit has number been properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction of companyrt fee?
It was also prayed to declare the sale deed dated 28.1.2002 executed in favour of the original defendant number.
336 old 548 new , measuring 420 square meters at Block B in the residential companyony known as Sushant Lok, Guugaon.
2 and 3 that the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of possession and permanent injunction shall number be maintainable unless there is a prayer for decree for specific performance.
It was further the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that, despite the above fact, when the developers M s Ansal Properties allotted the plot in question and executed the title deed in favour of original defendant number 1 being the original allottee , the original defendant number 1 did number transfer the plot in question in his name and, in fact, illegally transferred the suit property in favour of defendant number.
4015 of 2011 before the High Court.
2 and 3 preferred R.S.A. No.
However, it was agreed to execute the sale deed as and when the developers M s Ansal Properties fulfills its obligation and companyplete the formalities.
Whether the suit is within limitation?
It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that at the time of execution of the said written agreement dated 20.4.1987, the plaintiff paid the sale companysideration.
2 and 3 is illegal, null and void and that the original plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance of agreement to sell to execute the sale deed as per the agreement to sell dated 20.4.1987.
2 and 3 by filing the written statement.
Date 2018.11.16 175225 IST Reason The facts leading to this appeal in nutshell are as follows That the appellant herein hereinafter referred to as the original plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No.
3.1 It was the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that the suit property was booked by the original defendant number 1 with the developers M s Ansal Properties and Industries Pvt.
It was also the case on behalf of the original defendant number.
Therefore, the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court granting relief for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.4.1987.
The learned trial Court passed the decree for recovery of Rs.2,46,645.50 with 9 interest throughout its realization.
The suit and other reliefs came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court.
3.4 On the basis of the averments in the plaint and the written statement, the learned trial Court framed the following issues Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property?
2 and 3 also filed the written statement denying the allegations and averments in the plaint.
It was the case on behalf of defendant number.
That the learned trial Court passed the aforesaid decree dated 19.10.2010 in favour of defendant number 1 only.
It was further the case on behalf of defendant number.
It was further case on behalf of the defendant number.
3.2 The suit was resisted to by the original defendant number.
That, thereafter, original defendant number.
However, the same came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court and attained the finality.
3.3 It appears that, thereafter, the original plaintiff submitted an application to amend the plaint by seeking the prayer of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.4.1987 submitted under Section 6 Rule 17 CPC.
R. Shah, J. Leave granted.
3.5 Thereafter, both the parties adduced the evidence, both oral as well as the documentary.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.2.2016 passed in R.S.A. No.
4015 of 2011 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the original defendant Nos.
The original plaintiff appellant herein Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR has preferred the present appeal.
That, thereafter, on appreciation of evidence and companysidering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, by the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2010 the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit in favour of the original plaintiff.
It was further the case on behalf of the original plaintiff that simultaneously one General Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of the plaintiff by the original defendant number 1 empowering the plaintiff to get the transfer in his favour as and when the plaintiff will deposit all installments of M s Ansal Properties and desires to get transferred the suit property in his favour or in favour of his numberinee.
