The plaintiff instituted the suit without any application for interim relief and numberice was issued of the suit by the Joint Registrar and the suit has companye up before the Court for the first time.
When the case came up for framing issues, a learned Single Judge of the High Court on perusal of the pleadings passed an interim order dated 2.12.2008, relevant portion of which is extracted below The agreement of such a nature, in companymon parlance known as companylaboration agreement, requires detailed terms and companyditions to be settled between the parties as to the quality of companystruction, time period, alternate accommodation, sharing of the expenses and space in the newly companystructed building, etc.
The plaintiff will reconstruct the above property from his own money funds with three storeys i.e. ground floor, first floor and second floor.
51,000/ to the defendants is established, the same would still number establish a companycluded enforceable agreement.
A 1/365, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, with him.
A 1/365 Paschim Vihar Signature Devinder Bajaj /10 6 04 The appellant alleged that the respondents failed to companyply with the agreement and lingered over the matter on one pretext or the other that the appellant came to know subsequently that the property stood in the name of the second respondent and number the first respondent and that the appellant therefore issued a numberice dated 9.3.2007 calling upon the respondents to companyply with the legal formalities to facilitate the companylaboration agreement.
On getting companyversion of the above property from leasehold to freehold, the above agreement proposed companylaboration of the property bearing No.
The respondents companytested the said suit and filed a written statement denying the claim in toto.
In the present case all the terms of the agreement will have to be established by evidence, there being numberdocument recording the same.
He filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement for companymercial companylaboration for business benefits allegedly entered by the respondents as the owners in possession of premises No.
Vinod Seth S o Sh.
of the proposed three storeyed building, the plaintiff shall also pay a sum of Rs.
The appellant further alleged that in pursuance of the above, he paid a sum of Rs.51,000/ to first respondent in the presence of second respondent and two witnesses Sanjay Kumar Puri and M.R.Arora and that the first respondent executed the following receipt acknowledging the payment RECEIPT PART PAYMENT Received a sum of Rs.51,000/ Fifty one thousand only By Cash Cheque Cash From Sh.
To understand the issue, it is necessary to set out the facts and also extract relevant portions of the plaint and the impugned orders of the High Court.
Such agreements are number companycluded and enforceable till detailed writing as aforesaid is executed.
A 1/365, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and the above terms and companyditions were to be reduced into writing vide an appropriate Memorandum Of Understanding to be duly executed by the parties i.e. the builder and the owners of the above property.
3,71,000/ to the defendants at the time of handing over possession of the above house for reconstruction.
Out of the said reconstructed three storeyed building, the plaintiff shall be entitled to own and possess the ground floor and the first and second floors will be owned and possessed by the defendants.
Alleging that respondents failed to companyply, the appellant filed a suit on 30.6.2007 for specific performance.
In token of the same a Receipt for Rs.51,000/ was duly executed by defendant No.1.
and ordinarily specific performance of such agreements is difficult for the Court to supervise.
Prima facie, the likelihood of the plaintiff succeeding in the suit appears to be remote.
He alleged in the plaint, that the following terms and companyditions were orally agreed between the parties The defendants will apply to the DDA for companyversion of the above property from leasehold to freehold and within 2 3 months the defendants will handover vacant physical possession of the above property to the plaintiff.
The appellant claims to be a builder cum real estate dealer.
While nearly numberhing of the plaintiff is at stake in pursuing the present suit, the defendants as aforesaid will be losers even if ultimately succeed.
The validity of a numberel and innovative direction by the High Court, purportedly issued to discourage frivolous and speculative litigation is under challenge in this appeal.
Out of the agreed companysideration of Rs.3,71,000/ , a sum of Rs.51,000/ was paid to the defendants in cash and the remaining companysideration of Rs.3,20,000/ was to be paid to the defendants at the time of handing over possession of the above house for reconstruction.
However, the defendants are likely to suffer companysiderably merely owing to the pendency of the present suit.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted.
Heard.
Besides bearing the expenses of companystruction and furnishing etc.
The suit being with respect to an immovable property, even in the absence of any interim order restraining the defendants from dealing with the property, attracts Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the pendency of the suit itself has a tendency of interference with the defendants dealing with their own property and if at all the defendants are companypelled to deal with the same, the defendants are likely to realize much less than the market value of the property, owing to the pendency of the said suit.
Sohan Seth R o M 231 First Floor, Guru Harikishan Nagar Against Collaboration of Property No.
