Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2015 DAILYLAW 4654 (DEL)

Madhvi Gupta v. Sneha Rajpal

2015-11-30

Manmohan Singh

body2015
JUDGMENT MANMOHAN SINGH, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance, declaration and injunction. The property bearing No. B-89-A/2, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) was agreed to be sold by the defendant to the plaintiff vide Agreement to Sell dated 20th February, 2010. In fact, the defendant has also agreed to sell another property which is adjacent to the suit property by executing separate Agreement to Sell dated 20th February, 2010 itself in favour of the plaintiff. 2. By order dated 23rd December, 2011, this Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit property and also directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration with this Court. Out of the entire sale consideration of Rs. 2,55,00,000/- the plaintiff had duly paid a sum of Rs. 90 lac prior to the filing of the present suit and was at all times ready and willing to make the remaining payment as envisaged under the agreement to sell. The plaintiff deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- with this Court. The said amount has been kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt. 3. It is submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant in collusion with others has also opened a showroom in the suit property, despite of the status-quo order dated 23rd December, 2011 being in operation. Besides, the defendant has also submitted several documents with South Delhi Municipal Corporation for conversion of the suit property in the name of the defendant. 4. Now, the abovementioned fresh application has been filed by the plaintiff, praying that the directions be passed to the Registry to release the said entire amount of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- to the plaintiff along with interest accrued thereon and the order dated 23rd December, 2011 be continued/confirmed till the final decision of the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the defendant has not denied the fact that the possession of the suit property is lying with the defendant who has also received the part consideration of Rs. 90 lac which were paid in three different occasions. It is argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that in order to strike the equity between the parties, the amount deposited by the plaintiff be ordered to be released with interest. 90 lac which were paid in three different occasions. It is argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that in order to strike the equity between the parties, the amount deposited by the plaintiff be ordered to be released with interest. The plaintiff undertakes that as and when the Court will require the amount, the plaintiff will deposit the same. He submits that since the entire money is deposited by the plaintiff, no harm would be caused to the defendant if the prayer made in the application is allowed. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, as the defendant is already having the possession of the suit property and has also received Rs. 90 lac from the plaintiff. The plaintiff at this stage is not asking the defendant to deposit Rs. 90 lac already received by her. 6. Learned counsel for the defendant states that the conduct of the plaintiff is to be examined at the time of passing of the order. He gave the suggestion to the plaintiff that in case the plaintiff is agreeable to pay the remaining amount along with interest accrued thereon as well as a sum of Rs. 50 lac extra, the defendant is ready to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The said suggestion is not acceptable to the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 7. Under the similar circumstances, in the case of Vikas Aggarwal vs. Bal Krishna Gupta and Others, C.S. (OS) No. 2353 of 2013, by order dated 2nd May, 2014, this Court after considering various judgments released the amount deposited in the Court. The said order was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in FAO (OS) No. 239 of 2014 wherein the order of the learned Single Judge was confirmed. 8. In view of the facts of the matter and the circumstances explained by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the prayer made in the application is allowed. The Registry is directed to release the said amount of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- along with interest accrued thereon, without any further delay, in favour of the plaintiff. 9. The application is disposed of.