In a recent case before the Delhi High Court, a legal battle ensued between the plaintiff and defendant. The dispute revolved around the execution of a Sale Deed, with the plaintiff allegedly changing directors to defraud the applicant’s interest. Stay tuned to know more about the court’s ruling and its impact on the involved parties.
Facts
- Legal Notice dated 19.10.2021 cautioning parties about construction on suit property was ignored.
- Applicant paid additional sum of Rs.7,00,000 for revival of plaintiff No 1 Company.
- Plaintiff did not honor their part of the Agreement to Sell despite payment by the applicant.
- Applicant moved current application due to plaintiff not honoring agreement.
- Settlement between plaintiff and defendant No 1 is considered illegal by the applicant.
- Defendant Mr. Amarjeet Singh started construction on the Suit Property without consent.
- Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Rajesh Vohra, filed application under Section 151 of CPC.
- Mr. Shivam Malhotra took a cheque of Rs.7,00,000 during Mediation proceedings.
- Mr. Amarjeet Singh requested parties to be sent to Mediation.
- Settlement Agreement dated 25.01.2021 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant behind the back of the applicant.
- The Suit decreeing was deemed liable to be set aside.
Arguments
- The plaintiff allegedly changed the Directors of the company to defraud the applicant’s interest.
- The plaintiff filed a Suit for Recovery of Possession against the defendant who was in possession of the Suit Property.
- The defendant in turn filed for Specific Performance for execution of the Sale Deed in her favor.
- The plaintiff and defendant reached a settlement where the plaintiff agreed to execute the Sale Deed in favor of the defendant.
- The applicant filed a CPC for setting aside a decree to which she was not even a party.
- The applicant had entered into an Agreement to Sell with the plaintiff.
Analysis
- Status quo orders granted in the Suit for Specific Performance on 19.07.2017 were vacated on 23.08.2018.
- No status quo orders were in effect for the Suit Property as per the applicant’s own statement.
- The plaintiffs’ execution or agreement to execute a Sale Deed in favor of the defendant does not change the legal implications.
- The Sale Deed would only result in the defendant, Mr. Amarjeet Singh, replacing the plaintiff Company as a subsequent purchaser.
- The doctrine of lis pendens would be applicable as the Agreement to Sell of the applicant predates any Sale Deed with the defendant.
- The applicant is not prejudiced in her independent Suit filed for Specific Performance.
Decision
- All pending applications/interim orders made during the pendency of the present application are vacated/dismissed.
- The application made by the applicant is dismissed as without merit.
- The applicant is not a party to the present Suit and has no standing to seek setting aside of the Judgment dated 15.03.2022.
- Any settlement between the plaintiff and defendant does not affect the applicant’s rights in her own Suit.
Case Title: JANAK PROPERTIES PVT LTD & ANR Vs. AMARJEET SINGH (2024:DHC:3836)
Case Number: CS(OS)-1210/2013
