Delhi District Court
Cs No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh vs Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." Dod: ... on 24 February, 2014
CS No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." DOD: 24.02.2014
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGEI:
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No.130/2012
UID No.02405C0129172011
In the matter of:
Shri Jogender Singh,
S/o Shri Lilu Ram,
R/o H.No.WZ266, First Floor,
Gali No.9, Lajwanti Garden, New Delhi110 046.
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Pramod Gupta, Advocate)
Versus
1. Shri Chander Shekhar Pandey,
S/o Shri Gorakh Nath Pandey,
R/o EA1/1, Inderpuri, New Delhi110 012.
2. Smt.Krishna,
W/o Late Shri S.S Mogha,
R/o RZ101/46, Mohan Nagar,
Pankha Road, New Delhi110 046.
3. Smt.Hem Lata,
W/o Shri N.S Chauhan,
R/o RZ189 A, Khampur Village,
New Delhi110 098.
4. Smt.Santosh,
W/o Late Shri Y.S Chauhan,
R/o WZ89A, Khampur Village,
New Delhi110 008.
.....Defendants
(D1 Through Shri I.S Chauhan, Advocate)
(D2 Through Shri Rakesh Lakra, Advocate)
D3 and D4 Through Shri Vikas Sharma, Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit : 17.03.2011
Date of transfer to this Court : 06.08.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 14.02.2014
Date of pronouncement : 24.02.2014
Suit for Specific Perf., Possession & Perm. Injunction: "Decreed" Page 1 of 16
CS No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." DOD: 24.02.2014
SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, POSSESSION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
24.02.2014
J U D G M E N T:
This is a suit for specific performance, possession and permanent injunction, filed by plaintiff against the defendants, with the averments that defendant No.1 Shri Chander Shekhar Pandey is a builder, who had collaborated with defendants No.2 to 4 (the owners) on 07.08.2007, for constructing a building upto third floor, upon a plot admeasuring 96 sq.yards in Khasra No.WZ1529, Nangal Raya, New Delhi110 046. The plaintiff was interested in purchasing one floor therein and as such, the plaintiff made enquiries from defendant No.1 as well as defendants No.2 to 4 about the proposed construction and after negotiations, the plaintiff agreed to purchase first floor in the building to be constructed by defendant No.1 vide Agreement to Sell dated 09.08.2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"). It was represented to the plaintiff by defendant No.1 that he had the lawful authority to construct as well as sell the suit property to him. The total sale consideration agreed upon between them was Rs.14,50,000/ (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only). As per the Agreement to Sell, almost 25% of the total sale consideration amounting to Rs.3,60,000/ was received by defendant No.1 from the plaintiff under a receipt at the time of entering into the Agreement to Sell on 09.08.2007 itself and the remaining amount was agreed to be received by him at the time of handing over the possession of suit property. Thereafter, defendant No.1 started construction at the property in question and from 26.01.2008 till 11.01.2009, he had received further sum of Rs.7,00,000/ (Rupees Seven Lakhs Only) from the Suit for Specific Perf., Possession & Perm. Injunction: "Decreed" Page 2 of 16 CS No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." DOD: 24.02.2014 plaintiff, i.e a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) was received on 26.01.2008; sum of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) was received on 12.09.2008 and sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) was received on 11.01.2009 and as such, a sum of Rs.3,90,000/ (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Thousand Only) remained as balance sale consideration, which was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 at the time of actual receiving of the possession of suit property. Thereafter, the plaintiff met defendant No.1 on several occasions and orally requested him to receive the remaining sale consideration and execute the sale deed qua suit property in his favour, however, defendant No.1 ignored the said requests on one pretext or the other. In the second week of March' 2011, plaintiff came to know that the defendants had a plan to sell off the suit property to some third person. As such, on 12.03.2011 the plaintiff sent a legal notice to defendant No.1, asking him to receive the balance sale consideration and execute sale deed in respect of the suit property in his favour, but to no avail and as such, the plaintiff filed the present suit, seeking decree of specific performance, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property against the defendants.
2. Defendant No.1 filed written statement in the matter, interalia taking preliminary objections that the suit filed by the plaintiff was premature; that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands; that the suit is hopelessly barred by time; that defendants No.2 to 4 are not the owners of the property in question and as such, there was no collaboration agreement between defendant No.1 and the said defendants. On merits, the Agreement to Sell dated 09.08.2007 has been admitted, however, in terms of Clause 2 thereof, it has been stated that amount Suit for Specific Perf., Possession & Perm. Injunction: "Decreed" Page 3 of 16 CS No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." DOD: 24.02.2014 of Rs.10,60,000/, received by defendant No.1 from the plaintiff stood forfeited as the plaintiff had not paid the balance sale consideration within the time contemplated under the Agreement to Sell. The collaboration agreement between defendant No.1 and other defendants has been termed as forged document. It has been specifically stated that after the Agreement to Sell between the parties became a nullity, the actual owners of the property have taken possession of the suit property from defendant No.1. However, the time when the construction of suit property was completed has been deliberately not disclosed, but it has been stated that it was never assured by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff that the construction of the suit property would be completed in the first month of the year 2011.
3. Defendant No.2 in her written statement has taken a preliminary objection that there is no privity of contract between her and the plaintiff with regard to sale of suit property, however, it has been admitted that she alongwith defendants No.3 and 4 had entered into a collaboration agreement with defendant No.1 with regard to construction of property in question, whereby it was specifically agreed that after completion of the construction, defendant No.1 would retain the possession of suit property alongwith terrace above the third floor and half of the ground floor parking. It has, however, been denied that the plaintiff ever met her before entering into the Agreement to Sell with defendant No.1. It has been specifically admitted that the construction of suit property was completed by defendant No.1 in February' 2011 only. It has also been admitted that the plaintiff had approached defendant No.1 with the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,90,000/ for execution of sale deed in his favour, however, he having met defendant No.2 has Suit for Specific Perf., Possession & Perm. Injunction: "Decreed" Page 4 of 16 CS No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." DOD: 24.02.2014 been denied. In the end, it has been categorically stated that after transferring the rights in respect of property in question by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1, she has been left with no right, title or interest therein.
4. Defendants No.3 and 4 have also taken preliminary objections with regard to privity of contract between them and the plaintiff. They have even denied their ownership in respect of the property in question. They have also denied the collaboration agreement dated 07.08.2007 between them and the plaintiff. They have also denied having met the plaintiff prior to entering Agreement to Sell in this matter. They, however, admitted the receipt of legal notice dated 12.03.2012 sent by plaintiff.
5. With the aforesaid pleadings, this Court vide order 21.09.2011 had framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract based on agreement dated 07.08.2007, as prayed for? OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property, as prayed for? OPP.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
(iv) Whether the contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 has become unenforceable due to plaintiff's failure to perform his part of contract within the stipulated time? OPD.
(v) If so, whether defendant No.1 is entitled to forfeit the money paid by plaintiff? OPD.
Suit for Specific Perf., Possession & Perm. Injunction: "Decreed" Page 5 of 16
CS No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." DOD: 24.02.2014
(vi) Whether there is any collaboration agreement between defendants No.2 to 4 and defendant No.1, as alleged by the plaintiff? OPP.
(vii) Relief.
Although, in Issue No.(i), word/date "07.08.2007" has been written, however, both the parties led evidence in the matter, knowing fully well that the plaintiff in this matter has sought specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 09.08.2007.
6. It is pertinent to note here that the third party rights in respect of the suit property have not been created by defendant No.1 in anybody's favour. In this regard, statement of defendant No.1 was recorded in this Court on 28.03.2011 and that of defendants No.2 to 5 on 18.05.2011.
7. In order to discharge the onus of issues put upon him, plaintiff has examined himself as PW1; attesting witness of Agreement to Sell namely Shri Om Prakash Bhardwaj as PW2; Shri Surinder Pal as PW3 and Shri Rajinder Prasad as PW4; whereas, defendant No.1 has examined himself as DW1, whereas the other defendants have not examined any witness.
8. I have heard arguments advanced at bar by Shri Pramod Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff; Shri I.S Chauhan, learned counsel for defendant No.1 and Shri Rakesh Lakra, learned counsel for defendant No.2; whereas, Shri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for defendants No.3 and defendant No.4 has filed written arguments and the same have been perused. My issue wise findings in the matter are as under.
Suit for Specific Perf., Possession & Perm. Injunction: "Decreed" Page 6 of 16 CS No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." DOD: 24.02.2014
9. Issues No.(i), (iv), (v) and (vi):
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract based on agreement dated 09.08.2007, as prayed for? OPP.
(iv) Whether the contract between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 has become unenforceable due to plaintiff's failure to perform his part of contract within the stipulated time? OPD.
(v) If so, whether defendant No.1 is entitled to forfeit the money paid by plaintiff? OPD.
And
(vi) Whether there is any collaboration agreement between defendants No.2 to 4 and defendant No.1, as alleged by the plaintiff? OPP.
The onus to prove issues No.(i) and (vi) is upon the plaintiff; whereas the onus of proving issues No.(iv) and (v) is upon the defendant. All these issues are being taken up together for disposal as the evidence on these issues is common and these are interrelated. In order to have a decree of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 09.08.2007 (Ex.PW1/3), the plaintiff is required to establish on record that he had entered into Agreement to Sell with defendant No.1, defendant No.1 was competent to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in his favour. It is further required to be established by him that he had performed his part of Agreement to Sell, whereas on account of failure of defendants in performing their part, he has been deprived of the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. As per the facts pleaded in the plaint as well as Agreement to Sell, the negotiations for the purchase of suit property were initiated between plaintiff and defendant No.1 at or around 07.08.2007. The plaintiff had approached defendant No.1 in this regard on the asking of PW2 Shri Om Prakash Suit for Specific Perf., Possession & Perm. Injunction: "Decreed" Page 7 of 16 CS No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." DOD: 24.02.2014 Bhardwaj. PW2 had also entered into an Agreement to Sell with defendant No.1 in the property in question in respect of another flat. As per plaintiff and PW2, defendant No.1 had handed over to them photocopy of a collaboration agreement dated 07.08.2007 (Ex.PW1/2), which was between defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 to 4. Defendant No.1 had also showed them a WILL in respect of the property in question. With his limited understanding of the legal position with regard to the said documents, the plaintiff became satisfied about the right, title and entitlement of defendant No.1 in constructing the said property and carving out four floors therein and then about his entitlement not only to enter into an Agreement to Sell with regard to suit property with him, but also with regard to executing sale deed in respect thereof after accepting the agreed sale consideration. The defendant No.1 has denied the collaboration agreement, however, the Agreement to Sell Ex.PW1/3 has been duly admitted by him. The defendant No.1 has further admitted having received payment of Rs.10,60,000/ (Rupees Ten Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) from the plaintiff through Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7 towards the balance sale consideration of the suit amount. However, the stand of defendant No.1 in the matter is that the plaintiff did not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration to him and as such, the entire payment made by him to defendant No.1 stood forfeited in terms of Clause 2 of Ex.PW1/3. A perusal of Ex.PW1/3 suggests that at the time of entering into this Agreement, the plaintiff was liable to make 25% of the agreed sale consideration which was admittedly received by defendant No.1 from him, whereas any of the other clauses of this document does not show that any specific date was agreed between the parties for handing over the possession of suit property to the plaintiff by defendant No.1. The learned counsel for defendant No.1 has very vehemently argued that in terms of this Agreement to Sell, the plaintiff was liable to Suit for Specific Perf., Possession & Perm. Injunction: "Decreed" Page 8 of 16 CS No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." DOD: 24.02.2014 make payment of the earnest money equivalent to 25% of the total sale consideration to the persons namely (i) Shri Domesh Kumar Tanwar, (ii) Master Paras and (iii) Shri Tejinder Kumar Tanwar and the plaintiff not having done the same is not entitled for the specific performance of said Agreement to Sell. It is further argued that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to make payment of the balance sale consideration to defendant No.1 and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to the specific performance. The learned counsel has further termed the collaboration agreement Ex.PW1/2 to be a forged and fabricated document. I would firstly deal with Ex.PW1/2. The original of this document has not been placed on record by any of the parties. The stand of plaintiff in this regard is that defendant No.1 had handed over only a photocopy of the same to him, whereas the stand of defendant No.1 in the matter in this regard is that it is a forged and fabricated document. However, defendant No.2 has specifically admitted this document to be the document which was entered into between defendant No.1 on the one hand and defendants No.2 to 4 on the other hand, whereas defendants No.3 and 4 have denied this document. The defendant No.1 when appeared in witness box although denied this document, but duly admitted that there was a collaboration agreement between him and other defendants but the same was dated 08.08.2007, the terms whereof were somewhat similar to the one mentioned in Ex.PW1/2. Ex.PW1/3 is an admitted document by all the parties in this matter. A close scrutiny of both these documents reveal that the stamp papers purchased for both these documents are in seriatum, i.e Ex.PW1/2 bearing S.No.D320713 and Ex.PW1/3 bearing S.No.D320714, however, whether these were purchased from the same stamp vendor is not clear from the record. I find the argument of learned counsel for defendant No.1 to be mischievous that the plaintiff was liable to make initial payment of 52% Suit for Specific Perf., Possession & Perm. Injunction: "Decreed" Page 9 of 16 CS No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." DOD: 24.02.2014 to the persons mentioned in Ex.PW1/3 and not to defendant No.1, particularly when defendant No.1 has admitted the receipt of said payment. In this regard, the stand of defendant No.2 is very clear that it was defendant No.1 who was entitled to receive the said amount. This fact is further clear from the document Ex.DW1/2, which is reply to the legal notice filed by defendant No.1 himself, wherein he has categorically admitted having received the aforesaid amount. It has been further admitted by him that he was legally entitled to receive the aforesaid amount from the plaintiff. Now, coming to the next argument of learned counsel for defendant No.1 that it was the plaintiff who was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In this regard, reference can be had to the stand of defendant No.2, who has categorically admitted that construction at the suit property was completed by defendant No.1 at or around February' 2011, whereas the defendant No.1 has purposely left this aspect vague; however, Ex.PW1/3 nowhere mentions the time period within which the construction was required to be completed by defendant No.
1. Therefore, there was no reason or occasion for the plaintiff to have approached defendant No.1 with the balance sale consideration for taking possession of the suit property prior to its completion. Further, it is admitted case of defendant No.1 that till January' 2009 he had received almost 75% of the total sale consideration from the plaintiff. Now, let us see as to whether right from the beginning, the intention of defendant No.1 was bonafide or otherwise. It is apparent from the stand of defendant No.1 in his written statement as well as his evidence that he has denied Ex.PW1/2, but has admitted another collaboration agreement dated 08.08.2007 between him and defendants No.2 to 4 in respect of the property in question. Immediately, after mentioning about the aforesaid collaboration agreement in his evidence, he has hastened to add that the said collaboration agreement was Suit for Specific Perf., Possession & Perm. Injunction: "Decreed" Page 10 of 16 CS No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." DOD: 24.02.2014 destroyed after the completion of work. By saying so, he has tried to play smart with the court as, firstly by saying so, he has avoided an enquiry by this court with regard to the date of completion of construction at the suit property and secondly, the said document if produced on record would have categorically exposed him about his right, title or entitlement qua the said property. It appears that with a view to befool the court, defendant No.1 has coined another novel method, whereby he has stated in his evidence that under the collaboration agreement dated 08.08.2007, he had to have the possession of half of the parking at the ground floor and upper ground floor alongwith the terrace of the third floor; whereas the said stand is neither there in Ex.PW1/3 or Ex.DW1/PX1. Fortunately or unfortunately for defendant No.1, there is another litigation between him and PW2 qua the flat at third floor in the property in question which is pending before this court. As the saying goes that truth has its own mysterious ways of coming to fore, the truth about the malafide conduct of defendant No.1 has also come out in this case in as much as the plaintiff after filing of this suit came to know that with regard to the suit property, the defendant No.1 had also entered into an Agreement to Sell with one Shri Rishi Pal S/o Late Shri Ram Chander on 06.10.2007 for the total sale consideration of Rs.14,00,000/ and he received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/ from him at the time of entering into the Agreement to Sell and remaining Rs.9,00,000/ was agreed to be received by him from him on or before 31.03.2008 and thereafter, he actually received a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/ from him on 11.01.2008 and made him to enter into fresh Agreement to Sell dated 10.10.2008 with regard to the suit property itself and received further payment of Rs.3,00,000/ from him and even then did not handover the possession of suit property to him. The aforesaid Shri Rishi Pal was also constrained to file a suit against defendant No.1 in respect of the Suit for Specific Perf., Possession & Perm. Injunction: "Decreed" Page 11 of 16 CS No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." DOD: 24.02.2014 very suit property, being CS No.82/2012, titled as, "Rishi Pal V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey". By then, the defendant No.1 and his counsels had already got their statement recorded in this court to the effect that they would not create third party rights in respect of the suit property. At that stage, defendant No.1 immediately offered to settle the matter with said Shri Rishi Pal and the matter was ultimately settled before Mediation Centre on 20.09.2012, whereby defendant No.1 by misusing the process of mediation has been returning the amount of Rs. 13,00,000/ to said Shri Rishi Pal in installments. The certified copies of said litigation has been placed on record in this case and the same has not been disputed by defendant No.1. A perusal of the documents of said litigation goes on to establish that defendant No.1 is in the habit of entering into multiple documents with defendants No.2 to 4 for the purpose of befooling proposed buyers. Then he takes money from them on the pretext of using the same for construction of the flat proposed to be sold to them and then he denies the documents and then makes an attempt to take benefit of his own wrong by denying the documents and if he gets cornered on account of proactive approach of the court, then he makes the misuse of the process of mediation and offers to settle the matter by promising to return the amount in installments and in the process he gets unauthorized and undue enrichment in terms of money, as it is anybody's guess that a property which was worth Rs.14,50,000/ in 2007 may not be less than Rs.50,00,000/ in any case in Delhi at or around 2011 due to steep rise in the cost of real estate at around that time.
10. Defendant No.1 has devised an ingenious method of terming the first floor to be upper ground floor on one occasion and on the second occasion, by Suit for Specific Perf., Possession & Perm. Injunction: "Decreed" Page 12 of 16 CS No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." DOD: 24.02.2014 making an attempt to confuse the court by pleading that the Agreement to Sell with so called Shri Rishi Pal in CS No.82/2012 was in respect of some other property, whereas the suit property in this case is the same, but defendant No.1 has not filed any site plan to show that the two properties are different. Then he tried to confuse the court by pleading that the property in question belonged to persons namely Shri Domesh, Shri Paras and Shri Tejinder, whereas to the general public he kept on representing that the same belongs to defendants No.2 to 4 and in the same breath he also kept on representing that he had every right, title or interest to enter into Agreement to Sell in his own rights in respect thereof. Further, the defendant No.1 very conveniently concealed from this court the litigation with aforesaid Shri Rishi Pal. Therefore, from the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clearly apparent that defendant No.1 is a very shrewd kind of builder, who has tried to play with the sentiments of persons like plaintiff and PW2 by taking away their life long earnings and then making them to run from pillar to post for none of their faults. He has been in the habit of aprobating and reprobating, therefore, Ex.PW1/3 being silent about the time within which the plaintiff was required to perform his part of Agreement to Sell on his payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.3,90,000/ and there being positive evidence on record to the effect that construction of suit property was completed by defendant No.1 in February' 2011, the willingness and readiness of plaintiff is presumed to be there, as the present suit was filed by him immediately on 17.03.2011. It is also apparent that defendant No.1 has been enjoying the sum of Rs.10,60,000/ received by him from the plaintiff on or before 11.01.2009, starting from 09.08.2007. As far as the collaboration agreement between defendant No.1 on the one side and defendants No.2 to 4 on the other side is concerned, the plaintiff has not been able to specifically prove the same, however, it Suit for Specific Perf., Possession & Perm. Injunction: "Decreed" Page 13 of 16 CS No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." DOD: 24.02.2014 is clearly apparent on record that there was a collaboration agreement between the said defendants qua the property in question as well as the suit property, but it is defendant No.1 who has concealed the same for his obvious benefit. Accordingly, all the aforesaid issues are decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendant No.1 only, as there is nothing on record that other defendants secured any undue advantage from plaintiff or they were beneficiaries in the deal.
11. Issue No.(iii):
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. Since, issue No.(i) has been decided in favour of plaintiff and it has been held that plaintiff is entitled to the decree of specific performance of Agreement Ex.PW1/3 and in terms of the statement of defendant No.1 recorded by this court on 28.03.2011, the suit property is still in possession of defendant No.1 and no third party rights in respect thereof have so far been created by him; the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction till the handing over of the suit property by defendant No.1 to him and execution of sale deed in respect thereof in favour of plaintiff after accepting the balance sale consideration. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendant No.1.
12. Issue No.(ii):
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property, as prayed for? OPP.
In view of my specific findings on all the other issues, plaintiff is held entitled to the possession of suit property. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
Suit for Specific Perf., Possession & Perm. Injunction: "Decreed" Page 14 of 16 CS No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." DOD: 24.02.2014
13. Relief:
In view of issues No.(i), (ii) and (vi) all having been decided in favour of plaintiff, as such the plaintiff has been able to prove that he is entitled to the specific performance of Agreement to Sell (Ex.PW1/3). However, with a view to do substantial justice between the parties and with a view to avoid defendant No.1 taking advantage of its own wrongs, it is hereby liable to be held that defendant No. 1 would pay interest @ 12% per annum to the plaintiff on sum of Rs.3,60,000/ w.e.f 09.08.2007 till the date of filing of suit and would further pay interest at the same rate on sum of Rs.7,00,000/ w.e.f the respective date of receipt of said amount till the date of filing of present suit and the amount of interest so calculated would be duly adjusted from the sum of Rs.3,90,000/, i.e balance sale consideration. The plaintiff would pay the balance sale consideration calculated according to the aforesaid formula to defendant No.1 within two weeks from today; thereafter, the defendant No.1 shall execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property, i.e first floor of property admeasuring 96 sq.yards in Khasra No.WZ1529, Nangal Raya, New Delhi110 046, shown in red colour in site plan Ex.PW1/1 in favour of plaintiff within two weeks thereafter. The defendant No.1 shall remain restrained from creating third party rights in respect of the suit property, i.e first floor of property admeasuring 96 sq.yards in Khasra No.WZ1529, Nangal Raya, New Delhi110 046, shown in red colour in site plan Ex.PW1/1 till the actual handing over of the possession thereof by him/defendant No.1 to the plaintiff;
(ii) Plaintiff is also entitled to costs. Suit for Specific Perf., Possession & Perm. Injunction: "Decreed" Page 15 of 16 CS No.130/2012: "Joginder Singh V/s Chander Shekhar Pandey & Ors." DOD: 24.02.2014 14. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. 15. File be consigned to Record Room. Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav) open Court on 24.02.2014 Addl. District JudgeI/SouthWest Dwarka District Courts: New Delhi Suit for Specific Perf., Possession & Perm. Injunction: "Decreed" Page 16 of 16