Delhi District Court
(2) M/S Prosperous Buildcon (P) Ltd vs Smt. Anita on 28 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 03
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIRST SUIT
CS No. 575252/16 (old No. 290/17)
CNR No. DLNW010000402016
(1) M/s Logical Estates Private Limited
Regd. Office at:
17B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi02
(2) M/s Prosperous Buildcon (P) Ltd.
Regd. Office at:
D26, Defence Colony,
New Delhi110024 .......... Plaintiffs
VERSUS
Smt. Anita
w/o Sh. Vijender Singh
Village Quadipur,
Tehsil Alipur, Narela, Delhi .......... Defendant
SECOND SUIT
CS No. 575264/16 (old no. 293/17)
CNR No. DLNW010000522016
(1) M/s Logical Estates Private Limited
Regd. Office at:
17B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi02
CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita,
CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh
CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 1 of 19
(2) M/s Prosperous Buildcon (P) Ltd.
Regd. Office at:
D26, Defence Colony,
New Delhi110024 .......... Plaintiffs
VERSUS
Smt. Santosh
w/o Sh. Devender Singh
Village Quadipur,
Tehsil Alipur, Narela, Delhi .......... Defendant
THIRD SUIT
CS No. 575265/16 (old no. 291/17)
CNR No. DLNW010000532016
(1) M/s Logical Estates Private Limited
Regd. Office at:
17B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi02
(2) M/s Prosperous Buildcon (P) Ltd.
Regd. Office at:
D26, Defence Colony,
New Delhi110024 .......... Plaintiffs
VERSUS
Sh. Balwant Singh (since deceased)
s/o Sh. Bhim Singh
12, Village Quadipur,
Tehsil Alipur, Narela, Delhi
through LRs
(i) Sh. Devendra Singh
CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita,
CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh
CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 2 of 19
s/o late Sh. Balwant Singh
r/o VPO Kadipur, Delhi36
(ii) Sh. Virender Singh Rana
s/o late Balwant Singh
H. No. 1962, Sector23,
Gurgaon, Pin122017
(iii) Sh. Rajbir Singh
s/o late Sh. Balwant Singh
r/o VPO Kadipur, Delhi36
(iv) Sh. Bijender Singh
s/o late Sh. Balwant Singh
r/o VPO Kadipur, Delhi36 .......... Defendants
Date of institution of suits : 11.08.2006
Date on which arguments heard : 24.11.2017
Date of decision of suit : 28.11.2017
Suits for declaration, specific performance & permanent injunction
JUDGEMENT
1. Three suits for declaration, specific performance of agreement and injunction were filed for plaintiffs M/s Logical Estates Private Limited and M/s Prosperous Buildcon (P) Ltd. against defendants Smt. Anita, Sh. Balwant Singh and Smt. Santosh. All the three suits were consolidated vide orders dated 26.02.2008 and it was directed that all the three suit be tried together in a consolidated form as a common agreement to sell was entered between the parties on 08.11.2005.
CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 3 of 19 1.1 The averments made in all the three plaints are similar and it is averred that Mr. Jeet Singh Chauhan is authorized vide Board Resolutions dated 10.07.2006 passed by the respective plaintiff companies to file the suits. It is averred that defendant Smt. Anita, Sh. Balwanr Singh and Smt. Santosh claimed that they are absolute owner, occupier and in peaceful physical possession of land falling in Khasra Nos. 101, 1/2, 111, 121 and 112 of village Quadipur, Tehsil Alipur, Narela, Delhi and in the months of OctoberNovember, 2005 entered into negotiations with the plaintiff companies who are very reputed developers for the purchase of suit property. It is alleged that the defendants during such negotiations fraudulently and dishonestly induced the plaintiffs to enter into a contract for purchase of the suit property which was not evident at that time but became evident much later due to the events which unfolded after the execution of the contract dated 08.11.2005. It is submitted that believing the representations of the defendants to be true and correct and being induced by the same the plaintiffs entered into a common agreement to sell dated 08.11.2005 with the defendants and that before its execution the plaintiffs had already paid a collective sum of Rs. 25,00,000/ through cheques as earnest money to them and they acknowledged and admitted the same.
1.2 It is submitted that it was agreed by both the parties to complete the sale bargain within 55 days and that the plaintiffs will obtain the Sale Permission/NOC/ITCC or any other kind of permission from the CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 4 of 19 concerned department if required at their risk and cost. As per terms agreed the possession of the suit property was to be handed over at the time of execution of the sale documents. The defendants acting in terms of the agreement supplied the certified copies of the Jamabandi/Khatauni records and the plaintiffs applied for the issuance of the No Objection Certificate from the office of the Additional District Magistrate in requirement of law which was issued on 19.12.2005 by the said office. The plaintiffs made the full and final payment of the total sale consideration amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/ through cheques on or before 27.12.2005 to the defendants which were encashed by them. It is claimed that thus the plaintiffs had completed their part of obligation under the agreement to sell by making payment of balance consideration within stipulated time and they also purchased the stamp papers towards stamp duty and also got the Sale Deed typed on the said stamp papers and prepare other documents.
1.3 The plaintiffs requested the defendants to present themselves before the Sub Registrar for the purpose of execution and registration of sale deed on 29.12.2005 but to the utter shock of the plaintiffs they mischievously and malafidely refused to execute the sale deed and remain present before the Sub Registrar for getting the same registered and demanded more money from the plaintiffs for the said transaction and threatened to resell the suit property to a third party at a higher price CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 5 of 19 in case plaintiffs did not accede to their illegal, unreasonable, malafide and unjustified demand.
1.4 The plaintiffs due to constant refusal by the defendants to execute the sale deed and get the same registered sent a legal notice dated 29.03.2006 calling upon them to specifically perform their part of the agreement to sell by executing the sale deed with respect to the suit property which was duly served upon them and they sent a vague and evasive reply dated 09.05.2006 wherein with the malafide intention of cheating the plaintiffs and wriggle out of the performance of their obligation under the agreement they mischievously refused the existence of such contract between the parties and turned utterly dishonest and refused to perform their part of the agreement to sell. It is submitted that after the said reply the defendants again initiated a dialogue and further misrepresented to the representative of the plaintiffs that they was interested in amicably resolving the matter and the plaintiff acting in all fairness once again believed them and participated in such conciliatory measures which were ultimately of to no avail as the defendants repeatedly evaded the issue of execution of the sale deed in favour of plaintiffs and all efforts at resolving the matter to the mutual satisfaction of the parties failed on 09.07.2006. Hence, the suit as the plaintiffs have reliably learnt that the defendants are attempting to finalize another agreement or arrangement with respect to the suit property with a third party.
CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 6 of 19
2. All the three defendants filed their written statements in the respective suits against them objecting the same on the similar lines. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit as there was no agreement entered into with them by the defendant and the alleged agreement dated 08.11.2005 is not genuine and was not executed by the defendant and that the plaintiffs have played a fraud and forged the documents in connivance with other person to cheat the defendant. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have concocted a frivolous and baseless story and that common sale agreement is not permissible in law nor can the same be enforced as the properties are different and owned by different person separately. The suit is also liable to be dismissed as no stamp duty has been fixed nor the alleged agreement has been registered as per law. The plaint is liable to be rejected also for the reason that it has never been properly filed nor the proper court fee has been paid by the plaintiffs. 2.1 It is denied that the defendant was desirous of selling the suit properly or the ownership rights in the same. It is submitted that the defendants never entered into negotiations with the plaintiff companies for the sale of the suit property to them and that the plaintiffs never informed or shown any authorization in the name of any individual in this regard nor any person talked to them for or on behalf of plaintiff companies. It is submitted that in the month of August, 2005 Sh. Zile Singh Chauhan, MLA, Sh. Ram Kishan resident of neighbouring village Mukhmelpur, a person Sh. Zile Singh Chauhan and one person named CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 7 of 19 Satish Chauhan came forward with a proposal to develop the suit land as residential/institutional area in joint collaboration with the defendant. Sh. Zile Singh Chauhan informed that he is the member of Committee of DDA who is looking after the finalization of the Master Plan 2021 and he took responsibility of getting the land use changed from agriculture to residential/institutional. It was also told that both the parties would be partners in the proposed joint venture and as the proposal looked very attractive and lucrative family members of the defendant gave a go ahead signal to Sh. Zile Singh Chauhan to work on this proposal. It was proposed that he will prepare the necessary papers required for the joint venture and that the suit land will remain in the name of the defendant and the capital investment will be made by Sh. Satish Chauhan who will initially invest Rs. 30 lakhs which will be paid to the defendant as part of their contribution towards finalization of the joint venture for construction of the residential/institutional building on the suit land. The defendant and Sh. Satish Chauhan were to be the partners in the joint venture sharing equally without any right, interest and title in so far as the suit land is concerned.
2.2 It is submitted that in order to instill confidence among the family members of the defendant for this joint venture, defendant was given a cheque by Sh. Ram Kishan and it was decided that application will be made to DDA for the conversion of the land use of the suit land and necessary approval will be got at earliest. He induced the defendant to CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 8 of 19 sign some papers, blank proformas and also took copy of ration card on the plea that all the papers are to be submitted in the DDA for conversion of land use. It is submitted that between 20.09.2005 and 02.01.2006 defendant received Rs. 30 lakhs as per understanding through cheques which were delivered by Sh. Ram Kishan. The defendant was induced to sign some papers which were in English and also blank proformas brought by Sh. Ram Kishan and it appears that he took advantage of illiteracy of defendant and the plaintiffs have misused one such paper for the alleged agreement dated 08.11.2005.
2.3 It is submitted that in the notice dated 29.03.2006 sent by the plaintiffs there is no mention of said agreement. It is denied that any contract was entered into or any payment was made for the purchase of the property or earnest money and/or full and final payments towards the purchase of suit property as alleged by the plaintiff. It is submitted that until February, 2006 the defendant was consistently told that the case of conversion of land use was in progress and whenever the defendant made inquiries the defendant was informed by Sh. Zile Singh Chauhan that necessary papers have been submitted to DDA and the process of approval of conversion of land is awaiting finalization. The defendant was given impression that Sh. Zile Singh Chauhan and Sh. Satish Chahan are family members.
2.4 The defendant was shocked to receive the legal notice dated 29.03.2006 from the plaintiffs and the defendant suspected a foul play on CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 9 of 19 their part and the reply of the notice was sent. The averments made about the inducement are denied by the defendants. It is submitted that the defendant never signed any typed proforma and it seems that the blank application form has been typed and filled in subsequently and the signatures have been put by the plaintiffs later on and NOC have been got issued. It is denied that the payments have been made by the plaintiff and it is submitted that the payments have been made by Sh. Satish Chauhan in reference to joint venture and it is totally baseless that the cheques were given as part of the alleged agreement. It is submitted that the defendant was never informed about the purchase of stamp papers and they might have purchased the same to create false evidence. It is denied that the plaintiffs prior or after 28.12.2005 ever sent any communication to the defendant to come before the office of Sub Registrar for registration of the documents on 29.12.2005. It is denied that defendant demanded more money from the plaintiffs and that there were any talks between them for mutual settlement after notice. It is submitted that the defendants have been cheated and the plaintiffs want to illegally grab and takeover the suit property without any justification and legal right and authority.
3. In the replications filed to the written statements of the defendants, the averments of the plaints are reiterated and reaffirmed and it is submitted that Sh. Jeet Singh Chauhan is the authorized representative of the plaintiffs and that his nick name is Sh. Satish. It is submitted that the CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 10 of 19 plaintiff companies have no relation with Sh. Zile Singh Chauhan and Sh. Ram Kishan who have been named only with a view to support the concocted story of joint venture. It is submitted that the defendants entered with the plaintiffs for the sale of the suit property and they have received the entire sale consideration and to swallow it the defendants are attempting to avoid the sale deed on false story.
4. Upon completion of the pleadings following issues were settled on 04.02.2007:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance in respect of agreement to sell dated 8th November 2005, if so, on what terms and conditions? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of agreement? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the agreement to sell dated 8th November, 2005 is not properly stamped and requires registration as alleged by the defendants, is so, to what effect? OPD
5. Relief.
5. As stated above, all the three suits were consolidated for the trial vide orders dated 26.02.2008 and the first suit was considered leading suit for recording of the evidence and it was ordered that orders sheets and evidence shall be maintained in this suit and other two suit will be CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 11 of 19 tagged with this suit. The plaintiffs examined one witness in support of their suits. The defendants Smt. Anita and Smt. Santosh have appeared in their defence to the suit whereas son of third defendant Sh. Balwant Singh has appeared for defence of his father as the defendant had died during the pendancy of suit and his legal representatives have been substituted in the suit upon his death.
6. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the sides and have gone through the case files with their assistance. My issue wise findings are as follows:
Issue No. 4: Whether the agreement to sell dated 8 th November, 2005 is not properly stamped and requires registration as alleged by the defendants, is so, to what effect? OPD
7. The defendants have raised objection to the agreement that it is neither registered nor properly stamped as such can not be relied upon. It is admitted fact that the possession of the suit land has not been handed over to the plaintiffs by the defendants pursuant to the agreement so the agreement does not fall under the ambit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Only those agreements are required to be registered which are covered by this section and stamp duty as per Article 23A of the Stamps Duty Act is required to be paid. The agreement in question is written on the stamp papers of the value of Rs. 50/. Thus, the same is not insufficiently stamped. Issue decided accordingly against the defendants.
CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 12 of 19 Issue No. 1:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance in respect of agreement to sell dated 8 th November, 2005, if so, on what terms and conditions? OPP
8. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants agreed to sell their land to them and agreement to sell was entered into between the parties and the defendants have received entire sale consideration. On the other hand the defence taken by the defendants is that they had not agreed to sell their property to the plaintiffs rather it was proposed to them to start a joint venture to develop their land in residential / institutional area and their signatures were taken on some papers to get the land use converted from DDA. It is further submitted that there were no negotiations with the plaintiffs for the sale of property and the plaintiffs have never informed or shown any authorization in the name of any individual in this regard nor any person talked to them for or on behalf of plaintiff companies. It is submitted that the payment was made by Sh. Satish Chauhan to them. It is submitted by the defendants that the agreement dated 08.11.2005 is neither legal nor enforceable.
9. No issue was framed on the legality and enforceability of the agreement so an application u/o 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issue was moved for defendants and it was disposed off by the Ld. Predecessor of the Court vide orders dated 26.08.2017 observing that as it relates to Issue NO. 1 and that it is needless to mention that the plaintiff may be entitled for decree of specific performance in respect of CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 13 of 19 agreement dated 08.11.2005 only when the said agreement is valid and enforceable. The plaintiffs have also prayed for a decree of declaration that the Common Agreement to Sell dated 08.11.2005 is a valid contract in the eyes of law and is binding on the Plaintiffs as well as the Defendants.
10. It is urged by the learned counsel for the defendants that the alleged agreement to sell signed by Sh. Jeet Singh Chauhan without any authority in his favour given by the Board of Directors of the plaintiff companies is not an agreement entered by the plaintiff companies. Reliance is placed in this regard on findings of case title M/s Futuristic Solutions Limited vs M/s Nirmal Promoters Private Ltd and others CS(OS) No. 146/2006 decided on 30th July, 2015 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
11. Both the plaintiff companies have claimed that they are incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. A company is considered a juristic personality and it works through its Board of Directors. Any person who claims acting on behalf of a company must have authorization given in his favour by its Board of Directors. As per claim of the plaintiffs the defendants in the month of OctoberNovember, 2005 entered into negotiations with the plaintiff companies. The name or designation of the person with whom the negotiations were made by the defendants has not been disclosed in the plaint. As per pleadings the parties entered into agreement to sell on 08.11.2005. The agreement is CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 14 of 19 placed on file and is Ex. P1. Even in the agreement to sell no name of the person who is authorized signatory for the plaintiff companies is mentioned although the agreement is having signatures of one Jeet Singh Chauhan for second party of the agreement i.e. the plaintiff companies. No date of Board resolution authorizing the signatory to act on behalf of the companies is mentioned in the agreement nor any such resolution is filed and proved by the plaintiffs.
12. In the above said case the Agreement to Sell signed on behalf of a company by the fathers of its shareholders in the absence of any authorization given by the Board to enter into any agreement on its behalf was found not binding on the company. In the case in hand neither in the agreement nor in the plaint it is pleaded that Sh. Jeet Singh Chauhan was authorized by the Boards of Directors of the plaintiff companies. The plaintiffs have also not brought any such authorization on file and have proved it. Thus, in the facts the agreement dated 08.11.2005 cannot be considered as entered into with the defendants by the plaintiff companies.
13. Even if for the sake of arguments it is considered that the agreement was entered by the defendants with the plaintiff companies as they have identified their signatures on the agreement even then the absence of the authority of the Boards of Directors of the plaintiff companies in favour of the person signing it on their behalf does not cure the defect in the agreement as the plaintiffs have to prove that the CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 15 of 19 agreement was entered by them through their authorized person with the defendants.
14. The defendants have also challenged the execution of the agreement that it is not executed by them as their signatures were taken on some papers for joint venture and the said paper have been used for the preparation of the agreement. It is claimed that the defendants are rustic villagers and have no knowledge of English language and that the contents of the documents were never read over or explained to them before taking their signatures by the person who were very influential. Reliance is placed upon case title C.L Jain vs Raghubir Singh RFA(OS) No. 53/2007 decided on March 15, 2012 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In this case it is held by the court that "26. We need to highlight that the appellant is a businessman. He is literate. He knows the worth of making payments by cheque and by cash. He ought to know that while dealing with villagers, in relation to contractual matters, documents of utmost purity should be got executed and not documents shrouded with suspicion, as we find in the instant case. He who is in a better bargaining position owes a greater duty of reasonable care and this would equally apply to a person having more knowledge and wisdom in the worldly affairs."
15. The witness examined by the plaintiffs has not taken part in the negotiations in regard to sale and purchase of suit land and the execution of agreement in this regard. He stated that in 2005 he was having no CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 16 of 19 relation the plaintiff companies. The witness is neither director nor employee of either plaintiff company. The defendants have denied that the agreement to sale was executed by them and have taken a stand that their signatures were taken on some papers. No witness has been examined who have witnessed the negotiations and the execution of the agreement. The plaintiffs have failed to rebut the deposition of the defendants that the nature of the document signed by them was not agreement to sell the suit land. Initially affidavit of Sh. Jeet Singh Chauhan was filed for the evidence but he never appeared in the witness box to face the crossexamination. The plaintiffs have shown the reason of his non production in the witness box that he has left the plaintiffs. If it was so then the plaintiffs may have got issued his summons to appear in the court to make clear the facts and the nature of the agreement signed by him. Due to nonexamination of the signatory of the document or the person participated in the negotiations adverse inference is to be drawn against the plaintiffs. The plaintiff companies who are engaged in the property business and its development failed to clear the suspicion on the nature of the document got signed from the villagers for their agriculture land out of whom two are house women. Particularly in the facts where the defendants have raised the objections about the nature of the document in the replies given to the legal notice of the plaintiffs. It is very strange to notice that in the legal notice issued to the defendant it is mentioned that the plaintiffs have purchased the agriculture land from the CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 17 of 19 defendant but no date of such purchase or mode of such purchase is mentioned in the same. For these reasons the agreement dated 08.11.2005 can not be considered validly executed for the plaintiffs and as binding upon the parties to the suit.
16. The defendants have also drawn the notice of the court on the verification clause of the plaints and urged that plaints are not verified as per law. The name of the person who has verified the plaints is mentioned as Nain Singh and the numbers of the paragraphs are left blank which are true to the knowledge of the signatory or which are based upon information and legal advice. The plaints are signed by Sh. Jeet Singh and it is submitted by the learned counsel for plaintiffs that Sh. Nain Singh is the name of his father which has been written incorrectly. It may be so but the defect must have been cured when the objection was raised in the written statements by the defendants. The plaintiffs have also failed to prove the authority of said Sh. Jeet Singh to sign and verify the plaints and file the suits in the court on behalf of the plaintiff companies. The plaints remained unproved. Reliance may be placed on case of M/s Rajggaria Paper Mills Ltd. Vs General Manager, Indian Security Press and Anr. 84(2000) DLT 804.
17. Thus, for the reasons given above where the agreement is not found valid and enforceable and that the suits are not filed by authorized person on behalf of plaintiff companies the plaintiffs are not found CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 18 of 19 entitled for the specific performance of the agreement dated 08.11.2005. Issue decided accordingly.
Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of agreement? OPD
18. In view of the reason that the agreement is not validly entered for the plaintiffs and is not enforceable the finding on the issue is of no use. However, as per the agreement the plaintiffs have competed their act or obligation under the agreement so they are considered ready nd willing to perform their part of the agreement. Issue decided accordingly.
Issue No. 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
19. The plaintiffs have no right or title in the suit land so are not entitled for the injunctions as claimed. Issue decided accordingly. Relief:
20. In view of the facts and circumstances of the cases and the findings on the issues all the three suits of the plaintiff companies are dismissed. No orders as to the cost. Decree sheets be prepared. Announced in the open court on 28th November, 2017 (SUNIL CHAUDHARY) ADJ03 (N/W) ROHINI COURTS DELHI CS No. 575252/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anita, CS No. 575264/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Santosh CS No. 575265/16 M/s Logical Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Balwant Singh Page No. 19 of 19