Delhi District Court
Jai Parkash vs Sh. Umang Sahai Aggarwal on 11 September, 2007
(1)
IN THE COURT OF PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT, DELHI
dcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdcdc
Old Suit No. : 2261/97
New Suit No: 8/07
Date of institution of case : 23.10.97
Date of transfer of case : 04.01.07
Judgment reserved on : 24.08.07
Date of decision : 11.09.07
IN THE MATTER :
bbbbbbbb
JAI PARKASH
S/O SH. SURAJ BHAN
R/O 1783, BHAGIRATH PLACE
CHANDNI CHOWK, DELHI
......PLAINTIFF
Versus
1. SH. UMANG SAHAI AGGARWAL
S/O SH. RAGHUNANDAN SAHAI
R/O 10129, KUCHA CHAJJU PANDIT
MODEL BASTI, DELHI
2. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN)
VIKAS SADAN, I.N.A., NEW DELHI
.....DEFENDANTS
(2)
SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE,
INJUCTION AND RECOVERY OF MONEY
AS DAMAGES
cccccccccccccccccccc
Present: Sh. Ram Bihari Gupta, Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff.
Sh. K.D. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for defendant
No.2.
Defendant No.1 is exparte.
* * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * *
JUDGMENT
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
1. The epitome of plaint is that Late Sh. Shyam Lal Aggarwal had purchased the plot measuring 4 biga 11 biswas situated in Khasra No.218, village Kharara, Green Park, New Delhi in public auction held on 08.04.1960 and sale certificate was issued in his favour in July, 1963 declaring him purchaser since 06.07.1960.
(3)
(i) It is averred that in 1967 the said land was acquired under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act but the notification was quashed vide judgment dated 29.01.71. Subsequently, in 1974-76, the said land was again acquired under section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act but no award was passed, consequently the said acquisition had also lapsed on the ground of non-
framing of award within the stipulated period. It is further alleged that a letter was issued to the defendant no.2 by the Secretary (Land and Building), Delhi Administration asking the defendant no.2 to deliver the possession of the said land to the rightful owner.
(ii) It is recited that Late Sh. Shyam Lal Aggarwal had executed a Will in 1983 whereby he had bequeathed one half share in the said land jointly in favour of defendant no.1 and his brother Deepak Gupta while remaining undivided share was bequeathed in his cousin namely Sanjay Gupta and Ajay Gupta. It is averred that on the basis of said Will, defendant no.1 had become the owner of one fourth undivided share of the said land.
(iii) It is averred that defendant no.1 and his brother Deepak (4) Gupta had executed a General Power of Attorney dated 06.04.80 in favour of plaintiff authorising him to pursue the government department to get free the said land from re-acquisition and in that process plaintiff had spent a considerable amount.
(iv) It is alleged that defendant no.1 had agreed to sell his one fourth undivided share in the said land to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs.5,35,000/- vide agreement to sell dated 05.01.94. In pursuance of that agreement, plaintiff had paid Rs.3.20 lakh as part payment and it was agreed that balance amount would be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Defendant no.1 also authorised the plaintiff to take possession of the land from defendant no.2.
(v) It is further alleged that defendant no.1 had agreed to obtain all necessary permission and no objection from the concerned authorities to complete the said transaction within a period of six months but defendant no.1 failed to obtain the same. Consequently, plaintiff had sent a legal notice dated 12.10.94 to the defendant no.1 stating inter alia that plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance amount and asked the (5) defendant to obtain the necessary permission and to execute title deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is further averred that though initially defendant no.1 had disputed the said agreement to sell yet subsequently agreed to honour the same.
(vi) It is alleged that defendant no.1 had became dishonest after knowing that defendant no.2 was going to denotify the said land as the price of the said land has increased many folds since 1994, thus trying to back out from the said agreement to sell. Consequently, plaintiff had approached the defendant no.1 on 16.10.97 asking him to finalise the transaction but defendant no.1 flatly refused to perform his part of the agreement and threatened that he would dispose of the land in the manner in which he liked.
(vii) It is further averred that if defendant no.2 hands over the possession of land to defendant no.1 after denotifying the suit land, plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money or otherwise.
(viii) With these averments, plaintiff had filed the present suit (6) with the following prayer :
(a) Pass a decree of specific performance of the agreement dated 05.01.1994 and to execute the sale deed and other documents in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of the said agreement.
(b) Order and direct defendant No.2 to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the land in question indentifiable situated in Khasra No.218, Village Kharara, Green Park, New Delhi i.e 1/4th undivided share of defendant No.1 in favour of the Plaintiff and against he defendant.
(c) The Hon'ble Court be further pleased to restrain defendant No.1 from taking possession from defendant No.2 and in case possession is handed over by the defendant No.2 to defendant No.1, defendant No.1 be restrained from selling, alienating, transferring and parting with the possession land above mentioned or execute any document with regard to the said property in favour of any third party.
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against defendant No.1 to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- towards payment made to defendant.
Cost of the proceedings be also awarded to the Plaintiff.(7)
2. Defendant no. 2 contested the suit by filing its written statement wherein preliminary objections inter alia were taken that suit is not maintainable as no prior notice was given under section 53B of the Delhi Development Act. Further suit is bad for non-joinder of the collector of land and acquisition, who was a necessary party to the present suit. On merits, it is stated that the suit land was acquired vide notification under section 22 (1) of DDA Act on 13.06.63 and an award was passed vide award No.1370. Thereafter, DDA had constructed flats under the Hauz Khas Residential Scheme. It is further stated that the present suit had been filed in collusion of defendant no.1 to grab the government land.
3. No replication filed in this case.
4. Vide order dated 04.03.2003, following issues were framed :-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
decree of specific performance of the
agreement dated 05.01.94 ? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a
(8)
conveyance in his favour under the
agreement dated 05.01.94 from
defendant no.1 or defendant no.2, who
are stated to have acquired the land in
question ? OPP
(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for vacant
land and peaceful possession of the suit
property ? OPP
(4) Whether defendant no.1 is entitled to
take the possession of suit property from
defendant no.2 ? OPP
(5) Whether the plaintiff is in the alternative
entitled to Rs.5 lakh as damages from
defendant no.1 ? OPP
(6) Whether the suit is maintainable for want
of notice under section 50B of DDA
Act ? OPP
(7) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder
of necessary party as claimed in the
preliminary objection no.2 ? OPD
(8) Relief.
5. Defendant no.1 has not contested the suit and vide order dated 23.05.2000 was proceeded exparte.
6. To prove his case plaintiff has examined himself as PW1. In counter, defendant no.2 has examined following witnesses:-(9)
D2/W1 : Rajbir Singh Dahiya D2/W2 : Pritam Singh
7. I have heard Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions. My issue-wise findings are as under :-
8. ISSUE Nos. 1 & 2
Since both the issues are inter-connected to each other, hence are taken together.
Onus to prove the said issue was upon the plaintiff.
(i) Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that defendant no.1 had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs.5.35 Lac and in pursuance of agreement, plaintiff had already paid the sum of Rs.3.20 Lac to the defendant no.1 and is ready and willing to pay the balance amount to the defendant no.1. (10)
(ii) Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 contended that defendant no.2 is not concerned with the relief claimed in the said issues. However, it is urged that defendant no.2 is not bound by the agreement Ex.PW1/8.
(iii) PW1 in his deposition emphatically deposed that defendant no.1 had agreed to sell his 1/4th undivided share in the suit land to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs.5.35 Lac and further deposed that he had already paid the sum of Rs.3.20 Lac. The said agreement is Ex. PW1/8, which bears the signature of defendant no.1 and plaintiff at point A & B respectively. The testimony of PW1 to that extent remained unrebutted during the trial as defendant no.1 did not contest the suit and proceeded ex-
parte. In the absence of any contrary evidence on record, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 and Ex. PW1/8.
(iv) PW1 in his testimony further deposed that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and is still ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.2.15 Lac to the defendant no.1. According to the Ex. PW1/8, defendant no.1 had (11) to obtain certain permission and Noc from the competent authorities within the period of six months. After obtaining the said permission/Noc, defendant no.1 had to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the balance payment of Rs.2.15 Lac. There is nothing on record to show that defendant no.1 had obtained any such permission/Noc within the said stipulated period. Similarly there is nothing on record to show that plaintiff ever expressed his unwillingness to perform his part of contract. In these circumstances and the fact that plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by paying balance amount of Rs.2.15 Lac to the defendant no.1, I am of the opinion that plaintiff is entitled to the decree of specific performance of the agreement Ex.PW1/8 and is also entitled to get a conveyance deed from defendant no.1.
(v) Admittedly, defendant no.2 was not the party in the agreement Ex. PW1/8. Thus, there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.2. It is also admitted case of the plaintiff that defendant no.2 is not the owner of the suit property. On the contrary it is argued that defendant no.2 is in unlawful possession of the suit property. If defendant no.2 is in (12) unlawful possession of the suit property, how can it execute the conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff because the same can be executed only by the person who has title over the suit land.
(vi) Considering the afore-going discussion, I decide issue no.1 in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.1 and issue no.2 partly in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants. 9. ISSUE Nos. 3
Onus to prove the issue was upon the plaintiff.
(i) Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff vehemently contended that the defendant no.2 is in unlawful possession of the suit land as the notification issued in the year 1967 had already been quashed vide judgment dated 29.01.71 and the second notification had lapsed as no award was published within the stipulated period. It is further urged that the land was free from acquisition as it was an evacuee property. It is further argued that since the plaintiff had (13) purchased a portion of the suit land from defendant no.1, thus is entitled to recover possession from the defendant no.2.
(ii) Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 refuted the said contentions by arguing that the judgment dated 29.01.71 is not binding upon the defendant no.2 as defendant no.2 was not a party in that suit. It is further contended that defendant no.2 is in lawful possession of the suit premises as the land in issue was acquired by the Government vide Award no. 1370. It is further argued that plaintiff can not recover the possession of the suit land on the basis of agreement to sell dated 05.01.94 as plaintiff had no privity of contract with defendant no.2.
(iii) It is admitted case of the plaintiff that his case is completely based on receipt-cum-agreement dated 05.01.94, which is Ex.PW1/8. The fist moot question arises for adjudication is as to whether said agreement confers any right, title over the property in question in favour of the plaintiff? Second polemical issue arises for adjudication is as to whether plaintiff can claim possession from defendant no.2 on the basis of said agreement or not?
(14)
(iv) Unfortunately, Ld. Counsels for both parties have not enlightened this Court on the said issues despite query raised by the Court. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff focused his arguments to establish that defendant no.2 is in unlawful possession and thus has no right to remain in possession of the suit land. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 stressed that the possession of the defendant no.2 is legal and lawful.
(v) Sale of immovable property is defined under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 54 is in three parts. In the instant case, third portion is relevant, which reads as under:-
Contract of sale - A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.
It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.
It elucidates from the said section that a contract for sale of immovable property does not create any interest in or charge over such property in favour of buyer as it is merely a contract to (15) the effect that the sale of such property shall take place on the terms & conditions settled between the parties. A contract for sale is, therefore, merely a document creating a right to obtain another document as per terms & conditions mentioned therein. Even after the execution of contract to sell, title clearly resides in the vendor and no title transfers in favour of vendee.
(vi) Now, let me examine the facts of the case in hand to ascertain whether the agreement Ex. PW1/8 creates any interest in favour of the plaintiff or not.
(vii) In first para of Ex.PW1/8 it is recited that the land in issue was notified by the Government under section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act vide notification issued on 21.04.74 and 04.11.74 and defendant no.1 had appointed the plaintiff as his attorney to get free the land from acquisition. In second para, it is professed that defendant no.1 had agreed to sell his ¼ undivided share in the land to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs.5.35 Lac and had received Rs.3.20 Lac towards the sale consideration and balance amount was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Plaintiff was also authorized to take (16) possession from DDA or any other Government Departments. In third para it is vowed that if the land is notified again, plaintiff will be entitled to take all legal proceedings including to receive the compensation. In fourth para it is recited that all necessary permissions and NOCs would be obtained within six months from the date of execution of said agreement.
(viii) It emerges from the said agreement that plaintiff was aware that land in question had already been acquired and defendant no.1 was not in possession of the same. Despite that he had agreed to buy the same. Balance amount was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed, which was to be executed on receipt of all necessary permission and NOCs from relevant authorities and six months time was fixed to obtain such permission and NOCs. It further emerges that if land is again notified for acquisition, plaintiff would be entitled to receive compensation and to take all other legal action.
(ix)) It further illuminates from the said agreement that defendant no.1 had not agreed to hand over the possession of the land to the plaintiff as defendant no.1 himself was not in (17) possession of the same. Defendant no.1 only agreed to execute the sale deed on receipt of balance amount of Rs.2.15 Lac and further agreed to obtain necessary permissions and NOCs from the relevant authorities.
(x) Thus, on the basis of said agreement, plaintiff can only ask the defendant no.1 to execute the sale deed in his favour on receipt of balance payment. On the basis of said agreement, plaintiff is not entitled to recover possession from the defendant no.1 as in that agreement defendant no.1 had no where agreed to deliver the possession of the land to the plaintiff. Since defendant no.1 himself was not in the possession of the land in issue, he was justified not to agree to deliver the possession of the same to the plaintiff. The right to acquire possession of the land would accrue in favour of the plaintiff if he succeeds to get register the title deed in his favour and defendant no.1 obtains the possession of land from DDA. Unless defendant no.1 has obtained the possession from DDA, he is not empowered to deliver the same to the plaintiff. Due to that reason, it was not recited in the agreement that defendant no.1 would deliver the possession of the land to the plaintiff.
(18)
(xi) Admittedly, present suit was filed in the year 1997 and at that time plaintiff had no other document in his favour except agreement to sell, which is Ex. PW1/8. As discussed above, the said document did not confer any title, interest or right over the property in question in favour of the plaintiff. Knowing very well of his right, plaintiff even had not pleaded in his plaint that he was entitled for possession of the land from DDA. In para 12 it is averred that after knowing the fact that DDA was going to de-notify the land and the fact that the price of the land had enhanced sharply, defendant no.1 tried to back out from the said agreement. In para 13 it is alleged that when on 16th October 1997 plaintiff approached the defendant no.1, he threatened to dispose of the land in any manner in which he liked. In para 15 it is averred that if defendant no.2 hands over the land to the defendant no.1, plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury or loss, which can not be compensated in terms of money. In his entire plaint, plaintiff no where even pleaded that he had a right to claim possession from DDA. Merely fact that plaintiff had prayed a decree of possession of land against defendant no.2 is not sufficient to hold that plaintiff had made averments of his (19) claim of possession in the plaint. It is settled proposition of law that the prayer clause is based on the facts mentioned in the plaint. Unless sufficient facts are incorporated in the pleading, no relief can be granted even though mentioned in the prayer clause.
(xii) Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has strongly relied upon the judgment Syed Dastagir v.s T.R. Gopalakrishna Setty, AIR 1999 SC 3029 to support his contention that the real issue between the parties is as to whether plaintiff is entitled to claim possession of the land from DDA or not. It is argued that pleadings should be read in this context only. It is further urged that after reading the entire pleadings it will become clear that plaintiff had also claimed possession from the defendant no.2.
(xiii) In Syed Dastagir's case (supra) it is held:-
"In construing a plea in any pleading, Courts must keep in mind that a plea is not an expression of art and science but an expression through words to place fact and law of one's case for a relief. Such an expression maybe pointed, precise, sometimes vague but still could be gathered what he wants to convey through only by reading the whole pleading, depends on the person drafting a plea. In India most of the pleas are drafted by (20) counsels, hence aforesaid difference of pleas which inevitably differ from one to other. Thus, to gather true spirit behind a plea it should be read as a whole. This does not distract one from performing his obligation as required under a statute. In the instant case, even from the title of the suit it will become abundantly clear that the the intention of the plaintiff was not to claim possession from defendant no.2 as the tile of the suit reads as under:
"SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, INJUCTION AND RECOVERY OF MONEY AS DAMAGES."
It is well settled proposition of law that the intention of the party is derived from the words used in the pleading and not on the basis of assumption and presumption. In the instant case, not only the facts enumerated therein as discussed above but also the title of the suit demonstrate that the real intention of the plaintiff was to get the relief to execute the agreement to sell as he was hopeful that DDA was going to de-notify the land and if before that he failed to get sale deed registered in his favour on the basis of said agreement to sell, defendant no1 may not hand (21) handover the possession of the land to him as he had threatened him to back out from the said agreement. Due to that reason, plaintiff had not uttered even a single word about the relief of possession in para 18 wherein he had enumerated the cause of actions arose in his favour to file the present suit. Due to that reason, even plaintiff had not paid any court fee on the relief of possession from defendant no.2.
(xiv) Even on cursory reading of the Ex.PW1/8 it emerges that plaintiff had taken a risk at the time of executing the said agreement because he knew very well that defendant no.1 was not in possession of the land and the same was in the possession of DDA. He might have agreed to buy the same in the hope that DDA may de-notify the land and if it is de-notified, he may earn huge profit from the said transaction otherwise he has to suffer the loss to the sum of Rs.5.35 Lac only. Admittedly, if land is de-notified today, its market value would be in several crores of rupees as the land is situated in one of the most posh area of Delhi i.e Green Park.
(xv) In addition to the above, it is undisputed fact that the (22) limitation period to claim the relief of possession is 12 years. It is admitted case of the plaintiff that the second notification was issued in the year 1974-1976 but award was not passed within the prescribed period of 2 years. Despite that late Sh. Sham Lal Aggarwal had not initiated any legal proceedings against the DDA to recover possession of the suit premises. As the second notification if any was come to end in 1978-1979 due to non- publication of the award within 2 years, thus limitation would start from the date when the second notification had come to end. Thus, late Sham Lal Aggarwal had a right to claim possession within a period of 12 years from the date when the second notification if any had come to end. If late Sh. Sham Lal Aggarwal had no right to claim possession after the expiry of period of 12 years, how his successors could claim possession after the expiry of said period.
(xvi) At last but not least, plaintiff had not even paid any court fee on the relief of possession, this further proves that plaintiff had no intention to claim possession of the suit land from defendant no.2 at the time of filing of the suit. If he had any intention to claim possession, he would have certain paid the (23) court fee on the relief of possession.
(xvii) It is pertinent to mention here that Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon certain documents during the course of arguments to establish that defendant no.2 is in unlawful possession of the suit premises and even directions were issued to the defendant no.2 to deliver the possession of the land to the rightful owner and further to establish that the said land is still a vacant green land but in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of view that the said documents would become relevant only if the plaintiff had any right, title or interest in the suit property. (xviii) Pondering the entire on-going discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the agreement Ex.PW1/8 does not confer any right, title or interest in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff is not entitled to claim possession of the same from the defendant no.2. Accordingly, I decide this issue against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant no.2.
10. ISSUE NO.4 (24) Onus to prove the said issue was upon the plaintiff.
(i) Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the said issue is irrelevant as it does not arise from the pleadings of the parties. Admittedly, in the plaint it is nowhere prayed that defendant no.1 is entitled to recover the possession of the suit land from defendant no.2. Moreover, defendant no.1 has not contested the suit, even none has claimed the said relief on behalf of the defendant no.1 in the present suit. Considering all these, I am of the opinion that the said issue is beyond pleadings, hence is irrelevant. As the issue is irrelevant, hence stands deleted.
11. ISSUE No.5 Onus to prove the said issue is upon the plaintiff. However, during the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has not pressed for the same on the ground that value of the property is running in crores of rupees. In view of the submission of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, I decide this issue (25) against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant no.1.
12. ISSUE No.6 Onus to prove the said issue was upon the plaintiff.
(i) Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that vendor Umang Aggarwal along with other co-owners of the land had given a notice under section 80 CPC and 53B of the Delhi Development Act on 05.08.93, which is Ex.D2W2/P-1. Thus, the suit is maintainable. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 opposed the said contention on the ground that the said notice was not sent by the plaintiff. It is argued that plaintiff was supposed to issue fresh notice before filing the suit.
(ii) Perusal of the section 53B of the Act reveals that a prior notice is required before filing the suit against the DDA. Admittedly, plaintiff had not sent any notice to the defendant no.2 before filing the present suit. But a notice was sent by Umang Aggarwal along with other co-owner in 1993, which is Ex.D2W2/P-1. Thereafter, plaintiff had agreed to buy the ¼ undivided share of Umang Aggarwal vide Ex.PW1/8. Since (26) Umang Aggarwal had already sent the requisite notice to the defendant no.2, in my opinion plaintiff was not required to send a separate notice to the defendant no.2 because the purpose of notice is just to inform the defendant no.2 about the intention of the party. Accordingly, I am of the view that present suit is not hit by section 53B of the Act. Thus, I decide this issue in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.2.
13. ISSUE No.7 Onus to prove the said issue is upon the defendant no.2.
(i) Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 contended that the present suit is bad for non-joining of Collector of Land Acquisition as plaintiff had challenged the acquisition proceedings. The said contention is countered by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that since plaintiff had not claimed any relief against the Collector of Land Acquisition, he was not necessary party in the present suit.
(ii) Admittedly, plaintiff had not claimed any relief against (27) the Collector of Land Acquisition in the present suit. Merely fact that in the plaint it is averred that the notification issued for land acquisition was quashed by the Court vide judgment/decree dated 29.01.1971 is not sufficient to hold that Collector of Land Acquisition is a necessary party in the present suit. It is undisputed fact that the present suit of the plaintiff is based on the agreement EX. PW1/8 and by virtue of the present suit plaintiff intended specific performance of the said agreement. Collector of Land Acquisition was not a party in the said agreement and is no way affected by the performance & non performance of the said agreement in any manner. Considering all these facts, I am of the opinion that Collector Land Acquisition is not a necessary party in the present suit. Accordingly, I decide this issue against defendant no.2 and in favour of the plaintiff.
14. RELIEF In view of my findings on the above issues, I hereby pass a decree of specific performance of the agreement dated 05.01.94, which is Ex.PW1/8 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 directing him to execute the sale deed (28) in respect of his ¼ undivided share in the land bearing Khasra No. 218, village Kharara, Green Park, New Delhi within a period of three months after accepting the balance amount of Rs.2.15 Lac from the plaintiff failing which plaintiff shall be entitled to approach the Executing Court for the execution of the decree. Defendant no.1 is also restrained to part with the possession of the suit land in any manner if he obtains the possession of the same from the defendant no.2. Defendant no.1 shall also bear the cost of the suit. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room Announced in the open Court on this 11th day of September 2007 (Pawan Kumar Jain) Additional District Judge Fast Track Court, Delhi