Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

ix. In the written statement of defendant no.1 it was stated that there is no plot No.EC-31 in the Inderpuri layout plan. Suit is not maintainable. The alleged sale if any in favour of the plaintiff by defendants no.4 and 5 is illegal as there being no plot No.EC-31 in existence on 28.4.1959; sale of the said plot does not arise. Even otherwise in the revised layout plan plot No.EC-19 to 31 have been earmarked for a primary school.

x. Defendant no.2 had also relied upon the revised layout plan which had been sanctioned by the DDA in 1957. The contention being that the in this revised layout plan plot No.EC-31 had ceased to exist; it was contended that the plaintiff was bound by the layout plan and he should have verified the antecedents of the property before purchase. xi. Defendant no.3 had died during the pendency of the proceedings; she was dropped from the array of the parties. xii. Defendants no.4 and 5 admitted that they had sold the aforenoted plot to the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 28.4.1959.

9. Whether the suit has been properly valued for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP
10. Relief.

ivx. Oral and documentary evidence was led. Trial judge decided all issues in favour of the plaintiff holding that the revised layout plan which was a creation of defendant no.2 could not have been revised to the disadvantage and to the detriment of the earlier purchasers; this plot of land had been sold by defendant no.2 to defendant no.3 on 22.8.1952 who in turn had sold it to defendants no.4 and 5 on 16.10.1957; on 28.4.1959 vide registered sale deed plaintiff had purchased this property from defendants no.4 and 5. Sale deed set up by defendant (Ex.DW-1/1) is dated 11.8.1962 and was later in time; plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed for by him. His suit was decreed. vx. Impugned judgment has reserved this finding. The impugned judgment had noted that in terms of the Resolution dated 9.10.1957 the revised layout plan of Inderpuri Colony had been approved; in terms of the aforenoted revised layout plan plot No.EC-31 was no longer in existence; this was evident from the site plan which had been filed along with the revised layout plan (Ex.PW-10/3).

5. Arguments have been countered. On behalf of respondent no.1, it is pointed out that the judgment suffers from no infirmity. The layout plan had been revised under a statutory enactment; in the absence of this revised layout plan no building activity could be carried out in Inderpuri Colony. It is pointed out that vide letter dated 10.9.1963 (Ex.D2W1/1) which was a letter written by defendant no.2 (the colonizer) to defendant no.3 Bhagwan Devi, the erstwhile purchaser, of this plot), defendant no.2 had informed her that it had become necessary to obtain a revised layout plan as the Delhi (Control of Building Operation) Ordinance of 1955 provided that no layout of any colony is valid unless it is approved; this letter had pointed out that as per the revised layout plan plot No.EC-31 of Bhagwan Devi has ceased to exist on account of the site having gone over to a primary school; the sale in favour of Bhagwan Devi therefore stood frustrated; she was entitled to a refund of the price which she had paid. Attention has also been drawn to the communication dated 03.2.1979 and 08.3.1979 written by the Assistant Commissioner (Land and Estate), MCD to the plaintiff asking him to inform the department the lowest price which is acceptable to him for his plot EC-31, Inderpuri Colony. It is pointed out that the plaintiff had all along known the fact that a primary school had been not only earmarked at his site in the revised layout plan but it had also been constructed and was in existence at the site. For this proposition attention has been drawn to testimony of PW-4, PW-8 and PW-10 (who was the plaintiff himself). It is pointed out that in these circumstances it can nowhere be said that the plaintiff was a bonafide purchaser of this plot in issue; Bhagwan Devi (who was the successor-in-interest of the plaintiff) had been informed way back in September 1963 that her plot had ceased to exist. The revised layout plan had been sanctioned by the resolution of 19.10.1957 which was prior in time to the purchase of the plot by the plaintiff; this should have been known to the plaintiff before he made his purchase in 1959; the impugned judgment on no count suffers from any infirmity. It does not call for any interference.

13. All this documentary evidence clearly establishes that even at the time of the filing of the first suit which was filed in the year 1965, the plaintiff was well aware that Plot No.EC-31 was no longer in existence. Revised layout plan (Ex.D1W3/1) which had been sanctioned on 09.10.1957 had omitted plot no.EC-31 along with plot nos.EC-28 to EC-30. This has been earmarked for a primary school. This first suit had been decreed on 22.2.1967 wherein the defence of the MCD that this plot has been earmarked for a school had been noted. Nevertheless even when the plaintiff chose to file his second suit which was filed in 1971 he did not make the MCD a party; he had sought relief against defendant no.1 only. Defendant no.2 has supported the case of defendant no.1; he has in his written statement stated that he had submitted the revised layout plan in terms of the new enactment i.e. the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 which made it incumbent upon him to seek sanction of a layout plan before a building could be started. He has sent a communication dated 10.9.1963 to Bhagwan Devi informing her that the plot sold to her has now ceased to exist; she could be compensated in lieu of that. Plaintiff was well aware that a revised layout plan had been sanctioned by the MCD; he did not challenge this revised layout plan; he also did not make the MCD a party; his grievance was addressed to defendant no.1 only. Plaintiff was not a bonafide purchaser; in his capacity as PW-10 he had also admitted that he did not make any verification of the suit land from Bhagawn Devi from whom he is tracing his title; no verification had been done from her. Defendant no.1 had proved on record that he had purchased plot No.C-119 A vide his sale deed dated 11.8.1962 from defendant no.2 in terms of this revised layout plan; he had also obtained a sanction of his building plans on 05.4.1971. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff dated 28.4.1959 has been proved as Ex.PW-6/1. This was a purchase made by the plaintiff from defendant nos.4 and 5 who in turn purchased it from defendant no.3. Rights of the plaintiff were bordered on the rights of defendant no.3. The sale deed in favour of defendant no.3 i.e. Bhagwan Devi is dated 22.8.1952. This has been proved on record as Ex.PW-3/A. It clearly stipulates that the vendee i.e. Bhagwan Devi had agreed to abide by the law of the appropriate authority and bye "laws framed for building construction in this colony". This clause was rightly relied upon in the impugned judgment to draw a finding that the plaintiff who was claiming his title through Bhagwan Devi was also bound by the bye laws of the appropriate authority for building and construction in this colony. It is also not in dispute that the building bye-laws after coming into force of Delhi Development Act, 1957 and the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 provided that since Inderpuri colony was in a "controlled" area; no building activity could be carried out unless the layout plan was sanctioned; in these circumstances the colonizer (the defendant no.2) had applied for the revised payout plan which had been sanctioned on 9.10.1957. Under Section 313(5) of the DMC Act no person could deal with any land or layout or otherwise than in conformity with the orders of the Standing Committee. Under Section 53(3)(b) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 if permission for development has not been obtained such development shall not be deemed to be lawfully undertaken or carried out. It was thus incumbent upon the colonizer to have obtained a sanction of the layout plan which he did so and which was granted to him on 09.10.1957 in terms of the Resolution of the Standing Committee. Under Section 60(2)(b) of the said Act while repealing the Delhi (Control of Building Operations) Act, 1955, the saving clause stated that anything done or any action taken under the aforesaid Act in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act will continue in force and will be deemed to have been done under the provisions of this Act. This was the saving clause.