Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.The petition was contested by the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3, the State of U.P, Lucknow Development Authority (for Short 'LDA') and Special Nazul Officer respectively. The petition was also contested by opposite parties 4, 5 and 6 , Sri Jagdish (Agarawal) Gandhi, his wife Smt. Bharti Gandhi and City Montessori School which is being managed by respondents 4 and 5.

5.The opposite parties filed their counter affidavits. The opposite parties also filed supplementary counter affidavits. The opposite parties 4 to 6 moved an application for transposition in place of the petitioner. In the present petition, the petitioner also filed an application under section 151 CPC read with Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. Pleadings were already exchanged between the parties. The parties also filed their written submissions.

9.The opposite parties 4 to 6 moved an application for transposition under Order 22 Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC in the aforesaid Suit No. 73 of 1969 on the ground that opposite party no.4 and petitioner entered into a compromise vide compromise deed dated 31.01.2002 which was accepted by the court vide order dated 11.2.2002 and a compromise degree has been passed in the suit. According to this compromise, the petitioner relinquished all rights in the property in dispute including all other properties for consideration of Rs. 65,00,000/-(Sixty Lacs). In pursuance of the compromise, the petitioner received a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- but later on started avoiding the terms of compromise. The opposite party No.4 was compelled to file an Execution Petition having No. 13 of 2003, which is still pending.

25.The application for transposition moved by the opposite parties 4 to 6 was also contested by the petitioner and filed counter affidavit in respect thereof. From perusal of compromise filed in suit No. 73 of 1969 on 31.01.2002 a compromise decree has been passed by the court after recording the statement on oath of the petitioner No.1/1 Sri G.P. Srivastava. According to the compromise, the petitioner agreed to sell her interest in property No. 91A and the building constructed over it including garden land for a sale consideration of Rs.65,00,000/- in favour of opposite party no.4. A sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- and Rs. 9,00,000/- vide bank drafts dated 08.02.2002 and 27.03.2002 was paid to petitioner on 13th February, 2002 and on 30th February, 2002 respectively. Apart from the aforesaid amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- a sum of Rs. 7,03,314/- was deposited by bank draft dated 12.06.2002 issued in the name of Smt. Raj Rani, the petitioner by opposite party no. 4 in part performance of the aforesaid agreement for getting the plot No. A-91 having area 11625 sq. ft. freehold. However Sri G.P.Srivastava petitioner No.1/1 issued notice of demand of the rest amount under agreement of Rs. 52,00,000/- apart from the amount of Rs.5,60,000/- for making the property free hold on the ground of change of land use as commercial, the entire rent commencing from September, 1972 to January 1983 and further asked for withdrawal of all cases pending against the petitioner in different courts. The notice was replied by Sri Jagdish (Agarwal) Gandhi and stated that the case will be withdrawn only after execution of the sale deed in terms of the agreement. When the objection persisted on behalf of the petitioner an application for execution of decree has been filed in the court by opposite party no.4, in which objection under Section 47 CPC was filed by the petitioner of this writ petition. The matter said to have been pending in the civil court. However after compromise the property plot no. 91A having area 11625 sq.ft. has now been converted into free hold property by deed dated 31.03.2003 in favour of petitioner as is evident from the supplementary counter affidavit dated 21.03.2007 filed by opposite party No.2 and 3 as Annexure SCA-1.

43.According to the petitioner, the matter is still under execution and yet not final, hence, the compromise becomes inoperative. It was also submitted by the petitioner (in person) that the plot No. 91A has become free hold property, hence the right has not yet vested in opposite party no. 4. As the matter is pending in executing court, hence the transposition application cannot be allowed.

44.The petitioner has further contended that the auction settled in favour of opposite party No. 6 in respect of garden land is not enforceable because there is no provision in the scheme to deposit the amount of tender bid in instalment. It was further submitted that the auction bid is not liable to be accepted because the opposite party No. 6 has misused the property by raising illegal permanent construction for running the school which was meant for garden purpose.