Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.48 seconds)

Kamlesh Sharma @ Kamlesh Kumari & Anr. vs Satya Devi & Ors. on 23 July, 2013

26. Since considerable reliance was placed by Mr. Sindhwani, learned Senior counsel for the buyer, on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in V.N. Verma v. Veena Mahajan, the Court would like to discuss the said decision in some detail. The facts in that case were that the Respondent in the appeal, Smt. Veena Mahajan, ('VM'), had filed a suit on 29th April 1988 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14th February 1986 alleging that she had paid the Appellant, Smt. V.N. Verma ('VNV'), a sum of Rs. 40,000 and that VNV was obliged to sell plot bearing No. 40, Chitra Vihar to her for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000 and that balance sale consideration had to be made when VNV was in a position to deliver vacant possession of the plot to her (VM). Thereafter, on 21st January 1987, VM paid a further sum of Rs. 10,000 to VNV. Since the plot in question had only been allotted to VNV, and a formal document conveying title to VNV by the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') had not been executed, it was agreed that after the lease deed was executed by DDA in favour of VNV, the necessary payment would be made by VM to VNV. Thereafter, Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 5,000 were paid by VM to VNV on 29th September 1987 and 20th November 1987 CS(OS) No. 2014 of 2011 Page 14 of 28 respectively. On 30th November 1987 a perpetual lease deed was executed by the DDA in favour of VNV. However, despite notice, VNV did not come forward to execute the sale deed transferring title to VM and receive balance sale consideration. VM filed a suit for specific performance. During the pendency of the suit the Applicants, Meena Rani Gupta and Nalini Gupta, filed an application, CM No. 2058 of 1998, seeking impleadment stating that VNV entered into an agreement with one Kamlesh Gupta on 21st January 1988. After receiving the full consideration, he handed over the possession of the suit property to Kamlesh Gupta. On 26th November 1990 Kamlesh Gupta handed over possession of the property to the Applicants, Meena Rani Gupta and Nalini Gupta, under an agreement to sell of the even date. It is only on 7th December 1998 that the said Applicants came to learn about the pendency of the suit filed by VM and filed the aforesaid application seeking impleadment alleging that they were in the process of constructing a boundary wall and caretaker room on the plot, when at site the Applicants were served with a copy of the decree passed against VNV.

Mahender Singh (Since Deceased) vs ) Asha @ Aysha Siddique on 23 March, 2017

In the case of  V.N. Verma V. Veena Mahajan 200 (2013) DLT 499,  it was observed that the person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as party. The test is not whether his presence   is   necessary   for   the   correct   solution   of   the   dispute before the Court but whether the order would affect him or his interest would be prejudiced.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahender Singh (Since Deceased) vs ) Asha @ Aysha Siddique on 23 March, 2017

In the case of  V.N. Verma V. Veena Mahajan 200 (2013) DLT 499,  it was observed that the person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as party. The test is not whether his presence   is   necessary   for   the   correct   solution   of   the   dispute before the Court but whether the order would affect him or his interest would be prejudiced.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1