Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)
Sanjeet Dagar vs Sandeep Verma on 28 July, 2022 cites

Abp Network Private Limited vs Malika Malhotra on 12 October, 2021

26. I am of the considered opinion that the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. The judgment APB Network Private Limited's case (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the plaintiff, is distinguishable as in the said matter, the Hon'ble High Court was dealing with the specific performance of a contract of employment. In the present matter, the initial collaboration agreement dated 31.12.2012, which is the foundation of the claim of the plaintiff, was merely a construction agreement between the owner and the builder. The collaboration agreement falls short of being construed as an agreement to sell. Defendant No.3 did not file suit for specific performance of collaboration agreement dated 31.12.2012 and he acquired no right or title in the property as the construction was not completed. The subsequent agreements entered on the force of the collaboration agreement were not valid contracts. Plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell with defendant No.1 & 2 on 24.05.2014 before defendant No.2 acquired any right in respect of the property in terms of agreement-to-sell dated 29.05.2014. No case is made out either for granting specific performance or permanent and mandatory injunction as the agreement-to-sell dated 24.05.2014 is void. The suit Civil Suit No.56011/2016 Sanjeet Dagar Vs Sandeep Verma & Ors. Page 20 of 21 is dismissed. However, plaintiff is entitled to the refund of the part payment made under the agreement-to-sell as Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act creates an obligation on a person having received any advantage under a void agreement, to restore it, or to make compensation for it, to the person from whom it was received. In view of this, defendant No.1 & 2 are directed to return the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- received by them under the agreement dated 24.05.2014 along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the agreement till realization.
Delhi High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 9 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Crest Hotel Ltd. And Another vs The Assistant Superintendent Of Stamps ... on 4 January, 1994

14. It was observed in "Crest Hotel Ltd. Vs Asstt. Superintendent of Civil Suit No.56011/2016 Sanjeet Dagar Vs Sandeep Verma & Ors. Page 9 of 21 Stamps" AIR 1994 Bom 228 that a contract for 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. An agreement for sale is merely a document creating a right to obtain another document of sale on fulfillment of terms and conditions specified therein. On the strength of such an agreement, a buyer does not become the owner of the property. The ownership remains with the seller. It was observed in the matter that the ownership would be transferred to the buyer only on the execution of sale deed by the seller and under an agreement to sell, the buyer only only obtains a right to get the sale deed executed in his favour.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

M/S Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs J.S. Vohra on 2 February, 2016

22. The position of law as explained in M/s Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) further fortifies the conclusion that under the collaboration agreement dated 31.12.2012, defendant No.3 did not get any right or title in the property except the right to enforce the said collaboration agreement. There is nothing on record to indicate that defendant No.3 ever sought specific performance of the collaboration agreement. Thus, defendant No.3 did not get any right or title in the property and he was not competent to enter into an Civil Suit No.56011/2016 Sanjeet Dagar Vs Sandeep Verma & Ors. Page 17 of 21 agreement to sell with defendant No.1. The subsequent agreement to sell purportedly executed by defendant No.1 & 2 in favour of plaintiff was also not enforceable. There could be no specific performance of void contract.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 18 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Jiwan Das vs Narain Das on 1 May, 1981

"17. A mere agreement to sell of immovable property does not create any right in the property save the right to enforce the said agreement. Thus, even if the respondent/plaintiff is found to have agreed to sell the property let out to the appellant to the appellant, the appellant/defendant would not get any right to occupy that property as an agreement purchaser. This Court in Jiwan Das Vs. Narain Das AIR 1981 Delhi 291 has held that in fact no rights enure to the agreement purchaser, not even after the passing of a decree for specific performance and till conveyance in accordance with law and in pursuance thereto is executed. Thus in law, the appellant has no right to remain in occupation of the premises or retain possession of the premises merely because of the agreement to sell in his favour.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 136 - Full Document
1