Full Judgment Text
CA Nos. 1209-1210 of 2003
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1209-1210 OF 2003
VIJAYA SRIVASTAVA ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
M/S MIRAHUL ENTERPRISES & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1211-1212 OF 2003
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3353-3354 OF 2010
@ SLP(C) 8448-8449 OF 2010
CIVIL APEPAL NO. 3351-3352 OF 2010
@ SLP(C) 8450-8451 OF 2010
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3397 OF 2010
@ SLP (C) NO. 11430 OF 2010
O R D E R
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties at very great length.
2. There are two sets of agreements to sell both
CA Nos. 1209-1210 of 2003
2
dated 2/11/1983 interse Vijaya Shrivastava and M/s
Mirahul Enterprises and the second between Admiral R.R.
Sood & M/s. Mirahul Enterprises. Vijaya Shrivastava
and Admiral R.R. Sood are the plaintiffs in the suits
whereas Mirahul Enterprises – respondent is the
builder. The respondent has attempted to challenge
the validity of these two agreements. The Division
Bench of the High Court in its impugned judgments dated
14.07.2008 has held that the agreements had been
executed and that the price of Rs. 2,64,000/- fixed for
each of the two flats was indeed the correct price. On
the contrary, the Single Bench, which is the trial
court in this case, has given a positive finding that
the agreements also dated 2/11/1983 which fixed the
sale price at Rs. 2,64,261/- plus Rs. 1,71,000 in both
the cases were in fact which needed to be specifically
enforced. Be that as it may, in order to balance the
equities between the parties and on account of the
number of years that have gone by, we deem it
appropriate that though the Division Bench in its
judgment had recorded a positive finding that the
amount to be paid for each of the flats was Rs.
2,64,261 yet as the execution of second agreement
fixing a higher price has not been denied by the flat
owner applicants, it would balance the equities if the
CA Nos. 1209-1210 of 2003
3
aforesaid plaintiff-appellants are called upon to pay
some extra amount to the respondent. We are also
informed that a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs lies deposited in
respect of both the properties in this Court under the
th
interim orders dated 07 February, 2003. We,
accordingly, feel that the interests of justice would
be met if a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs i.e. 2 lakhs each to be
apportioned between the two plaintiffs is deducted and
paid to the respondent i.e. M/s. Mirahul enterprises
and that the balance amount deposited in this Court be
returned to the plaintiffs forthwith. We also direct
that the sale consideration that has been deposited by
M/s Mirahul Enterpirses in this Court or in the High
Court shall be refunded to them forthwith. The appeals
are disposed of in the above terms.
3. Mr. A.T.M. Sampath the learned counsel appearing
for Mohd. Arshad, the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
3397 of 2010 arising out of SLP(C) No. 11430 of 2010
who claims to be a purchaser for value without notice
has also made a claim to the property claimed by Vijaya
Shrivastava. In the light of what we have held above
endorsing the view of the Single Judge and the Division
Bench of the High Court, Mohd. Arshad has no claim
against the plaintiff Vijaya Shrivastava. Mohd. Arshad
CA Nos. 1209-1210 of 2003
4
may, accordingly, pursue such other remedies which are
available to him with respect to the respondent Mirahul
Enterprises or any other party.
4. We further direct that the respondent-builder
will execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs
within a period of four months from today.
..................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
..................J
[J.M. PANCHAL]
NEW DELHI
APRIL 15, 2010.