MRS. VIJAYA SHRIVASTAVA versus M/S. MIRAHUL ENTERPRISES AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 698 · Decided: 19-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Hearing Adjourned
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MRS. VIJA YA SHRIVASTA VA 
v. 
MIS. MIRAHUL ENTERPRISES AND ORS. 
JULY 19, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT ANDS.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Appeal-Judgment not indicating findings on all the issues-Regular 
First Appeals-Arising out of suits for specific performance of contracts-In 
C the suits the trial court, i.e. Single Judge of High Court framed 9110 issues 
and decreeing the suits partly gave findings on all the issues-Jn appeal, the 
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the suits but without answering 
most of the issues-Held, Division Bench ought to have given its findings not 
only on the conclusiveness of the suit agreement but also on the remaining 
issues including the issues of collusion between the defendants and subsequent 
D purchaser-Registry to list the civil appeals for further hearing on the specified 
date-In the meantime Division Bench of the High Court would return to this 
Court its findings on all the issues. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Jayaram Mudaliar v. A;,yaswamy, AIR (1973) SC 569 and K.A. Khader 
v. Rajamma, AIR (1994) Kerala 122, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1209-I2 IO of 
2003. 
From the Judgment dated 10.5.2002 of the High Court of Delhi at New 
Delhi, in RFA (OS) Nos. 29 and 42/1996. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 1211-1212 of2003. 
A.K. Ganguli and Rajiv Talwar for the Appellant. 
K.K. Mohan, A.T.M. Sampath, V. Balaji, T.S. Shanthi, R. Meena Kumari 
and S.L. Lesi for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
698 
. , 
... 
VIJA YA SHRIVAST A VA v. MIRAHULENTERPRISES 
699 
ORDER 
Two suits bearing no.450/86 and 451 /86 were filed in the Delhi High 
Court for specific performance of the agreement dated 2.11.1983 in which it 
was alleged that defendant nos. I to 5 (developers) had agreed to sell to the 
plaintiffs two flats in Mirahul Apartments, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. 
A 
The above two suits claimed from the developers execution of the sale deed B 
and refund of the alleged loan amount extended by the vendees to the 
developers. The defendant-developers submittP.d that there was no conclusive 
agreement between the parties and that the agreement dated 2.11.1983 was a 
provisional agreement which the plaintiff required to avail of the loan from 
HDFC Bank. During the pendency of the suits, the defendant-developers C 
conveyed a portion of the suit flat to the 6th defendant, viz., S.S. Mohd. 
Arshad, a resident of Madras. Therefore, the plaintiffs (appellants herein) 
amended the plaint and alleged that the conveyance in favour of Mohd. 
Arshad dated 9 .6.1987 was a sham transaction and that the vendees were not 
bound by such transaction. 
D 
In the said suits, the learned single judge framed the following issues: 
"Suit No. 451/86: 
I. 
Whether the plaint has been signed and verified by _a person 
competent to do so and suit instituted by a duly authorized E 
person? OPP 
2. 
Whether the agreement dated 2.11.1983 executed between the 
plaintiff and the defendants 1-5 and set up by the plaintiff, is 
binding in all respects on the parties? OPP 
3. 
If issue No.2 is held in favour of the plaintiff, whether defendants F 
1-5 are not liable to execute the sale deed and transfer possession 
of the flat measuring 1156 sq. ft. to the plaintiff? OPDs 1-5 
4. 
Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay to defendants 1-5 any sum 
over and above the admitted sum of Rs.2,64,261/- in execution of 
agreement to sell? OPDs 1-5 
G 
5 . 
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part 
of the agreement at all material points of time? OPP 
6. 
Whether the plaintiff/her husband made any additional to writings 
as part of the agreement to sell dated 2.11. I 983, as alleged by H 
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
defendants 1-5? If so, to what effect? OPDs 1-5 
7. 
Whether any sum by way of loan was advanced to defendants 
1-5 by the plaintiff? If so, what amount and during what period 
and on what terms and whether plaintiff can seek relief in respect 
to said loan in the present suit? OPP 
B 
8. 
In case defendants are held entitled to recover from the plaintiff 
in the event of specific performance being granted, any amount 
of Rs.2,64,261/- then whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim 
adjustment for the excess claim against the alleged loan amount? 
' 
9. 
Whether the sale or parting with possession by defendants 1-5 
-
c 
of one bed room of that flat in question in favour of defendant 
no.6 is fraudulent, illegal and not binding on t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.