Shubham Jain And Ors vs. Maryam Bee And Anr

Facts

The appellants filed an intra-court appeal against an order dated May 7, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge. The appellants had filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell (ATS) dated December 27, 2022, for a property in Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The total sale consideration was ₹7,00,00,000, and the appellants paid ₹60,00,000 as earnest money. The appellants claimed to have paid an aggregate sum of ₹2,85,00,000, including payments to tenants for vacating the property. Respondent no.1 contended that the agreed sale consideration was ₹9,00,00,000 and acknowledged receipt of only ₹1,10,00,000. The appellants are in possession of part of the suit property and are conducting business there. The learned Single Judge granted interim relief on the condition that the appellants deposit ₹4,00,00,000 with the Registry.

Held

The Court held that the learned Single Judge did not err in granting interim relief on the condition of the appellants depositing ₹4,00,00,000 with the Registry. The Court found no infirmity in this decision, considering the appellants' own contention that they had already spent ₹3,00,00,000, including expenses and ₹1,45,00,000 allegedly paid to tenants. The Court noted that the appellants' payments were largely in cash. The Court acknowledged that the disputes between the parties had several facets, including controversy over the total sale consideration (appellants ₹7,00,00,000 vs. respondent no.1 ₹9,00,00,000), the amount paid (appellants ₹2,85,00,000 vs. respondent no.1 ₹1,10,00,000), and the appellants' readiness and willingness to perform, especially in light of their apprehension regarding the title due to inter se disputes. However, the Court found that the learned Single Judge had exercised discretion appropriately, not capriciously or arbitrarily, and in accordance with well-settled principles of law. The appeal was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in granting interim relief on the condition of depositing ₹4,00,00,000 with the Registry, considering the appellants' contention that they have already paid a substantial amount and incurred expenses, including payments to tenants for vacating the property? 2. Whether the appellants have demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform their obligations under the Agreement to Sell, given the disputes regarding the total sale consideration, the amount paid, and the alleged apprehension regarding the title due to inter se disputes involving respondent no.1 and her brother-in-law (respondent no.2)? Arguments for the Appellants: The appellants argued that the learned Single Judge's decision to impose a deposit of ₹4,00,00,000 was not arbitrary, considering their claim of having already spent ₹3,00,00,000 plus ₹1,45,00,000 paid to tenants. They relied on the principle that courts have discretion to grant interim relief on apposite conditions, citing M/s. Ansal Properties & Industrial Pvt Limited v. Rajinder Singh & Another. They also contended that the learned Single Judge's discretion was not exercised capriciously or arbitrarily. Arguments for the Respondent: Respondent no.1 contended that the appellants were not ready and willing to perform their obligation as they were in possession of part of the property and carrying on business. Respondent no.1 stated readiness to transfer the property upon payment of the balance consideration. The respondent's counsel argued that the appellants' averment of readiness and willingness might not be true and that there would have been no difficulty in making the payment if not for their apprehension regarding the title due to inter se disputes.