Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2015 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1423 - SC - Indian LawsEntitlement to get the suit property converted from leasehold to freehold - suit for specific performance - HELD THAT:- In the suit for specific performance filed by respondent-Gaurav Kukreja and his father-Lekh Raj Kukreja, DDA was not made a party to the suit despite the fact that it was within their knowledge that the property is a leasehold property under the control of DDA and cannot be disposed of without obtaining a prior permission from the DDA. In terms of Section 15(a) of the Specific Performance Act 1963, the suit for specific performance can be filed by “any party” to the contract - In the instant case, suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent and his father who admittedly were not the parties to the agreement to sell. The suit for specific performance is a collusive suit, where the respondent and his father used the process of the court to get rid of the stamp duty, registration charges and unearned increase payable to DDA. Main contention of the respondent is that he is a decree holder for specific performance and even going by the ratio of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd.’s case [2009 (5) TMI 1012 - SUPREME COURT], the respondent is at a higher footing than a holder of Power of Attorney and therefore the respondent is entitled to have conversion of the land. As pointed out earlier, the suit for specific performance, in our view, is a collusive one and therefore cannot confer any right upon the respondent to claim conversion. On the date of filing of the writ petition, the respondent was neither a holder of a power of attorney nor had any subsisting right in the suit property and while so, the High Court was not right in holding that the respondent is entitled to apply for conversion of the property. Dehors the scheme of conversion, the respondent is not entitled to apply for conversion of the property. The respondent does not fall within the ambit of Clause 13 of the Conversion Scheme and therefore the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Appeal allowed.
|