9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng 100 square yards and bearing no. WZ 251-B, Western Portion, Street No. 1, Virender Nagar, New Delhi - 110058. Respondent no. 1 was sub-contractor (builder), who used to work for and on behalf of appellant on various construction projects on commission basis. In the month of May, 2006, respondent no. 2 approached the appellant with a proposal for redevelopment of the said property. It was agreed between them that the appellant would raise new construction after demolishing the old structure at its own expenses. The construction would be carried out in accordance with the sanctioned site plan and would be completed within six months from the date of handing over of the site by respondent no. 2. After completion of construction, responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent no. 2 and appellant had nothing to do with the same. Appellant was not a party to the Agreement. No cause of action had arisen in favour of appellant for filing the suit, thus, the same was liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. There was no privity of contract between the appellant and respondents. Respondent no. 1 was an uneducated person. He was a builder. He had undertaken certain works for appellant in the past and certain amounts were due from the appellant, thus, the cheque of `1 lac was taken from the appellant by him favouring respondent no. 2. Appellant had fabricated certain blank vouchers signed by respondent no. 1 in good faith, which were misused. Respondent no. 1 denied that he was sub-contractor&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The court has to peruse the plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action or not. If the plaint discloses cause of action it cannot be rejected by the court exercising the powers under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. Whether the plaint discloses cause of action is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of averments made in the plaint and taking those averments to be correct as a whole together with the documents filed along with the plaint. If the case is based on documents the same have also to be read along with the averments made in the plaint to find out if there is any cause of action for filing the suit. 8. In M/s. Texem Engineering vs. M/s. Texcomash Export, 179 (2011) Delhi Law Times 963, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a plaint on the ground that it does not disclose a cause of action, it should look at the plaint and documents accompanying the plaint only and nothing else. The Court, however, cannot look at the defence of the defendant or the documents relied upon by the defendant. Reliance has been placed by the Division Bench on D. Ramchandran vs. R.V. Janakiraman and Ors. (1999) 3 SCC 267 for taking such a view. 10. In the backdrop of above settled legal position, if the averments made in the plaint coupled with the documents filed in support thereof are considered, I do not find any locus standi in favour of the appellant to institute a suit for possession, inasmuch as, no cause of action has arisen in its favour for seeking possession of the su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cond Party will become the owner of the First Floor without roof right with common passage and stair and the First Party will execute documents in favour of Second Party in respect of First Floor without roof rights. 12. In terms of Clause 16 of the Collaboration Agreement, first floor without roof right with common passage and staircase was to fall in the share of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was to execute the documents in favour of respondent no. 1. Appellant has no cause of action in its favour to seek possession of the first floor from respondent no. 2. Thus, the view taken by trial court that respondent no. 2 did not owe any liability to handover the possession of the first floor and appellant had no locus standi to sue, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of such a document. In Sunil Kapoor v/s Himmat Singh Ors. 167 (2010) Delhi Law Times 806, a Single Judge of this Court has held thus 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 respondents/plaintiffs are found to have agreed to sell the property, the petitioner/defendant would not get any right to occupy that property as an agreement purchaser. This Court in Jiwan Das v/s Narain Das, AIR 1981 Delhi 291 has held that in fact no right inure 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. 14. A suit w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
