1. Background

• Disputes arose regarding ownership and specific performance of agreements for Flats Nos. 901, 902, 1001, and 1002 in Mangal Kunj, "B" Wing.
• Plaintiffs, Vinesh Rashmikant Shah and Ors., entered into agreements with Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for purchase in 2010.
• Zenith Enterprises later entered agreements for the same flats in 2013, raising ownership disputes.

2. Legal Actions and Submissions

• Plaintiffs sought specific performance of their agreements and requested possession of the disputed flats.
• Zenith applied for impleadment, citing possession and registered sale deeds in its favor.
• Court directed the deposit of ₹2.70 crores by Plaintiffs to secure claims and ordered investigations into possession.

3. Key Contentions

Plaintiffs:

• Agreements with Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were executed in 2010, predating Zenith's claims.
• Full consideration was paid, and Zenith’s subsequent agreements are void under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Zenith Enterprises:

• Claimed possession based on sale deeds and agreements in 2013.
• Asserted that Plaintiffs’ agreements were incomplete as payments weren’t fulfilled.

4. Court Observations

• Verified agreements’ chronology, payment fulfillment, and legal validity under relevant property and contract laws.
• Examined the impact of registration and possession under Sections 3 and 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Key Legal Points (Acts and Sections Discussed)

1. Transfer of Property Act, 1882

• Section 3: Constructive notice through registered agreements.
• Section 48: Priority of earlier agreements over subsequent ones.
• Section 53A: Rights of a buyer in possession under valid agreements.

2. Specific Relief Act, 1963

• Section 16: Readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations.

3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

• Order 1, Rule 10: Addition of necessary and proper parties in litigation.

Court’s Ratio Decidendi:

• Plaintiffs’ agreements, executed and registered earlier, hold precedence over Zenith’s agreements under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act.
• Plaintiffs demonstrated substantial compliance by depositing ₹2.70 crores, ensuring readiness under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act.
• Zenith’s rights were limited as agreements with them were subordinate to Plaintiffs’ prior claims.

Judgment Crux:

1. Impleadment Rejected: Zenith’s application to join as a party was denied, as it failed to demonstrate overriding interest or claims.
2. Specific Performance Granted: Plaintiffs were entitled to performance of their agreements with Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
3. Property Priority Affirmed: The Court upheld the primacy of registered, earlier agreements.

Subject:

Property Law, Specific Relief, and Civil Procedure.

#SpecificPerformance #PropertyDispute #TransferOfPropertyAct #CivilProcedure #RealEstateLaw