Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Pius Varghese Pullikottil and another, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for the purchase of a flat against Neptune Ventures & Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others. The plaintiff had booked the flat on 27 April 2009 and entered into an agreement on 23 June 2009. The plaintiff made initial payments totaling Rs. 51,000 at booking and further payments by cheques. The defendants unilaterally increased the price of the flat, which the plaintiff did not accept. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants' act was fraudulent and sought specific performance of the original agreement. The plaintiff also filed a notice of motion seeking appointment of a Court Receiver and injunctions. The court considered the payment chart and the agreement, noting that the plaintiff had made payments and the defendants had accepted them. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for an injunction, as the defendants had allotted the flat to defendant Nos. 5 and 6 for a higher price but with only a paltry payment. The court held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff and that irreparable injury would be caused if the flat was sold to third parties. The court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, or creating third-party rights in the suit flat and from increasing the price unilaterally, pending the disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Injunction - Unilateral Price Increase - The plaintiff entered into an agreement for purchase of a flat with the defendant builder, who later unilaterally increased the price. The plaintiff refused to accept the increase and sued for specific performance. The court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and granted an injunction restraining the defendants from selling the flat to third parties and from increasing the price, as the agreement was acted upon by both parties and the defendants' conduct was prima facie fraudulent. (Paras 1-10) B) Contract Law - Injunction - Balance of Convenience - The court found that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff, as the defendants had already received substantial payments from the plaintiff and the subsequent allotment to defendant Nos. 5 and 6 was for a paltry amount. Irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff if the flat was sold to third parties. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendants from selling the suit flat to third parties and from increasing the price unilaterally, pending the suit for specific performance.
Final Decision
The court allowed the notice of motion and granted an injunction restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, or creating third-party rights in the suit flat and from increasing the price unilaterally, pending the disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Injunction
- Unilateral contract variation
- Fraud
- Agreement of sale
