TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (9) TMI 612
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, no registered deed of sale could be executed. Respondent issued a notice on or about 21.03.1996 asking the appellant to hand over possession. Respondent thereafter filed a suit praying inter alia for the following reliefs: "a) a decree for possession in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in respect of shop bearing No. 1241, situated on the ground floor duly shown in red colour in Annexure 'A' forming part of building bearing No. 1241, Bazar Sangtrashan, Paharganj, New Delhi. b) by means of a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant that the Defendant be restrained from selling, alienating, letting or otherwise parting with possession of the shop situated on ground floor or any part thereof shown in red colour in the Plan Annexure 'A' forming part of Building No. 1241, Bazar Sangtrashan, Paharganj, New Delhi. c) Costs of the suit by awarded." 6. The defence raised by the appellant in his written statement was that he had all along been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the plaintiff became dishonest when the value of the property in the area increased and he started demanding more....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n without any further direction to the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for non- payment of the amount which he had to pay to the plaintiff under the agreement executed between them. The High Court noticed that the defendant was required to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the plaintiff over and above the price specified in the agreement in respect of transferring the title and possession of shop No. 598/1 but he did not pay. The High Court, therefore, thought it fit to direct payment of suitable amount of compensation to the plaintiff. It was opined that grant of 6% interest per annum calculated from 30th May, 1995 till the date of actual payment would serve the purpose. It was further directed: "Subject to all just exceptions including limitations, liberty is given to the plaintiff to claim relief by way of damages/ mesne profits in a separate suit filed before the competent court." 11. Appellant is, thus, before us. 12. Mr. Ashok Bhasin, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the impugned directions are not legally sustainable as the parties hereto had been in possession of the shop premises belonging to other and in that view of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Joinder of causes of action ( 1 ) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they arc jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit. ( 2 ) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of instituting the suit. 4 . Only certain claims to be joined for recovery of immovable property No cause of action shall, unless with the leave of the Court, be joined with a suit for the recovery of immovable property, except-- (a) claims for mesne profits or arrear of rent in respect of the property claimed or any part thereof; (b) claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the property or any part thereof is held ; and (c) claims in which the relief sought is based on the same cause of action : Provided that nothing in this rule shall be deemed to prevent any party in a suit for foreclosure or redemption from asking to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djudicating a lis in exercise of its power of judicial review, the High Court exercises a wider jurisdiction. No doubt, the court in an appropriate case, even in a civil suit may mould a relief but its jurisdiction in this behalf would be confined to Order VII, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [See Bay Berry Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Shobha and Ors. 2006 (10) SCALE 596 and U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. v. Udai Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479] 19. Submission of Ms. Luthra that the High Court had the requisite jurisdiction in equity to pass the impugned decree, in a situation of this nature, therefore, in our opinion, is not correct. 20. Learned Trial Judge has relied upon Fibrosa v. Fairbairn [1943 AC 32] and Nelson v. Larholt [(1948) 1 KB 339]. In support of its findings, reliance has also been placed by Ms. Luthra on Cumberland Consolidated Holdings Ltd. v. Ireland [1946 (1) All ER 284]. Those decisions have no application to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 21. In England, the Court of Equity exercises jurisdiction in equity. The courts of India do not possess any such exclusive jurisdiction. The Courts in India exercise jurisdiction bo....