A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, PUNE
AT PUNE
Civil Suit No.	/ 200_
M/s Anand Builders, a partnership firm,	)
registered under the Indian Partnership Act 1932,         )
having its office at 120 Narayan Peth, Pune 411 030,    )        Plaintiffs
acting through its partner, Shri VMD, age 50 years,      )
occupation - business, resident of 1600 Sadashiv          )
Peth, Pune 411 030.	)
Versus
Smt. _B_V_R		)
age 50 years, occupation - household,	)        Defendant
resident of 1200 Deccan Gymkhana, Tara Niwas,	)
PUNE 411 004.	)
A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
The plaintiffs above-named submit this plaint, praying to state as
follows:
1. Description of Suit Property : All that piece and parcel of land situate within the Registration Division & District Pune, Sub-Division & Taluka Haveli, within the local limits of the Pune Municipal Corporation, revenue village Bhamburda, bearing CTS No. 1200 Deccan Gymkhana, Pune, admeasuring 10,000 sqft or thereabouts, and bounded by as follows :
On or towards the East         _       CTS No. 1201,
On or towards the South      _       CTS No. 1203,
On or towards the West        _       CTS No. 1210, and
On or towards the East	Public Road.
2. That the property described in para 1 above is owned by the present defendant, and by an agreement, dated	, she has agreed to sell and transfer the said property unto the present plaintiffs excluding the building to be constructed at the front of the said plot described as Building-"A".
3. That by virtue of the said agreement, it was clearly agreed and understood that the buildings at the rear were to be demolished and excluding the present front structure, all the permissible FSI in respect of the said plot of land was to be made available to the present plaintiffs to be utilised in a building to be constructed in continuation of the Building-"A" at the rear.
4. That a copy of the said agreement, dated	, is annexed hereto as Exhibit-I, and terms and conditions of the said agreement, out of the construction of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the plaintiffs had paid unto the defendant by way of part payment of the purchase-price a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by cheque, and the balance of Rs. 9,00,000/ - was to be paid at the time of conveyance.
5. That the defendant had put the plaintiffs in possession of the said property at the time of the execution of the said agreement.
6. That there were two tenants occupying the portions of the building standing on the said property, and the plaintiffs at their costs had negotiated with the said tenants and obtained vacant possession from them, and the said tenants had assured unto the plaintiffs that all the necessary cooperation would be extended by them to the plaintiffs in respect of the proposed construction to be carried out by the plaintiffs.
7. That the defendant, on	, executed an irrevocable power of attorney, constituting the partner of the plaintiffs, Shri VND, as her' attorney, empowering him to do on behalf of the defendant all the necessary acts, deeds and things for carrying out the intended work of construction on the said property.
8. That the defendant's husband and son had assured the plaintiffs that there would be no objection from anyone for the plaintiffs' purchasing the said property and constructing thereon.
9. That the construction drawings were prepared and same were submitted to the Pune Municipal Corporation, and the Pune Municipal Corporation had issued a commencement certificate on	, bearing No. 450.
10. That the plaintiffs had in the mean while, demolished at their own costs the buildings at the rear and had started the work of construction in terms and the commencement certificate issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation.
11. That the defendant had in the mean while been by herself or through her husband or son approached the plaintiffs and requested the plaintiffs  to  pay her further amounts  towards  and  out  of the purchase-price, though in terms of the said agreement to sell, the payments in the mean while were not obligatory, and on humanitarian grounds, the plaintiffs had made further payments to the defendant, viz, 20,000/- on	, Rs. 10,000/- on	, Rs. 10,000/- on	, Rs. 10,000/- on	, and Rs. 1,00,000/- on	, and thus, a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- has so far been paid the plaintiffs unto the defendant from time to time.
12. That the plaintiffs submit that for all these payments, the defendant has issued proper receipts, excepting the payment, dated and dated which is receipted by the defendant's son on her behalf.
13. That the defendant's son appears to be a notorious character and he was all along trying to extract money from the plaintiffs and also started demanding an increase in the amount of consideration payable to the defendant under the said agreement.
14. That the son of the defendant, viz. Shri SVR, had, on	, removed as many as 3.5 tonnes of steel of the plaintiffs lying on the said property which was required for the work in progress by committing a theft thereof, and an offence in respect of the said act has been registered with the police against the son of the defendant and his companies.
15. That the defendant's family as a whole, thereafter, started threatening and harassing the plaintiffs now and then, and they have gone to the extent of false reports against these plaintiffs, and at the top of it, the defendant through her lawyer, has served a notice, dated thereby to the surprise of the plaintiffs pleading so concocted a story that the very fact of the agreement, dated	, was attempted to be disputed. However, thereafter! the plaintiffs immediately, through their advocate, gave an appropriate reply on__to the advocate of the defendant, calling upon him for further details and reiterating the claim of the plaintiffs that the agreement is legal, valid and binding on the defendant. However, thereafter, no such clarification was supplied either by the defendant or her advocate.
16. That in the mean while, the defendant and the members of her family have been issuing mischievous and defamatory statements to the Government authorities, police, newspapers and the Pune Municipal Corporation authorities, as a result of which the municipal authorities have started reconsidering the said construction permission.
17. That despite the fact that there was a perfectly valid and legal agreement, and that there were payments received by the defendant time and again, the defendant has altogether denied her liability under the said agreement by her notice, dated___and all the attempts  on  the  part  of the  defendant,   thereafter,   to  seek an amicable settlement in the matter and persuade the defendant to complete the transaction in terms of the said agreement have been failed, and hence, this suit.
18. Particulars of Money Claim:	Rupees
Amounts from time to time paid to the	1,50,000/-
defendant by the plaintiffs
Interest on the above mentioned amounts	10,000/-
.@ 18 per cent per annum
Expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in getting     40,000/-
the plans prepared and sanctioned
Settlement of tenants.	
(E) Costs of demolition	50.000/-
(F) Costs of construction	3,00,000/-
(G) Lawyer's fees	25,000/-
 (H)  Damages for loss of bargain_	4,25,000/-
(I)   Total Amount Due and Claimed _	11,00,000/-
(J)   Less Amount Received	- NIL -
(K)  Net Amount Due and Claimed _	11,00,000/-
19. That the cause of action for the present suit first arose on	, when the defendant disowned her liability to convey the said property in terms of the agreement, dated	, and hence, the suit filed today is within time, and moreover, the plaintiffs being in possession, the question of limitation does not arise.
20. That the suit is valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court-fee at Rs. 5,00,000/- for specific performance and Rs. 11,00,000/- for the alternative money-claim, and the court-fee on the amount of the alternative claim that being the higher of the two is paid herewith. 
21. That the property is situate within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this court, and hence, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and decide this suit.
22. That the plaintiffs, therefore, pray that -
(A)  A decree ordering the defendant to convey the suit property in terms of the said agreement, dated___in favour of the plaintiffs be passed;
(B)The plaintiffs be permitted to deposit the balance of consideration in this Hon'ble Court;
(C)If the defendant were decline to obey the decree, sale-deed of the said property be executed in favour of the plaintiffs by the Hon'ble Court or through its commissioners acting for and on behalf the defendant;
(D)If the Hon'ble Court were to decline the relief of specific performance, alternatively, the plaintiffs pray for a decree of Rs. 11,00,000/- against the defendant;
(E) The plaintiffs be paid their costs from the defendant;
(F) During the pendency of this suit, the defendant be ordered not to deal with the said property in such a manner as would amount to imposing any clog or encumbrance on the said property;
(G) An ad interim injunction restraining the defendant, her servants, agents, from interfering with the possession or the construction of the plaintiffs   be issued;
(H)The defendant be restrained during the pendency of this suit from interfering with the possession or the construction of the plaintiffs; and
(I) Any other orders in the interest of justice be kindly passed. Pune,
Sd/- VMD
Dated:		PLAINTIFFS
Sd/- xXx 
ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFFS
VERIFICATION
I, Shri VMD, the present plaintiffs, do hereby state on solemn affirmation that the contents of this plaint in paras 1 to 22 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, so I have signed hereunder.
Sd/- VMD PLAINTIFFS