Delhi District Court
Om Prabha Salhotra vs Ganesh Krishna Swamy on 19 May, 2026
CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHDEEP CHAHAL,
CIVIL JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT,
DELHI
Case No. : CS SCJ 352/2022
CNR No. : DLST03-000590-2022
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. OM PRABHA SALHOTRA
W/o Sh. Ganesh Krishna Swamy
R/o C-3/56, Air India Colony,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057,
Contact No. 9560484948,
e-mail Id:- [email protected]
............Plaintiff
Versus
1. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY
S/o Late Sh. Krishna Swamy
R/o H. No. 90, Group 2, DDA Janta Flats,
Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059.
Contact No. 8287640180
2. EMAAR INDIA LIMITED
(Earlier Known as Emaar MGF Land Limited)
306-308, Square One, C-2,
District Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017.
..........Defendants
****
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT AND
MANDATORY INJUNCTION
****
(Yashdeep Chahal),
Civil Judge-02 (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
19.05.2026 (Page 1 of 28)
CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY
Date of Institution of suit : 01.04.2022
Date of Reserving of Judgment : 27.04.2026
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 19.05.2026
****
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction.
PLAINT
2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is currently working with Air India as a Cabin Crew, and has been running the household solely with her own source of income. The Defendant No.1 is the husband of the Plaintiff herein and Plaintiff and Defendant have two children namely Tarak Krishna Swamy and Rahil Krishna Swamy, and both of whom are major by age. Defendant No.2 (earlier known as Emaar MGF Land Limited) is a company registered and incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act and engaged in the business of real estate development.
3. The Plaintiff made an Application dated 04.11.2009 to the Defendant No.2 for booking of a commercial property in (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 2 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY the project namely, Emerald Plaza Offices, Sector 65, Gurugram, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as said Property) developed by Defendant No.2 Company. Vide Letter dated 17.02.2010, the provisional allotment of a commercial property bearing Unit No. EPO-02-003 in the project namely, Emerald Plaza Offices, Sector 65, Gurugram, Haryana was made by the Defendant No.2 in favour of the Plaintiff. The said property was booked in the name of the Plaintiff as principal allottee and Defendant No.1 as co-allottee. The name of Defendant No.1 was mentioned for namesake only. Defendant No.2 had represented and assured the Plaintiff that the possession of the said property, complete in all respects, including the Occupancy Certificate shall be handed over in the year 2014 itself. However, despite expiry of substantial period of time in years, the Defendant No.2 did not offer possession of the Unit in question within the stipulated period. On the other hand, after the initial payment, the Defendant No.2 started demanding money towards the said property and the Plaintiff has, solely and exclusively, been duly making all the payments periodically as and when demanded. The Defendant No.1 has not contributed a single penny for the said property and the Plaintiff is a working woman, engaged with Air India as a Cabin Crew since January, 1990. As such, the plaintiff has her own source of income and the Plaintiff has booked and made (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 3 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY the entire payments towards allotment and purchase of the said commercial property bearing Unit No. EPO-02-003 in the project namely, Emerald Plaza Offices, Sector 65, Gurugram, Haryana, out of her own funds and every single penny towards the cost of the said property has been paid by solely by the Plaintiff herself without any assistance from the Defendant No.1.
4. As on date, the Plaintiff has, out of her own funds and earnings, made a payment of total amount of Rs.44,22,574.00 (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Four Only) to the defendant No.2 towards the sale consideration of the said property without any contribution from the Defendant No.1 and at the time of the last payment of Rs.8 Lacs on 21.03.2018, the Plaintiff had specifically requested the official/executive of the Defendant No.2 Company to provide the statement of account. However, despite assurances, the statement of account has never been supplied / provided to the Plaintiff till date.
5. During the period when the said property was booked with the Defendant No.2, the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 were husband and wife living together and as such, despite the said property i.e. commercial property bearing Unit No. EPO-02-003 in the project namely, Emerald Plaza Offices, Sector 65, Gurugram, Haryana being booked and (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 4 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY purchased by the Plaintiff exclusively out of her own earnings and funds, the Plaintiff got the said property booked in the joint name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1. Plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Defendant No.1 herein. However, subsequently the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 as wife and husband got extremely strained on account of irresponsible conduct of the Defendant No.1 and physical and mental cruelty Perpetuated on the Plaintiff by the Defendant No.1. In 2016, the Defendant No.1 left the Plaintiff and the two children and has been living separately and even prior to the year 2016, the Defendant No.1 had left the Plaintiff and children for short periods on number of occasions in complete disregard to his responsibilities towards the family. It is pertinent to mention herein that even after the Defendant No. 1 left the Plaintiff, it was the Plaintiff who had solely made the last payment of Rs.8,00,000/- on 21.03.2018 towards the sale consideration of the said property.
6. At the time of booking of the said property, the Defendant No.1 i.e. husband of the Plaintiff had given his email id for communication. However, after the relations between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 became sour and the Defendant No.1 left the company of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had duly intimated the Defendant No.2 Company about her personal email id with request to make all the (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 5 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY communications at her email henceforth, so as to enable her to make further payments and comply with other formalities, as and when required. In this regard, vide email dated 23.03.2018, the Plaintiff had specifically requested to register her email id pertaining to the said property, and provide her all the updates accordingly.
7. The Plaintiff personally visited the office of the Defendant No.2 and also informed the officials of the Defendant No.2 that the Plaintiff has shifted from her earlier address and changed to the present address, which was provided to the officials of the Defendant No.2 to update in their record for all communications etc. Even thereafter, vide email dated 16.06.2020 sent to the Defendant No.2, the Plaintiff reaffirmed her request for taking on record her changed address and email id for all purposes and had requested to provide the statement and update with respect to the Unit booked.
8. Despite assurances, a letter at the new and correct address of the Plaintiff has never been dropped from the end of the Defendant No.2 in respect of any development or requirement pertaining to the aforesaid property. Since all the payments towards the sale consideration for the said property were made by the Plaintiff solely and exclusively out of her own source of income, separate and independent off the Defendant No.1 herein, and also as the Plaintiff is (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 6 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY the principal allottee, it is apparent that the plaintiff has primary and exclusive rights, title and interest in the said property to the exclusion of all others; and thus, basically the Plaintiff is the only buyer of the said property. It is specifically stated that despite the Plaintiff being the principal allottee and the only buyer making all the payments for the property in question, to her shock and surprise, no communication, whatsoever, was made by the Defendant No.2 at her address. Upon her personal visits to the office of the Defendant No.2, every time the Plaintiff was informed that her particulars have been updated in the records and communications, if any, will be sent accordingly. As and when the Plaintiff tried to check with the officials of the Defendant No.2 about the delay in the possession and compensation therefor, they started giving lame excuses and avoiding her queries. Later on, whenever the Plaintiff tried to approach the Defendant No.2 regarding status of the project, possession of the Unit and statement of account, she was shocked at the attitude of the officials of the Defendant No.2, who not only avoided to entertain the Plaintiff but also disconnected the communication abruptly. Lately, the Plaintiff communicated with one Ms. Saumya Malhotra, official of the Defendant No.2 with regard to the status of the said property, and had again requested for statement of account. The Plaintiff had also sent numerous messages to aforesaid (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 7 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY official but did not received any response and Plaintiff was disturbed by the unprofessional approach on the part of the Defendant No.2. Despite assurances by Ms. Malhotra that she would call back, no communication was made to the Plaintiff.
9. On the other hand, the relations of the Plaintiff with the Defendant No.1 further strained with abuse, insult and cruelty upon the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendant No.1 has been threatening the Plaintiff that he will create a third party right in the said property for which entire consideration has been paid solely by the Plaintiff.
10. On 07.09.2021, to the shock and dismay to the Plaintiff, she accidently came across a Pre-Cancellation Notice dated 01.09.2021. The said Notice was wrongly addressed to the previous address which the Plaintiff had left long time back and in respect of change of which, she had duly communicated to the Defendant No.2 through emails and many times verbally. Even this notice could have been misplaced; however, the Courier boy traced the Plaintiff at her new address and delivered the same to her.
11. The Plaintiff is devastated to learn the contents of frivolous notice of pre-cancellation, wherein instead of offer of compensation for delay in offer of possession, all of a sudden the Defendant No.2 has raised several (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 8 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY misconceived demands, including for holding charges etc. whereas, admittedly no offer of possession was ever made to the Plaintiff on any earlier occasion and the Plaintiff was never intimated about statement of account much less the alleged offer of possession. Hence, in the circumstances, though the Plaintiff has been all along and is still ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration, there shall be no liability whatsoever, towards alleged delayed charges, holding charges or arrears of monthly maintenance charges. On the other hand, admittedly, the possession was due in the year 2014, and there is colossal delay in possession (which till date has not been communicated to the Plaintiff), the Plaintiff is entitled to compensation for delay in possession.
12. On receipt of the aforesaid pre-cancellation letter from the Defendant No.2, the Plaintiff personally visited the office of the Defendant No.2 multiple times in the month of September, 2021 itself, and requested the representatives/officials of the Defendant No.2 to provide her the statement of account; however, to no avail. On the other hand, the officials of the Defendant No.2 were very rude and tried to intimidate the Plaintiff, and as a consequence, the Plaintiff felt extremely humiliated and insulted. Vide mail dated 19.09.2021, the Plaintiff also replied to the pre-cancellation notice of the Defendant No.2; and even thereafter, the Plaintiff sent several follow- (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 9 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY up communications to the Defendant No.2 viz. emails dated 19.09.2021, 20.09.2021, 22.09.2021 etc.
13. It is further averred that the Plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration subject to the settlement of account in respect of delay in handing over of possession, and holding and other penal charges on account of delay in taking over of the possession of the said property, and reconciliation of statement of account in respect of said property by the Defendant No.2. However, on the other hand, the Defendant No.2 is threatening the Plaintiff that her allotment to the said property will be cancelled and upon numerous request and personal visits by the Plaintiff, the official of the Defendant No.2 has refused to communicate / respond to the Plaintiff stating that since Defendant No.2 is also joint allottee, the Defendant No.2 will respond/communicate and negotiate with both the joint allottees i.e. the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 together. It is admitted position that the Plaintiff has, exclusively and solely, out of her own funds and earnings, made all the payments towards the sale consideration of the said Property and is willing to pay the balance of the sale consideration, whereas the Defendant No.1 has not paid a single penny and at the time of booking, out of love and affection the Plaintiff had got the name of the Defendant No.1 included as co-applicant.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 10 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY
14. It is further averred that all the original documents pertaining to the said property are in the custody of the Plaintiff herein and have never been shared with Defendant No.1 for any purpose, whatsoever and at no point of time, be it at the time of booking or any time thereafter, the Plaintiff has ever intended to buy the said property for the Defendant No.1. However, the Defendant No.2 is taking advantage of the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1, and is refusing to provide the statement of account pertaining to the said property to the Plaintiff and accept and settle the balance sale consideration after adjustment and reconciliation of account from the Plaintiff.
15. The Defendants are thus, creating all possible hurdles and placing hindrance upon the lawful rights and interest of the Plaintiff over the said property and enjoyment of the Plaintiff of the said Property bought by her out of her own funds exclusively. In the garb of Plaintiff being wife of the Defendant No.1, the Defendant No.1 is representing to the general public that he has authority over the said property of the Plaintiff and is also trying to create third party interest over the said Property of the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the Defendant No.2 is deliberately avoiding the requests and reminders of the Plaintiff and is, rather threatening the Plaintiff to cancel her allotment. Hence, causing mental trauma and harassment to the Plaintiff. (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 11 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY
16. The Defendant No.1 has relationship with unscrupulous elements engaged in the unauthorised property dealings, and the Plaintiff has serious apprehension that the Defendant No.1 in consent with Defendant No.2 would create third party interest in her property. The Plaintiff has apprehension that with the assistance of unscrupulous persons, the Defendants may enter into fraudulent transactions with respect to the said property by concealing material facts and illegally excluding the rights, title and interest of the Plaintiff in the aforesaid property and the Defendant No.1 was never authorised, not even as a joint owner, and he had no interest, right, title in the said property of the Plaintiff. Despite being fully aware of all the facts, he has been fraudulently representing himself as the owner of the said property. Hence, the present suit.
17. As per the plaint, the cause of action arose on 02.02.2010 when the Plaintiff booked the suit property and made the first payment to the Defendant No.2 and on each date including on 21.03.2018, when the Plaintiff solely made payment of part sale consideration in respect of said property to the Defendant No.2. It arose on each day when the Plaintiff approached defendant no. 2, through email, letter оr verbal communication, requesting to update the record in respect of said property. The cause of action arose in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 12 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY on 07.09.2021 when Cancellation Notice dated 01.09.2021 was received by the Plaintiff. The cause of action is still subsisting and continuing as Defendants have failed to recognise the rights of the Plaintiff.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
18.After institution of the suit, summons was issued to the defendant No. 1 and 2 and they were duly served. The defendant No. 2 appeared before the Court and filed its written statement. As regards Defendant no. 1, be it noted that defendant no.1 has failed to file his WS despite opportunity and his defence was struck off and he was proceeded as ex-parte by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 27.01.2023.
19.In the written statement, the defendant no. 2 has taken several preliminary objections. It is contented that the present suit filed by the plaintiff is premature since no request has been made jointly by plaintiff and defendant no.1 for change in the allotment structure as per the policy of defendant no.2 and it has been disclosed by the plaintiff that there exist certain disputes between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. Further, no request in physical format as requested by the defendant no.2 vide e-mail dated 17.06.2020 has been submitted for changes in registered e- mail id and address and the suit is therefore, liable to be (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 13 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY dismissed against the defendant no.2. It is further mentioned in the WS that suit of the plaintiff is also liable to be dismissed as the suit is without any cause of action and the case of the plaintiff is more against defendant no.1 than it is against defendant no.2, and defendant no.2 is merely a proforma party in the alleged inter-se dispute between the plaintiff and defendant no.1. Remaining averments have been denied by the defendant No. 2.
REPLICATION
20.Replication was filed on behalf of plaintiff, wherein she denied the claims made by the defendant no.2 and reiterated the averments made in the plaint.
ISSUES
21.From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 30.03.2024:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary and final decree thereby restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest in the suit property? OPP.
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary decree thereby directing the defendant no.2 to settle the account pertaining to the suit property with the plaintiff to the exclusion of defendant (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 14 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY no.1 and accept balance sale consideration, if any, after reconciliation of accounts? OPP iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary decree thereby directing defendant no.2 to py the plaintiff as a sole allottee of the suit propertly?
OPP iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from selling or alienating or transferring or creating any third party interest in the suit property? OPP.
v. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
22.Plaintiff, in support of her case, has placed on record her affidavit vide Ex. PW1/1 and relied upon the following documents:
Sl. Exhibits/Mark Details of Documents No.
1. Ex. PW1/A Copy of Aadhar card.
(OSR)
2. Mark PW1/B Copy of application dated 04.11.2009.
3. Mark PW1/C Copy of provisional allotment dated 17.02.2010.
4. Ex.PW1/D Copies of acknowledgment (colly.) receipts dated 02.02.2010, 29.11.2010, 18.02.2011, 21.01.2013, 01.05.2014, (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 15 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY 01.05.2014, 13.04.2015 and 21.03.2018.
5. Ex.PW1/E Copy of e-mail dated 23.03.2018.
6. Ex.PW1/F Copy of e-mail dated 16.06.2020.
7. Ex.PW1/G Screenshot of whatsapp chat. (Colly.)
8. Ex.PW1/H Copy of unsigned pre-
(OSR) cancellation letter dated
01.09.2021.
9. Ex.PW1/I Copy of reply to pre-cancellation
(colly.) notice dated 19.09.2021
10. Ex.PW1/J Copies of e-mails dated 19.09.2021,
(colly.) 20.09.2021 and 22.09.2021.
11. Ex.PW1/K Certificate under Section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act.
23.Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.2 did not cross-examine the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 has not lead any evidence in its defence, and closed the evidence vide order dated 30.05.2026.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
24.I have heard both the parties who argued as per their pleadings and the arguments are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity.
ANALYSIS & DECISION
25.The issue-wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 3:
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 16 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY
26. The caption issue pertains to the entitlement of the plaintiff to be declared as a sole allottee of the suit property to the exclusion of her husband who is defendant no.1. The said issue forms the basis of the remaining prayers made by the plaintiff which are consequential in nature and therefore, I consider it proper to deviate from the chronology of issues and to decide the captioned issue first. The case of the plaintiff is that she had purchased the suit property from defendant no.2 jointly with defendant no.1. At that time, the plaintiff and defendant no.1, being legally wedded wife and husband, were residing in a shared household and therefore, a joint allotment of the suit property was made. It is the plaintiff's case that the entire payment was solely made by her and the inclusion of defendant no.1 as a joint allottee was formal in nature and was done out of love and affection between the parties. The plaintiff has placed on record the details of payments made by her to defendant no.2 from time to time and has also exhibited the acknowledgment receipts Ex.PW1/D issued by defendant no.2 in her favour from time to time.
27.It may be noted, at the outset, that defendant no.2 has not raised any substantive objection to the instant prayer and has taken a neutral stand by stating that the question as to whether the plaintiff is the sole allottee or a joint allottee with defendant no.1, is a question inter-se parties and it does not concern defendant no.2. Naturally, the plaintiff (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 17 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY and defendant no.1 are reflected as joint allottees in the records of defendant no.2 as in the beginning, a joint application was made. Furthermore, defendant no.2 has not questioned the averments of the plaintiff that the entire payment was made by her. Notably, defendant no.1 has chosen to not enter appearance despite service to rebut or question the averments of the plaintiff. It is trite law that the failure of the party to not enter appearance to rebut a factual position taken against that party, amounts to a deemed admission of the liability. It reflects the absence of any defence or a counter view.
28. It may also be noted that the communications addressed by defendant no.2 with respect to suit property have been addressed only to the plaintiff and the application Ex.PW1/D for the allotment of the suit property also mentions the plaintiff has the first applicant. The letter of provisional allotment has also been addressed to the plaintiff. In view of the documentary evidence on record, absence of any rebuttal by defendant no.1 (who is the only contesting defendant in the present issue) and record of payments made by the plaintiff from time to time, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has managed to discharge the evidentiary burden of the instant issue. Accordingly, the plaintiff is declared to be the sole allottee of the suit property i.e. Commercial Property bearing Unit No. EPO- 02-003 in the project namely Emerald Plaza Offices, (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 18 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY Sector 65, Gurugram, Haryana. In view of this finding, issue no.3 is answered in affirmative and defendant no.2 is directed to record the plaintiff as a sole allottee of the subject property in the record of the company and to ensure that all other communications are addressed to the plaintiff alone as per the details provided by the plaintiff. The details may also be updated in the record of the company.
Issue No.1
29.The first issue is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary and final decree thereby restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest in the suit property. In view of the findings against defendant no.1 thereby excluding defendant no.1 from the joint allotment of the suit property, it follows that the defendant no.1 has no right to create any third party interest in the suit property. Although, the issue incorporates both preliminary and final decree, however, at this stage of final adjudication, there is no question of preliminary decree in the matter. Thus, defendant no.1 is permanently restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property.
30.However, a similar direction against defendant no.2 is not warranted in the present matter. It is so because defendant no.2 is entitled to act in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned in Schedule 1 of the letter of (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 19 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY allotment. The said document is annexure D-2/C (colly.) in the present matter. I may note that the document has not been exhibited by the defendant, however, it appears from the evidence on record that the letter of allotment is an admitted document and therefore, I deem it fit to rely upon the same without insisting on formal proof.
31.Coming to the terms and conditions of the documents, it may be noted that the terms are binding on both the parties as the document/allotment letter has been executed by both the parties. Being an explicit contractual arrangement between the parties, the document shall bind both the parties and shall govern their respective rights and liabilities. A perusal of the allotment letter indicates that in case of non-compliance on the part of the buyer of any of the conditions contained in the document, the seller/defendant no.2 shall be at liberty to deal with the property in the manner that it may deem fit. This contingency also entitles defendant no.2 to cancel the allotment of the plaintiff and to transfer the property to any third person. No doubt, such cancellation and transfer in favour of any third person ought to be carried out strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions binding by the parties. However, it follows from a reading of the document that there is no basis to permanently restrain defendant no.2 from creating any third party interest in the (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 20 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY suit property as such restraint shall be in the teeth of the terms and conditions binding on the parties.
32. For clarity, it may be noted that the validity of the terms and conditions has not been questioned by the plaintiff and therefore, the respective rights and liabilities of the parties shall be governed by the letter of allotment. It may also be noted that after the allotment of the suit property, the parties were required to execute a separate buyer's agreement and such buyer's agreement was supposed to govern the contractual relationship of the parties. However, no such buyer's agreement was ever executed by the parties. Clause 33 of the terms and conditions stipulates that upon the execution of the buyer's agreement, the terms set out in the said agreement shall supersede the terms and conditions contained in the allotment letter. Therefore, in the absence of any buyers agreement, the allotment letter and terms contained therein shall continue to hold the field.
33.Be that as it may, in view of the reasons mentioned above, there is no basis either in law or fact to restrain defendant no. 2 from creating any third party interest in the suit property. However, it is made clear that any such action could only be taken by defendant no.2 after formal cancellation of allotment and settlement of dues, if any.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 21 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY Thus, issue no. 1 is partly answered in affirmative with respect to the permanent injunction sought against defendant no.1 and partly in negative with respect to injunction sought against defendant no.2.
Issue No.2
34. The captioned issue deals with the entitlement of the plaintiff to seek a mandatory injunction against defendant no.2 to settle the accounts pertaining to the suit property, to the exclusion of defendant no.1 and to accept the balance sale consideration, if any, after the re-conciliation of accounts. The actual prayer made by the plaintiff in this regard actually seeks a direction to defendant no.2 to settle or negotiate the outstanding dues with the plaintiff. It may be noted, at the outset, that the prayer is vague in nature and does not seek any specific direction which could be enforced against defendant no.2. Suffice to note that both the parties are contractually bound by certain terms and conditions and the intervention of the Civil Court is only justified to the extent of giving effect to the terms and conditions of the contract and to issue suitable directions in that regard. It is not the domain of the Court to impose its own contractual or financial wisdom in a relationship of this nature and to compel any party to give up on its right as per the contractual arrangement. Therefore, the Court cannot direct the defendant 'to negotiate' with the plaintiff.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 22 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY
35.Having said that, it is necessary to observe that in the course of present trial, both parties were attempting to amicably resolve the matter. Principally, both parties are on the same page with respect to the fact that the property has been allotted to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is willing to take possession of the same after clearing the outstanding dues. Despite efforts towards settlement of the matter, the parties could not arrive at a consensus with respect to the outstanding dues. Be that as it may, the proceedings of mediation or settlement are not required to be discussed in detail in the present judgment. I deem it sufficient to note, on the basis of the submissions made by the parties before the Court, that the plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the suit property after clearing the pending dues in accordance with the contract. This seems to be the settled position, both as per the discussion between the parties, submissions advanced before the Court and documentary evidence on record including the letter of offer of possession.
36.In light of the language of issue no.2 as framed by Ld. Predecessor on 30.03.2024, the defendant no. 2 is directed to carry out the settlement of the account pertaining to the suit property with the plaintiff alone, being the sole allottee in view of the declaration made in issue no. 3. Further, (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 23 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY defendant no. 2 is directed to accept the balance sale consideration after settlement/reconciliation of accounts and to hand over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff in accordance with the submissions made before the Court. Issue no. 2 is, accordingly, answered in affirmative.
37. At the cost of a slight deviation from this discussion, I feel it necessary to note that vide letter dated 22.01.2018, the defendant no. 2 had offered possession to the plaintiff subject to the clearance of certain dues. Thereafter, the defendant no.2 also sent a pre-cancellation notice to the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to clear the outstanding dues. As per the notice, such dues include the delayed payment charges, holding charges and maintenance charges. Although, the plaintiff, for reasons unknown to this Court, has not specifically assailed the pre-cancellation notice and I am afraid that the issue has also not been framed to specifically cover that aspect of the case. Although, it does emerge as a bone of contention between the parties. However, I am of the opinion that it is the foremost duty of this Court to understand the genesis of the controversy between the parties and to pass appropriate orders which are necessary for the ends of justice. The vesting of inherent powers in this court under Section 151 CPC may not serve any purpose if effective adjudication to meet the ends of justice is not done, despite (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 24 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY there being ample material before the Court to do so. Technicalities and procedure are only supposed to guide the Court in a logical direction and they are not supposed to curtail the power of the Civil Court to render a comprehensive and meaningful adjudication in a case before it.
38.Keeping the above thought in mind, I find that the need for the plaintiff to call upon this Court to direct the defendant no.2 for settlement/ re-conciliation of accounts, has emerged from the fact that excessive demands have been raised by defendant no.2 for handing over possession. Without expressing any opinion on the quantum of delayed payment charges and holding charges payable by the plaintiff, I feel constrained to note that the demand for maintenance charges has no basis and is not supported by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The documents covering the contractual relationship between the parties make it abundantly clear that maintenance charges are payable only after the execution of a separate maintenance agreement between the parties. In fact, the language of the terms and conditions, specifically of clause 15, suggests that such maintenance agreement is to be executed with a separate maintenance agency. Be it noted that no such agreement has been executed between the parties and therefore, the entitlement of defendant no.2 or of any agency to demand maintenance charges from the (Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 25 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY plaintiff does not arise. The claim is pre-mature and cannot be termed as an outstanding claim.
39. In view of the findings on this issue, defendant no.2 is directed to ensure compliance of the directions within one month from the date of judgment/decree, including the reconciliation/settlement of accounts, acceptance of outstanding dues and handing over of possession to the plaintiff.
Issue no. 4
40. The captioned issue is on similar lines as issue no.1 and no fresh discussion is warranted in the said issue. I have already observed that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against defendant no.1 thereby restraining defendant no.1 from selling, alienating, transferring or creating any third party interest in the suit property. For reasons discussed above, a similar direction against defendant no.2 is not justified.
41.Accordingly, issue no.4 is partly answered in affirmative and defendant no.1 is permanently restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit property and it is partly answered in negative as no such permanent injunction is warranted against defendant no.2.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 26 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY RELIEF
42.In view of findings above, the suit of the plaintiff stands partly decreed. The directions/findings are reiterated and summarized as follows:
i. The plaintiff is hereby declared as the sole allottee of the suit property bearing Unit No. EPO-02-003 in the project namely, Emerald Plaza Offices, Sector 65, Gurugram, Haryana, to the exclusion of defendant no. 1;
ii. Defendant no. 2 is directed to register the name of the plaintiff as a sole allottee of the suit property in its record and to update the correspondence details such as address, email, phone number etc.; iii. All further communication in relation to the suit property shall be addressed to the plaintiff alone and as per the update correspondence details; iv. Defendant no. 2 is directed to conduct of reconciliation/settlement of accounts pertaining to the suit property and to provide a statement to that effect to the plaintiff after adjusting the pending dues;
v. After such settlement/reconciliation and clearance of outstanding dues (excluding the maintenance charges), defendant no. 2 is directed to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within one month after completion of necessary formalities.
(Yashdeep Chahal), Civil Judge-02 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 19.05.2026 (Page 27 of 28) CS SCJ 352/22 OM PRABHA SALHOTRA Vs. GANESH KRISHNA SWAMY
43.Parties to bear their own costs.
44.Decree sheet be drawn in terms of this judgment.
45.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by
YASHDEEP YASHDEEP CHAHAL
CHAHAL Date: 2026.05.19
17:38:45 +0530
Announced in the open court (Yashdeep Chahal)
on 19.05.2026 Civil Judge-02(South)
(This judgment contains 28 pages Saket Courts, New Delhi
and each page has been signed by me.) 19.05.2026
(Yashdeep Chahal),
Civil Judge-02 (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
19.05.2026 (Page 28 of 28)