Delhi District Court
Sh. D.P. Sekhri Since Deceased Through ... vs Smt. Soma Sachdeva Since Deceased ... on 13 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA:
DISTRICT JUDGE-07 (WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI.
RCA DJ No.43/2023
CNR NO. DLWT010058082023
In the matter of :
SHRI D.P. SEKHRI (SINCE DECEASED)
Through his sole LR
1. SH. SANDEEP SEKHRI,
R/o 108B, LIG Flats,
Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi. ...APPELLANT
Versus
1. SMT. SOMA SACHDEVA (SINCE DECEASED)
Through LRs:-
(a) MR. RAJAN SACHDEVA
(b) MR. BHARAT SACHDEVA
(c) MS. DIMPLE SACHDEVA
W/o Sh. Parvinder Loyal.
D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 1 /33
All R/o 776A, Pocket-2,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi.
(d) MS. SIMPLE SACHDEVA
W/o Late Sh. Pradeep Sachdeva,
R/o A-1/240, Lawrence Road,
Keshav Puram, New Delhi.
2. SH. IQBAL SINGH
S/o Sh. Gyan Singh,
R/o SH-5/70, New Moti Nagar,
New Delhi. ....RESPONDENTS
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
08.06.2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LD. CIVIL JUDGE-02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI IN SUIT
BEARING CS NO.95325/2016 TITLED AS SH.D.P. SEKHRI (SINCE
DECEASED) THROUGH LRs Vs. SMT. SOMA SACHDEVA
(SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRs.
Date of institution of appeal : 18.07.2023
Date on which judgment reserved : 11.09.2025
Date on which judgment pronounced : 13.12.2025
JUDGEMENT:
1. The present appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as CPC) has been filed by the appellant / plaintiff impugning the Judgment and Decree dated 08.06.2023 passed by Ld. Civil Judge-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in suit bearing CS D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 2 /33 No.95325/2016 titled as Sh. D.P. Sekhri (Since Deceased) through LRs. Vs. Smt. Soma Sachdeva (Since Deceased) through LRs whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
2. Since in the course of trial, both the original plaintiff and defendant no.1 expired and their respective LRs were brought on record in their place, so hereinafter any reference made to the plaintiff and defendant shall be construed to be made to their respective LRs as well.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their original positions before the Ld. Trial Court.
4. Vide the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 08.06.2023, Ld. Trial Court dismissed the claim of the plaintiff seeking specific performance of the contract whereby Late Smt. Soma Sachdeva agreed to transfer the property bearing no.Plot No. R-25, Nihal Vihar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit property) to Late Sh. D.P. Sekhri at the total sale consideration of Rs.2,45,000/- out of which Rs.50,000/- were paid as part payment vide receipt dated 16.12.2005 and a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining Late Smt. Soma Sachdeva, her representatives and agents from creating any kind of third party interest in the aforesaid suit property.
5. PLEADINGS AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD.
TRIAL COURT.
The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is as follows:
5.1. The defendant no.1 Smt. Soma Sachdeva expressed her intention D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 3 /33 to sell the suit property to the plaintiff and relying upon the representation made by her, plaintiff agreed to purchase the same at the total sale consideration of Rs.2,45,000/-.
5.2. The plaintiff and defendant no.1 entered into an agreement to sell and a bayana receipt dated 16.12.2005 was executed whereunder a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to defendant no.1 as part payment and it was agreed between them that the original title deed of the suit property would be shown to the plaintiff on or before 16.03.2006 and thereafter, defendant no.1 would execute the sale documents of the suit property in his favour subject to the receipt of balance amount to the tune of Rs.1,95,000/-.
5.3. Despite repeated requests, the original documents of the suit property were not shown by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff.
5.4. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by making payment of balance sale consideration to the tune of Rs.1,95,000/- to defendant no.1.
5.5. On 06.09.2006, the plaintiff served a legal notice on defendant no.1 requesting her to transfer the suit property in terms of their agreement / bayana receipt dated 16.12.2005, but defendant no.1 did not come forward to perform her part of the contract.
5.6. Defendant no.1 executed a WILL dated 19.09.2006 of the suit property in favour of defendant no.2 Sh. Iqbal Singh despite the D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 4 /33 existence of agreement to sell in question.
6. Summons of the present suit were duly served upon the defendants and defendant no.1 filed her written statement in pursuance thereof and defendant no.2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.09.2012 without filing any written statement.
7. DEFENDANT NO.1 DEFENCE BEFORE THE LD. TRIAL COURT The defence of defendant no.1 as averred in the written statement is as follows:
7.1. The present suit is bad in law as the plaintiff has no cause of action against her.
7.2. The plaintiff and defendant no.1 entered into an agreement to sell qua the suit property at the total sale consideration of Rs.2,45,000/- out of which Rs.50,000/- were received by her on 16.12.2005 and it was agreed that the remaining balance amount would be paid on or before 16.03.2006.
7.3. However, on 02.03.2006, she came to know that the plaintiff had unlawfully trespassed into the suit property and started digging foundation and was not interested in making payment of the balance amount and upon this, a police complaint was got lodged at Police Post Nihal Vihar, PS Nangloi on 03.03.2006.
7.4. The plaintiff did not make payment of the balance sale D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 5 /33 consideration despite expiry of the timeline prescribed under the bayana receipt dated 16.12.2005 and thereafter, one Sh. Sri Om mediated between the parties and the matter got settled and defendant no.1 returned the amount of Rs.50,000/- received by her on 16.12.2005 to the plaintiff.
7.5. In view of the aforesaid settlement, the suit property was sold to defendant no.2.
8. After completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance, as prayed for? OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
(iii) Relief.
9. It is to be noted that the plaintiff has also sought a decree of declaration thereby declaring the alleged WILL dated 19.09.2006, allegedly executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 as null and void, qua which no issue was framed before the Ld. Trial Court nor any application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking framing of an additional issue.
10. But since, neither the appellant has pointed out the aforesaid omission and sought framing of an additional issue nor this Court is of the opinion that the factual matrix of the present case calls for the exercise of power under Order XLI Rule 25 CPC. So this Court is not D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 6 /33 going to discuss the validity of the aforesaid WILL dated 19.09.2006 while adjudicating the present appeal.
11. PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE.
11.1. In order to prove his case, Sh. Sandeep Sekhri son of Sh. D.P. Sekhri stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his evidence affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and reiterated the averments of the plaint and deposed that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract by making payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.1.95,000/- to defendant no.1 and it is defendant no.1 who is not coming forward to execute the transfer documents of the suit property in his favour.
11.2. PW-1 has relied upon the following documents :
A. Receipt dated 16.12.2005 as Ex.PW-1/1; B. Statement of account of Late Sh.D.P. Sekhri as Ex.PW-1/2; C. Legal notice dated 06.09.2006 as Ex.PW-1/3; D. Postal receipt as Ex.PW-1/4; E. UPC as Ex.PW-1/5; F. Returned AD card as Ex.PW-1/6; and G. Photocopy of the Deed of WILL dated 19.09.2006 as Ex.PW-1/7.
11.3. During his cross examination, PW-1 produced the following documents :
A. Photocopy of Income tax return for the year 2020-2021 as Ex.PW-1/X-2 (Colly)(OSR);
B. Photocopy of Income tax return for the year 2021-2022 as D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 7 /33 Ex.PW-1/X-1 (Colly)(OSR);
C. Photocopy of lease deed dated 10.03.2015 executed between Shri Sandeep Sekhri and Mr. Munna Lal Yadav as Ex.PW-1/X-3 (Colly)(OSR);
D. Photocopy of rent agreement dated 10.10.2018 executed between Shri Sandeep Sekhri and Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta as Ex.PW-1/X-4 (OSR) (Colly);
E. Photocopy of rent agreement dated 12.10.2018 executed between Mr. Sandeep Sekhri and Ms. Akriti Gulati as Ex.PW-1/X-5 (OSR) (Colly);
F. Photocopy of rent agreement dated 02.06.016 executed between Sh. Sandeep Sekhri and Lata Sekhri and M/s Perfect Arts through its partners Sh. Ajmal Khan and Sh. Mohd. Intzar as Mark A; and G. Photocopy of lease deed dated 08.08.2020 executed between M/s Sandeep Sekhri and M/s Technocat Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. as Mark B. H. Photocopy of the Order under Section 176 of the DMC Act, 1957 as Ex.PW-1/X-A; and I. Photocopy of the Valuation Report dated 17.06.1993 as Ex.PW-1/X-B.
12. EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT NO.1.
12.1. In order to prove their case, Sh. Rajan Sachdeva son of Late Smt. Soma Sachdeva stepped into the witness box as DW-1 and tendered his evidence affidavit Ex.DW-1/A in his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the contents of written statement and deposed that the agreement to sell executed between his mother Late Smt. Soma D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 8 /33 Sachdeva and the original plaintiff Late Sh.D.P. Sekhri could not materialize into a full-fledged sale transaction due to the failure on the part of the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration as per the payment scheduled and the misconduct committed by him in trespassing in the suit property on 02.03.2006, which led to a settlement whereunder the part payment of Rs.50,000/- was returned to the plaintiff and thereafter the suit property was transferred to defendant no.2.
13. DECISION OF THE LD. TRIAL COURT.
Vide Judgment and Decree dated 08.06.2023, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and the issues were answered in the following manner :
13.1. ISSUE NO.1.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance, as prayed for? OPP.
(i) Ld. Trial Court after meticulously analysing and appreciating the evidence brought on record by the plaintiff came to the conclusion that the element of readiness and willingness is missing on his part in the conduct of the transaction in question.
(ii) Ld. Trial Court observed that the plaintiff has failed to establish his financial capacity to make payment of the balance sale consideration and decided the issue in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 9 /33 13.2. ISSUE NO.2.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
(i) Ld. Trial Court observed that since the main prayer of plaintiff seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell in question has been declined and he has no right, title or interest in the suit property, so the plaintiff cannot be held entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and decided the issue in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
14. GROUNDS OF APPEAL.
The following grounds of appeal have been put forth by the appellant for challenging the Judgment / Decree:
(i) Ld. Trial Court has passed the judgment on the basis of surmises and conjectures and against the well settled position of law, without taking into consideration the factual matrix of the present case.
(ii) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the resources / means of the appellant to make payment of the balance sale consideration to the tune of Rs.1,95,000/- has not been disputed by the defendant in her written statement.
(iii) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that no evidence has been led on behalf of the defendant for establishing her plea regarding the cancellation of the agreement to sell in question and making repayment D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 10 /33 of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff.
(iv) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that Late Sh. D.P. Sekhri issued a legal notice dated 06.09.2006 to Late Smt. Soma Sachdeva, which was not responded / replied and the said omission calls for drawing an adverse inference against the defendant.
(v) Ld. Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the bank statement of Late Sh. D.P. Sekhri since the same was duly exhibited in the testimony of PW-1 and no cross examination of the witness was conducted on behalf of the defendant regarding the said statement of account.
(vi) Ld. Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the material brought on record by the plaintiff in support of his case.
15. POINTS OF DETERMINATION On the basis of the submissions made by the parties and the factual matrix of the present case, the following points of determination are framed:
15.1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell with respect to the suit property i.e. Plot bearing no.R-25, Nihal Vihar, New Delhi against the defendants?
15.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction thereby injuncting the defendants, their representatives and agents from creating any kind of third party interest into the D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 11 /33 suit property?
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 15.1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell with respect to the suit property i.e. Plot bearing no.R-25, Nihal Vihar, New Delhi against the defendants?
(i) The plaintiff has pleaded that he entered into an agreement with defendant no.1 for the purchase of the suit property at the total sale consideration of Rs.2,45,000/-, out of which a part payment of Rs.50,000/- was made on 16.12.2005 against receipt Ex.PW-1/1 and it was agreed between them that the balance sale consideration would be paid on or before 16.03.2006, the date fixed for the execution of the transfer documents.
(ii) In rebuttal, defendant no.1 has admitted the factum of entering into an agreement with plaintiff regarding sale of the suit property at the total sale consideration of Rs.2,45,000/-, receipt of Rs.50,000/- as part payment on 16.12.2005 against bayana receipt Ex.PW-1/1 and setting of date of 16.03.2006 for the execution of transfer documents after receipt of balance sale consideration.
(iii) However, defendant no.1 has pleaded breach of contract on the part of plaintiff in not abiding to the scheduled date of payment of 16.03.2006 and subsequent cancellation of agreement to sell after the intervention of one Sh. Sri Om and return of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff.
D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 12 /33
(iv) It is to be noted that the term 'cancellation' has not been expressly used in the written statement with respect to the agreement to sell in question, but it is explicit from the contents of the written statement that defendant no.1 has taken the stance that after the alleged return of Rs.50,000/-, plaintiff was left with no right whatsoever qua the suit property on the premise of the said agreement.
(v) Since the plea of defendant no.1 regarding return of part payment received under the agreement in question touches the very foundation of the present case, so before proceeding any further, this Court would analyse the plea of cancellation of agreement to sell by mutual consent of both the plaintiff and defendant.
(vi) In her written statement, defendant no.1 has stated that when despite the expiry of the scheduled date to make payment of the balance sale consideration, the plaintiff failed to make the payment and instead started threatening to encroach the suit property, with the intervention of one common friend namely, Sh. Sri Om, a settlement was arrived at and in pursuance thereof, defendant no.1 returned the part payment of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff received on 16.12.2005 vide Ex.PW-1/1 and sold the suit property to defendant no.2, as a result of which the present suit for specific performance of agreement to sell is not maintainable.
(vii) However, the record reflects that in his examination-in-chief Ex.DW-1/A, Sh. Rajan Sachdeva remained completely silent about the aforesaid arrangement and a bare perusal of his deposition reveals that D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 13 /33 he has not uttered even a single word about repayment of Rs.50,000/- to plaintiff received vide Ex.PW-1/1.
(viii) The record also reflects that the defendant has not brought on record any documentary evidence reflecting any such arrangement or repayment nor she has examined the alleged mediator namely, Sh. Sri Om, who allegedly played an instrumental role in brokering the settlement.
(ix) In a nutshell, there is not an iota of evidence available on record which could even indicate that the part payment of Rs.50,000/- received by defendant no.1 under the agreement to sell in question vide receipt Ex.PW-1/1 was returned to the plaintiff and the agreement came to an end.
(x) At this stage, it is relevant to highlight the settled position of law that bald assertions of facts are of no use to the parties to the suit unless they are backed by the admissible evidence. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in A.B. Govardhan Vs. P. Ragothaman, Civil Appeal no.9975-76 of 2024.
(xi) In view thereof, the plea of defendant no.1 regarding non- maintainability of the present suit on the aforesaid ground stands rejected.
(xii) Since the subsistence / continuation of agreement to sell in question between the parties is established, so this Court would now D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 14 /33 adjudge whether the plea of plaintiff seeking specific performance of the said agreement is sustainable / tenable or not.
(xiii) The principles relating to specific performance of an agreement to sell were succinctly summarised by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamal Kumar Vs. Premlata Joshi, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 12 as under :
"10. It is a settled principle of law that the grant of relief of specific performance is a discretionary and equitable relief. The material questions which are required to be gone into for grant of the relief of specific performance, are First, whether there exists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property; Second, whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned in the contract; Third, whether the plaintiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract; Fourth, whether it will be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually granted to the plaintiff; and lastly, whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, refund of earnest money etc. and, if so, on what D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 15 /33 ground."
(xiv) So, for securing the decree for specific performance, the plaintiff is required to prove the existence of the pre-requisites enumerated hereinabove.
(xv) Firstly, so far as the requirement of the existence of a valid and concluded contract between the parties is concerned, this Court has already discussed the said issue in the foregoing paragraphs and came to the conclusion that there is a subsisting valid agreement to sell between the parties with respect to the suit property, in pursuance whereof Rs.50,000/- were paid by plaintiff to defendant no.1 as part payment vide receipt Ex.PW-1/1 dated 16.12.2005. Hence, the first requirement stands satisfied.
(xvi) Secondly, the plaintiff is required to prove his readiness and willingness to discharge his obligations under the agreement to sell in question.
(xvii) A bare perusal of the plaint and the evidence affidavit Ex.PW-1/A reveals that the plaintiff has asserted his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract of making payment of the balance sale consideration in the sum of Rs.1,95,000/- to defendant no.1.
(xviii) To begin with, the term ' readiness' stands for the financial capacity of the plaintiff to go ahead with the agreement to sell by D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 16 /33 making payment of the balance sale consideration while ' willingness' indicates his state of mind, intention to perform the obligation under the agreement.
(xix) For the sake of reference, the relevant legal provision i.e. Section 16 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963 is reproduced hereinbelow:
"16. Personal bars to relief.-- Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person--
(a) who would not be entitled to recover
compensation for its breach; or
(b) who has become incapable of performing, or
violates any essential term of, the contract that on his part remains to be performed, or acts in fraud of the contract, or willfully acts at variance with, or in subversion of, the relation intended to be established by the contract, or
(c) who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant."
(xx) A plain reading of the aforesaid legal provision makes it explicit that unless the plaintiff aver and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his obligation under the agreement to sell, specific performance of the contract cannot be enforced in his favour.
D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 17 /33 (xxi) It is also well settled that in a suit for specific performance of an agreement, the plaintiff is required to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the agreement and in cases where the suit is filed by the vendee and a certain amount has been paid in advance and the balance is required to be paid within a prescribed period / stipulated time, the plaintiff is required to show that he is financially capable to make payment of the balance amount.
(xxii) Legally speaking, in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, for establishing his readiness and willingness, the plaintiff is required to bring on record material in the form of his statement of account, details of his source of income, details of assets, details of any arrangement or a scheme indicating that the required amount could be arranged from a relative or a financier, reflecting the financial competence and intention to perform his part of the contract.
(xxiii) In other words, for securing a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell pertaining to an immovable property, the vendee / plaintiff is required to make specific averments in the plaint regarding his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and adduce evidence to show availability of funds or sufficient resources for making payment of the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time.
(xxiv) So the aforesaid discussion can be concluded to the effect that in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, the plaintiff is D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 18 /33 not only required to aver the element of readiness and willingness but also required to establish the same through legally admissible evidence.
(xxv) At this stage, it is also important to underline that proving continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff throughout from the date of execution of agreement to sell till the date of passing of decree is a condition precedent for the grant of decree for specific performance.
(xxvi) Moreover, in Janardan Das and Ors. Vs. Durga Prasad Aggarwalla and Ors, 2024 INSC 778, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff are to be determined from their conduct prior to and subsequent to the filing of the suit, as well as from the terms of the agreement and surrounding circumstances.
(xxvii) Since readiness pertains to the financial capacity / ability to perform his obligation under the agreement to sell, so this Court would evaluate the material available on record to determine as to whether the plaintiff is successful in proving his financial competence to make payment of the balance sale consideration to defendant no.1.
(xxviii) For establishing his case, the plaintiff Sh. Sandeep Sekhri himself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and reiterated the averments of the plaint regarding his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
(xxix) However, he did not utter even a single word about his financial D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 19 /33 capacity nor furnished details / particulars of his employment or the resources out of which, he or the original plaintiff Late Sh. D.P. Sekhri intended to make payment of the balance sale consideration.
(xxx) The examination-in-chief of PW-1 is completely silent about the financial capacity and ability of plaintiff to discharge his obligation under the agreement to sell in question, barring mechanical use of words 'readiness' and 'willingness'.
(xxxi) Besides the omission to furnish requisite information regarding his financial capacity, the plaintiff has also not filed any documentary evidence for substantiating his claim of readiness to pay the balance sale consideration, except filing one document i.e. statement of account of Late Sh.D.P. Sekhri Ex.PW-1/2 which is having some relevance / connection with the financial soundness of the plaintiff.
(xxxii) However, Ld. Trial Court refused to take Ex.PW-1/2 in consideration by observing that the said document is a photocopy and has not been proved as per law by bringing the original passbook.
(xxxiii) This Court is also in complete agreement with Ld. Trial Court that the statement of account of Late Sh.D.P. Sekhri Ex.PW-1/2 has not been proved as per law and a bare perusal of the same reflects that it is a computer generated statement of account and a supporting certificate under Section 65B has not been filed on behalf of PW-1, which renders it inadmissible in law.
D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 20 /33 (xxxiv) In M/s ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Kamini Sharma, RFA No.297/2015, dated 31.01.2018, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that computer generated statement of account is a printout of electronic document, which is a secondary evidence inadmissible in law unless accompanied by a duly issued certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act.
(xxxv) Hence, it is clear that the solitary documentary evidence i.e. statement of account of Sh. D.P. Sekhri Ex.PW-1/2 is inadmissible in law owing to non-compliance of the requirement under Section 65B IEA.
(xxxvi) It is to be noted that the statement of account Ex.PW-1/2 is also not supported by a certificate under The Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 as well.
(xxxvii) The aforesaid discussion makes it plain that the only document filed by the plaintiff in his evidence having some link with his financial capacity is inadmissible in law and cannot be taken into consideration for substantiating the averments of readiness made in the body of the plaint as well as evidence affidavit.
(xxxviii) The absence of evidence brought on record by the plaintiff is material for the adjudication of the issue involved herein as merely self serving statements made by the plaintiff regarding his intention to make payment of the balance sale consideration or his financial capacity, without any proof of financial soundness or resources are meaningless D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 21 /33 and cannot be relied upon by the Court for returning a finding in his favour that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract.
(xxxix) In Raghunath Rai and Anr. Vs. Jageshwar Prasad Sharma, (1999) 50 DRJ 751, Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that the plaintiff is required to establish his 'readiness' by leading evidence and his financial capacity has to be proved strictly as per law and self serving statements cannot discharge the burden of proving existence of financial capacity.
(xl) So this Court is of the opinion that absence of evidence available on record for establishing the financial capacity of the plaintiff is fatal for his case.
(xli) However, during the cross examination of PW-1, the following documents were brought on record, which also needs to be analysed as they seem relevant :
A. Photocopy of Income tax return for the year 2020-2021 as Ex.PW-1/X-2 (Colly)(OSR);
B. Photocopy of Income tax return for the year 2021-2022 as Ex.PW-1/X-1 (Colly)(OSR);
C. Photocopy of lease deed dated 10.03.2015 executed between Shri Sandeep Sekhri and Mr. Munna Lal Yadav as Ex.PW-1/X-3 (Colly)(OSR);
D. Photocopy of rent agreement dated 10.10.2018 executed between Shri Sandeep Sekhri and Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta as D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 22 /33 Ex.PW-1/X-4 (OSR) (Colly);
E. Photocopy of rent agreement dated 12.10.2018 executed between Mr. Sandeep Sekhri and Ms. Akriti Gulati as Ex.PW-1/X-5 (OSR) (Colly);
F. Photocopy of rent agreement dated 02.06.016 executed between Sh. Sandeep Sekhri and Lata Sekhri and M/s Perfect Arts through its partners Sh. Ajmal Khan and Sh. Mohd. Intzar as Mark A; and G. Photocopy of lease deed dated 08.08.2020 executed between M/s Sandeep Sekhri and M/s Technocat Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. as Mark B. H. Photocopy of Order under Section 176 of the DMC Act, 1957 as Ex.PW-1/X-A; and I. Photocopy of the Valuation Report dated 17.06.1993 as Ex.PW-1/X-B. (xlii) So far as the documents Mark A, Mark B, Ex.PW-1/X-A and Ex.PW-1/X-B are concerned, they are not only secondary evidence / photocopies qua which the requirement of Section 65 IEA has not been fulfilled but also the veracity / authenticity of the contents mentioned herein has not been established by examining the competent witness, a legal lacuna, which renders them inadmissible in law.
(xliii) Now coming to the income tax returns of the year 2020-21 and 2021-22 of plaintiff Sh. Sandeep Sekhri exhibited as Ex.PW-1/X-2 and Ex.PW-1/X-1 respectively. The aforesaid ITRs reflect that Sh.Sandeep Sekhri was having yearly income of Rs.8,27,000/- and Rs.8,47,630/- in the Assessment Years 2021-22 and 2020-21 respectively, which D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 23 /33 indicates availability of funds with him / capacity to make payment of the balance sale consideration to the defendant during the aforesaid time period.
(xliv) While the lease deed dated 10.03.2015 Ex.PW-1/X-3 through which a part of property at Naraina was rented out at the monthly rent of Rs.20,000/- for 11 months, the lease deed dated 10.10.2018 vide which part of Naraina property was rented out for five years at the monthly rent of Rs.30,000/- and it was agreed that the rent would be increased after expiry of 30 months @ 10% and the rent agreement dated 12.10.2018 Ex.PW-1/X-5 whereby part of Naraina property was rented out for a period of 15 years at the monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- with a 10% increase after 22 months, clearly reflect that from the year 2015, the plaintiff Sh. Sandeep Sekhri was having sufficient funds to make payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,95,000/- to defendant.
(xlv) At this stage, it is important to underline that the balance sale consideration was only Rs.1,95,000/-, which is a moderate amount.
(xlvi) Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the documents filed by the plaintiff during his cross examination establishes his financial potency to make payment of the balance sale consideration from the year 2015 till the time of passing of decree.
(xlvii) However, since the plaintiff is seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 16.12.2005 so he is required to establish his D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 24 /33 readiness / financial capacity to make payment of the balance sale consideration from that date itself till the date of passing of decree. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in N.P.Thirugnanam Vs. R.Jagan Mohan Rao, (1995) 5 SCC 115, wherein it was observed that in a claim for specific performance, right from the date of execution of contract till the date of passing of decree, the plaintiff must prove that he is ready and has always been willing to perform his part of the contract.
(xlviii) Now this Court would analyse the material available on record to determine as to whether plaintiff was having sufficient means for discharging his obligation under the agreement to sell in question prior to the year 2015 as well.
(xlix) This Court would also sift the record for ascertaining the financial capacity of Late Sh.D.P. Sekhri to make payment of the balance sale consideration during his lifetime.
(l) In his cross examination conducted on 07.04.2018, the plaintiff deposed that at the time of his death in the 2009, his father Late Sh. D.P. Sekhri was having rental income of Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/- per month and in the year 2005, his rental income was Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month.
(li) The aforesaid plea taken by PW-1 Sh.Sandeep Sekhri is material because if the same is factually correct and gets corroborated by the material available on record, it would lead to the conclusion that D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 25 /33 Sh.D.P. Sekhri was having funds / financial resources for making payment of the balance sale consideration since the date of execution.
(lii) However, the record reflects that during his cross examination, PW-1 admitted that no document except the bank statement Ex.PW-1/2, which is inadmissible in law has been filed to show the aforestated income of his father.
(liii) Moreover, during his cross examination when he was asked about the ITRs of his father for the year 2005-2006, he replied that he was not aware as to whether his father was an income tax payee at that time or not. In a nutshell, despite being challenged, PW-1 failed to produce any document for substantiating his claim of his father having rental income of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month in the year 2005.
(liv) So the statement made by PW-1 during his cross examination about his father's rental income during his lifetime especially from 2005 to 2009 is unsubstantiated, hollow and deserves rejection.
(lv) Besides the aforesaid lack of material establishing the alleged financial capacity of Late Sh. D.P. Sekhri, PW-1 made contradictory statements in his cross examination about the rental income of his father, suggesting non-availability of funds with Late Sh. D.P. Sekhri during his lifetime to make payment of the balance sale consideration.
(lvi) In his cross examination on 22.09.2022, PW-1 Sh. Sandeep Sekhri deposed that his father used to own two properties, one factory D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 26 /33 at B-62/8, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi and a residential flat at Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Upon being enquired further by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1, he stated that his father was earning rental income by letting out the aforesaid factory.
(lvii) But the aforesaid claim made by the plaintiff gets negated by his own admission made during his cross examination dated 07.04.2018 wherein he deposed that at the time of the execution of the receipt Ex.PW-1/1 dated 16.12.2005, his father was residing at B-62/8, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase II, Delhi, which is in stark contradiction to the answer given by him during his aforementioned cross examination on 22.09.2022, wherein he deposed that his father had rented out the factory at Naraina Industrial Area in the year 2005.
(lviii) So it can be deduced from the aforesaid statements given by the plaintiff himself that his claim regarding rental income of his father Late Sh. D.P. Sekhri in the year 2005 is false as admittedly at the relevant time he was using the factory at Naraina Industrial Area as his residence.
(lix) Briefly stating, the plaintiff has failed to prove the financial capacity of Late Sh. D.P. Sekhri to pay the balance sale consideration to defendant no.1, during his lifetime.
(lx) In furtherance of the discussion regarding the properties of the plaintiff, it is also important to highlight that he has not placed on record any title document which could establish his alleged ownership D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 27 /33 rights over the aforesaid two properties i.e. one factory at B-62/8, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi and one flat bearing no.117-B, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
(lxi) The aforesaid absence of title documents of the properties allegedly owned by the plaintiff becomes more prominent / suspicious in light of the admission made by PW-1 during his cross examination dated 23.12.2021 that at present he is residing in a rented accommodation and prior to that as well, he was living as a tenant.
(lxii) This Court has specifically highlighted the aforesaid aspect as the same indicates lack of resources / immovable properties with the plaintiff to arrange the outstanding sale consideration amount.
(lxiii) So the aforesaid discussion makes it plain that the plaintiff never had sufficient funds / resources to make payment of the balance sale consideration to defendant no.1.
(lxiv) An another important aspect of the present case which indicates absence of the element of readiness and willingness both on the part of the plaintiff was the conduct of the original plaintiff Late Sh. D.P. Sekhri in not coming forward on 16.03.2006 for making payment of the balance sale consideration to defendant no.1 on the pretext that she failed to show him the original title documents of the suit property.
(lxv) The plaintiff has set up his case upon the plea that the agreement to sell in question did not translate into a full-fledged sale translation as D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 28 /33 the defendant failed to show the title documents on or before 16.03.2006 as agreed between them.
(lxvi) However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court does not find the aforesaid plea taken by the plaintiff meritorious or legally tenable as the bare perusal of the receipt dated 16.12.2005 Ex.PW-1/1, which incorporates all the material terms and conditions of the transaction in question, reveals that no such pre- condition of showing the original title documents before execution of the sale deed was stipulated / specified.
(lxvii) The aforesaid alleged pre-condition of showing the original title deed of the suit property to the plaintiff prior to the execution of the sale deed is also barred by Section 91/92 of The Indian Evidence Act / 94/95 BSA, which clearly prescribes that when the terms of a contract have been proved, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement would be admitted for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms.
(lxviii) Even otherwise, it is hard to believe that Late Sh. D.P. Sekhri made payment of a substantial part of the sale consideration to the tune of Rs.50,000/- without satisfying himself about the title documents of the suit property.
(lxix) In the same vein, the filing of the present suit by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell in question, without seeing the title documents of the suit property, is also relevant D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 29 /33 as it contradicts his own version of not going forward with the sale of suit property on 16.03.2006 upon the premise that the original documents were not shown to him.
(lxx) Since it is a well settled position of law that the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff should be adjudged keeping in view the surrounding circumstances, conduct of the parties and factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the opinion that from the aforesaid conduct, it can be inferred that original plaintiff Late Sh. D.P. Sekhri neither had sufficient funds for making payment of the remaining sale consideration on 16.03.2006 nor the willingness to go ahead with the sale.
(lxxi) In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the element of readiness and willingness is completely missing on the part of the plaintiff to perform his obligation under the agreement to sell in question.
(lxxii) Besides the aforesaid discussion, this Court also wants to highlight that even otherwise the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Sandeep Sekhri is unreliable / untrustworthy as the same is infested with inconsistencies and contradictions on material aspects of the present case, rendering the same inadmissible in law as it is a well settled position of law that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 30 /33 in Suraj Mal Vs. The State (Delhi Administration), Crim. Appeal No.202 of 1974, dated 13.02.1979.
(lxxiii) For the sake of reference, PW-1 Sh. Sandeep Sekhri deposed in his cross examination dated 07.04.2018 that his father did not visit the office of the concerned Sub Registrar on the due date for the execution of the transfer documents of the suit property while during his deposition dated 22.09.2022, he changed his version and deposed that since the property dealer did not inform them about the absence of Smt. Soma Sachdeva, they went for the registration of the documents on the appointed date.
(lxxiv) In a nutshell, the testimony of PW-1 is dubious and does not inspire confidence.
(lxxv) Now coming to the remaining three pre-requisites of a decree for specific performance, this Court is of the opinion that since it has arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, which would by itself result into rejection of his claim seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell in question, the discussion regarding the remaining three pre-requisites has become redundant, having no practical utility.
(lxxvi) So the upshot of the abovesaid discussion is that the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell executed with the defendant qua the suit property.
D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 31 /33 (lxxvii) Accordingly, the point of determination stands decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff.
15.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction thereby injuncting the defendants, their representatives and agents from creating any kind of third party interest into the suit property?
(i) Since this Court has already arrived at the decision that plaintiff is not entitled to the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell in question, so as a natural corollary, the plaintiff does not have any right, title or interest in the suit property.
(ii) So this Court is of the opinion that defendants cannot be injuncted from creating any kind of third party interest into the suit property as being the owner of the same they have every right to deal with it as per their own sweet will and plaintiff has no right to interfere therein.
(iii) Accordingly, the point in hand is also decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.
16. RELIEF.
16.1. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal stands dismissed.
17. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 32 /33
18. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
19. Copy of the order alongwith TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court.
20. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedMANOJ by MANOJ KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Announced in the Open Court SHARMA Date: 2025.12.13 15:05:55 +0530 on 13th December, 2025. (Manoj Kumar Sharma) District Judge -07 THC/West/Delhi.
D.P.Sekhri (since deceased) Through LR Vs. Soma Sachdeva (since deceased) Through LRs.
Page: 33 /33