Delhi District Court
Pooja Arora vs Renu Arora on 11 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02 : NORTH ROHINI
COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI
CNR NO. DLNT01-000636-2022
CS DJ NO.59 - 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:-
SMT. POOJA ARORA
W/o Sh. Sachin Arora
R/o - D-988, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi-110025 .....Plaintiff
Versus
SMT. RENU ARORA (since deceased)
Represented through her heirs/ legal representatives:
1. MADAN LAL ARORA
S/o Late Sh. Hari Ram
2. ROHIT ARORA
S/o Sh. Madan Lal Arora
Both resident of M-1/3-C,
Model Town, Delhi-110009
Also at :
D-14-A-7, Third Floor,
Model Town-III,
Delhi - 110009 .....Defendants
Date of filing : 20.01.2022
Date of Conclusion of Argument : 11.03.2026
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM BALI
VIKRAM Date:
BALI 2026.03.11
16:56:32
+0530
CS DJ No.59 - 2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Arora Page No. 1 / 20
Date of Order / Judgment : 11.03.2026
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.46,19,616/- ALONGWITH
PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE INTEREST
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall decide the present suit filed by the plaintiff for Recovery of Rs.46,19,616/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest. Tersely put seller-plaintiff is aggrieved by non payment of sale consideration qua sale of immovable property.
PLAINTIFF's CASE
2. As per case of the plaintiff, Smt. Pooja Arora i.e. plaintiff was owner of property bearing No. D-14A/7, 3rd Floor, Model Town - III, Delhi - 110009. She sold the property to Smt, Renu Arora (original defendant) vide registered sale deed 02.04.2019. Check of Rs.55 lacs bearing No.709595 dated 27.03.2019 was given to the plaintiff. Same was presented for encashment. Same was returned unpaid with remarks 'payment stopped' by drawer on 04.05.2019.
3. Rs.10 lacs were later paid by way of part payment through RTGS by defendant to plaintiff on 30.11.2019.
4. Rs.5 lacs more were later paid by way of part payment through RTGS by defendant to plaintiff on 09.12.2019.
Digitally signed by VIKRAMVIKRAM BALI BALI Date:
2026.03.11 16:56:39 +0530 CS DJ 59-2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Gupta Page No. 2/20
5. Rs.5 lacs more were later paid by way of part payment through RTGS by defendant to plaintiff on 18.09.2020.
6. Thus, out of total sale consideration of Rs.55 lacs, Rs.35 lacs are still due from defendant towards plaintiff. Legal notice dated 09.06.2021 was served upon defendant but to no avail.
7. Plaintiff is seeking interest for pre suit period @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 02.05.2019 till date of filing of the suit. Same is Rs.11,19,616/-. Prayer in the suit is for Recovery of Rs.46,19,616/- with pendente-lite and future interest @ 12% per annum with costs.
SERVICE UPON DEFENDANTS
8. As per report of process server dated 30.03.2022, Smt. Renu Arora
- original defendant was stated to have died on 27.01.2022 (as intimated by her daughter in law).
9. Vide order dated 23.02.2023, the application of plaintiff to bring on record legal heirs of Smt. Renu Arora i.e. her husband Mr. Madan Lal Arora and Mr. Rohit, her son was allowed. Perusal of record shows that the legal heirs of Smt. Renu Arorai.e. her husband Mr. Madan Lal Arora and Mr. Rohit, her son were duly served on 22.07.2022.
CASE OF DEFENDANTS
10. Written statement on behalf of legal heirs of defendant dated 15.09.2023 is on record. In essence, it is case of the legal heirs of the Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2026.03.11 16:56:44 +0530 CS DJ No.59 - 2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Arora Page No. 3 / 20 defendant as per preliminary objection o 1 in written statement that,as agreed, Rs.35 lacs were paid by the defendant to the plaintiff against outstanding amount of Rs.55 lacs as there was defect in title of the plaintiff.
11. The stopping of cheque by IIFL is admitted. Execution of sale deed is admitted. Contrary to the preliminary submission in para 1 of the reply on merits, the ownership and possession of plaintiff is not denied.
12. Dismissal of suit is prayed for.
ISSUES
13. Following issues were framed by the court vide order dated 09.12.2024 :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.46,19,616/- ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite and future interest and if so, for what period, what rate and on what amount ? OPP
3. Whether the defendant has already paid Rs.35,00,000/- against outstanding amount of Rs.55,00,000/- ? OPD (this issue was re-
framed vide order dated 12.03.2025. Word 'paid' was added before Rs.35 lacs).
4. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
14. PW1 - Smt. Pooja Arora has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon following documents :-
S. No. Name of witness documents tendered
1. PW-1 Smt. Pooja Arora Photocopy of the Sale Deed Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2026.03.11 16:56:49 +0530 CS DJ 59-2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Gupta Page No. 4/20 dated 12/05/2017 executed by Smt. Asha Gupta in my favour (However, this document has been admitted by the defendant in Para No. 2 of the Written Statement) as Mark-1 ;
photocopy of the Sale Deed dated 30/03/2012 executed by Sh. Om Prakash in favour of Smt. Asha Gupta as Mark - 2 ;
Certified copy of the Sale Deed executed by me in favour of Smt. Renu Arora (Deceased defendant) & registered vide registration no. 6713, Book No. I, Volume No. 8349 at pages 108 to 116 on 04/05/2019 in the Office of Sub-Registrar - VI A, New Delhi (already admitted by the defendants in the affidavit of admission-denial dated 11/09/2024) as Ex.PW1/1 (08 Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2026.03.11 16:56:55 +0530 CS DJ No.59 - 2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Arora Page No. 5 / 20 pages, colly) ;
Statement of Account No.9812658287 maintained by me in Kotak Mahendra Bank, D
- 960, New Friends Colony, New Delhi taken by me from my Bank in respect of which transactions dated 04/05/2019 and 09/12/2019 are admitted by the defendants in their affidavit of admission-denial. The return of cheque no. 709595, dated 27/03/2019 in the sum of Rs.
55,00,000/- unpaid is shown at point 'A' in my statement of account Ex. PW1/2 which has been admitted by the defendants in the affidavit of admission-
denial of documents dated 11/09/2024. The payment of Rs.
10,00,000/- made by Smt. Renu Arora (Deceased defendant) to Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM BALI BALI Date:
2026.03.11 16:57:01 +0530 CS DJ 59-2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Gupta Page No. 6/20 me through RTGS on 30/11/2019 is shown at point 'B' and further payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by Smt. Renu Arora (Deceased defendant) to me through RTGS on 09/12/2019 is shown at point 'C' which has been admitted by the defendants in the affidavit of admission-denial of documents and further payment of Rs.
5,00,000/- made by Smt. Renu Arora (Deceased defendant) to me through RTGS on 18/09/2020 is shown at point 'D' in my Statement of Account as Ex.
PW1/2 ;
Demand Notice dated 09/06/2021 served upon the Smt. Renu Arora (Deceased defendant) as Ex.PW1/3 ;
Postal Receipts are as Ex.PW1/4 Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2026.03.11 16:57:06 +0530 CS DJ No.59 - 2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Arora Page No. 7 / 20 (colly, 04 in numbers) ;
Two Courier Receipts are as Ex.PW1/5 ;
Tracking Consignment taken from the official website of Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication are as Ex.PW1/6 (02 page, colly) ;
Track Shipment Status/consignment status & DTDC showing service of demand notice dated 09/06/2021 as Ex.PW1/7
2. PW2 - Sh. Ashok Parashar, Sale Deed bearing Registration Senior Assistant, Office of No. 6713, Book No. 1, Volume Sub-Registrar, VI - A, Pitam No. 8349, on pages 108-116, Pura, Delhi - 110085.
dated 04/05/2019 executed by Smt. Pooja Arora in favour of Smt. Renu Arora. The certified copy of which brought by him as Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2026.03.11 16:57:12 +0530 CS DJ 59-2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Gupta Page No. 8/20 Ex. PW2/1 (colly.) (OSR) ;
Sale Deed bearing Registration No. 4029, Book No. 1, Volume No. 4083, on pages 11-18 dated 31/03/2012, executed by Sh. Om Parkash Gulati in favour of Smt. Asha Gupta. The certified copy of which bought by him as Ex.
PW2/2 (colly.) (OSR) ;
Sale Deed bearing Registration No. 5203, Book No. 1, Volume No. 6867 from pages 110-117, dated 13/05/2017 executed by Smt. Asha Gupta in favour of Smt. Pooja Arora. The certified copy of which bought by him as Ex. PW2/3 (colly.) (OSR) ;
Digitally signed by VIKRAMVIKRAM BALI BALI Date:
2026.03.11 16:57:17 +0530 CS DJ No.59 - 2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Arora Page No. 9 / 20
15. PW-1 and PW-2 were not cross-examined despite opportunity.
Cross-examination on behalf of defendant was treated as Nil opportunity given.
16. PE was closed on 15.12.2025.
17. No DE was led. None appeared on behalf of defendant on 08.05.2025 and 17.09.2025. Defendant was proceeded ex-parte on 05.12.2025 on which date also, none appeared on behalf of the defendant.
18. Court has carefully heard counsel for the plaintiff. Case record has been perused.
ISSUE WISE SUBMISSIONS RAISED AND FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER
19. Issue no. 1 is :
" Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.46,19,616/- ? OPP.
20. The original owner was Sh. Om Prakash Gulati. He had sold the same to Smt. Asha Gupta vide sale deed dated 31.03.2012 as Ex.PW2/2 (colly).
21. Smt. Asha Gupta sold the property to Smt. Pooja Arora - plaintiff vide sale deed dated 13.05.2017 as Ex.PW2/3 (colly).
22. Smt. Pooja Arora sold the property to Smt. Renu Arora vide sale deed dated 04.05.2019 as Ex.PW2/1 (colly).
Digitally signedVIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2026.03.11 16:57:22 +0530 CS DJ 59-2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Gupta Page No. 10/20
23. These sale deeds have been proved by PW-2 Sh. Ashok Parashar, Senior Assistant, office of Sub-Registrar, VI-A, Pitampura, Delhi. The ownership of plaintiff and possession has been admitted in para no.1 of reply on merits by legal heirs of defendant.
24. It is further argued that legal heirs of defendant have admitted execution of sale deed by plaintiff in favour of Smt. Renu Arora in para no.4 of written statement of legal heirs of defendant.
25. It is further argued by the Counsel for plaintiff that the stopping of payment by IIFL stands admitted in para 1 of the preliminary objections in written statement by legal heirs of deceased defendant.
26. It is further argued by the Counsel for plaintiff that in affidavit of admission / denial of documents, filed on behalf of defendant dated 11.09.2024, the transaction of 04.05.2019 is admitted. Ex.PW1/2 shows transaction of 04.05.2019 vide which payment of Rs.55 lacs was stopped by Drawer.
27. It is further argued by the Counsel for plaintiff that vide Ex.PW1/1 (colly) i.e. Sale Deed dated 02.04.2019, it is proved that sale consideration of Rs.55 lacs was given by way of cheque by IIFL on behalf of vende (internal page 4 of the sale deed). It is argued that since, payment was not credited in account of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to the sale consideration after deduction of part payments received later (point B of Rs.10 lacs, point C of Rs.5 lacs, point D of Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM BALI BALI Date:
2026.03.11 16:57:27 +0530 CS DJ No.59 - 2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Arora Page No. 11 / 20 Rs.5 lacs in Ex.PW1/2 which is account statement of Smt. Pooja Arora - plaintiff).
28. It is further argued by the Counsel for plaintiff that the stand of the defendant that Rs.35 lacs have been paid to the plaintiff, is not proved. No defence evidence was led. Adverse inference ought to be inferred against the defendant. Reliance is placed upon case titled as Iqbal Basith And Others (S) v. N. Subbalakshmi And Others (S), 2020 INSC 696, it was held that:
"...Having not entered into the witness box and having not presented himself for cross-examination, an adverse presumption has to be drawn against him on the basis of the principles contained in Illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872...."
29. It is further argued by the Counsel for plaintiff that even witnesses of the plaintiff were not cross-examined. Stand of the plaintiff has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
30. It is argued by the counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff was the owner of property i.e. D-14A/7, 3rd Floor, Model Town, III, Delhi - 110009.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 131. Tersely put, it is case of the plaintiff that sale consideration has not been received by her from the the original defendant (now deceased through her legal heirs). Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI Date:
BALI 2026.03.11 16:57:33 +0530 CS DJ 59-2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Gupta Page No. 12/20
32. Perusal of record shows that original owner of property i.e. D-14A/7, 3rd Floor, Model Town - III, Delhi - 110009 was Sh. Om Prakash Gulati. He had sold the same to Smt. Asha Gupta vide sale deed dated 31.03.2012 as Ex.PW2/2 (colly).
33. Perusal of record shows that Smt. Asha Gupta sold the property to Smt. Pooja Arora - plaintiff vide sale deed dated 13.05.2017 as Ex.PW2/3 (colly).
34. Perusal of record shows that Smt. Pooja Arora sold the property to Smt. Renu Arora vide sale deed dated 04.05.2019 as Ex.PW2/1 (colly).
35. Perusal of record shows that these sale deeds have been proved by PW-2 Sh. Ashok Parashar, Senior Assistant, office of Sub-Registrar, VI- A, Pitampura, Delhi. The ownership of plaintiff and possession has been admitted in para no.1 of reply on merits by legal heirs of defendant.
36. Perusal of record shows that legal heirs of defendant have admitted execution of sale deed by plaintiff in favour of Smt. Renu Arora in para no.4 of written statement of legal heirs of defendant.
37. Perusal of record shows that stopping of payment by IIFL stands admitted in para 1 of the preliminary objections in written statement by legal heirs of deceased defendant.
38. Perusal of record shows that in affidavit of admission / denial of documents, filed on behalf of defendant dated 11.09.2024, the transaction of 04.05.2019 is admitted. Ex.PW1/2 shows transaction of 04.05.2019 vide which payment of Rs.55 lacs was stopped by Drawer.
Digitally signedVIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI Date:
BALI 2026.03.11 16:57:38 +0530 CS DJ No.59 - 2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Arora Page No. 13 / 20
39. Perusal of record shows that vide Ex.PW1/1 (colly) i.e. Sale Deed dated 02.04.2019, it is proved that sale consideration of Rs.55 lacs was given by way of cheque by IIFL on behalf of vende (internal page 4 of the sale deed). It is rightly argued that since, payment was not credited in account of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to the sale consideration after deduction of part payments received later (point B of Rs.10 lacs, point C of Rs.5 lacs, point D of Rs.5 lacs in Ex.PW1/2 which is account statement of Smt. Pooja Arora - plaintiff).
40. The balance principal amount due to the plaintiff is Rs.55 lacs minus Rs.20 lacs i.e. Rs.35 lacs.
41. It is further rightly argued by the Counsel for plaintiff that the stand of the defendant that Rs.35 lacs have been paid to the plaintiff, is not proved. No defence evidence was led. Adverse inference ought to be inferred against the defendant. Reliance is rightly placed upon case titled as Iqbal Basith And Others (S) v. N. Subbalakshmi And Others (S), 2020 INSC 696, it was held that:
"...Having not entered into the witness box and having not presented himself for cross-examination, an adverse presumption has to be drawn against him on the basis of the principles contained in Illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872...."
42. Perusal of record shows that even witnesses of the plaintiff were not cross-examined. Case of the plaintiff has gone unrebutted and unchallenged.
Digitally signedVIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2026.03.11 16:57:43 +0530 CS DJ 59-2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Gupta Page No. 14/20
43. It is rightly argued by the counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff was the owner of property i.e. D-14A/7, 3 rd Floor, Model Town, III, Delhi - 110009.Plaintiff sold property to defendant but was deprived of sale consideration by defndant.
44. In view of the above, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to Rs.35 lacs on account of principal sum due.
45. Issue No. 2 is :
" Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite and future interest and if so, for what period, what rate and on what amount ? OPP"
PRE SUIT INTEREST
46. Counsel for the plaintiff contends that legal notice dated 09.06.2021 as Ex.PW1/3 was given. Postal Receipt as PW1/4 (colly) are also relied. In legal notice, claim is of interest @ 24% per annum. Plaintiff claimed interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 02.05.2019 till filing of present suit on 20.01.2022 which comes to Rs.11,19,616/-.
47. It is further argued by the counsel for the plaintiff that claim of Rs.11,19,616/- is justified as plaintiff has been denied possession the property sold as well as sale consideration.
PENDENTELITE AND FUTURE INTEREST Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2026.03.11 16:57:49 +0530 CS DJ No.59 - 2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Arora Page No. 15 / 20
48. It is argued by the counsel for the plaintiff that same may be granted as per discretion of the court.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 2Interest:
PRINCIPAL SUM HELD PAYABLE BY DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF
49. On the strength of the findings returned above plaintiff has successful proved entitlement to Rs.35 lacs on account of principal sum.
PRE SUIT INTEREST
50. Interest for a period prior to the commencement of suit is claimable either under an agreement, or usage of trade or under a statutory provision or under the Interest Act, for a sum certain where notice is given. Interest is also awarded in some cases by Courts of equity. (Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. v. Ruttanji Ramji [LR 65 AI 66]).
INTEREST ACT
51. Interest may be allowed from the date when the debt is payable. As per Sec.3(1)(b) of Interest Act, if proceedings do not relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, then the Court Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2026.03.11 16:57:55 +0530 CS DJ 59-2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Gupta Page No. 16/20 may allow interest from the date mentioned in this regard in the written notice given by the person entitled.
52. It is held that there was no stipulation in the agreement between the parties regarding payment of interest. So, present case falls under Sec.3 (1) (b) of Interest Act. The plaintiff could be awarded interest from the date of written notice of demand. Legal Notice dated 09.06.2021 as Ex. PW1/3 was given on behalf of plaintiff seeking interest @ 24% per annum. Same is equivalent to 'written notice' as contemplated under Sec.3(1)(b) of Interest Act.
53. It is held that the plaintiff is entitled to claim pre suit interest w.e.f. 09.06.2021. Though the plaintiff has claimed interest @ 24% pa, but this it is on the higher side. The ends of justice would be sufficiently met if plaintiff is granted interest (pre suit) @ 18% per annum i.e. from 09.06.2021 (date of legal notice vide Ex.PW1/3) till date of suit i.e. 20.01.2022. (Reliance is placed upon case no RFA No. 12 of 2018 titled as Ram Babu Aggarwal v. Shreya Developwell Pvt. Ltd., decided by Hon'ble DELHI HIGH COURT in on 5.1.2018).
54. As per calcuation pre suit interest comes to Rs.3,88,356.
PRINCIPAL SUM ADJUDGED
55. Principal sum adjudged will be the principal sum held payable by defendant to plaintiff plus pre suit interest as directed above(reliance is Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI Date:
BALI 2026.03.11 16:58:00 +0530 CS DJ No.59 - 2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Arora Page No. 17 / 20 placed upon case titled as Central Bank Of India vs Ravindra And Ors decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 18 October, 2001) PENDENT-LITE PERIOD
56. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 34 C.P.C. in considered opinion of the court pendentelite interest at the rate of 6% per annum on principal sum adjudged(the principal sum held payable by defendant to plaintiff plus pre suit interest) will meet the ends of justice.
FUTURE INTEREST
57. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 34 C.P.C. in considered opinion of the court future interest till realization at the rate of 6% per annum on principal sum adjudged (the principal sum held payable by defendant to plaintiff plus pre suit interest) will meet the ends of justice as transaction between parties is not commercial. Issue no.2 is decided in favour of plaintiff in above terms.
58. Issue No. 3 is :
"Whether the defendant has already Rs.35,00,000/- against outstanding amount of Rs.55,00,000/- ? OPD (this issue was re- framed vide order dated 12.03.2025. Word 'paid' was added before Rs.35 lacs).Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2026.03.11 16:58:06 +0530 CS DJ 59-2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Gupta Page No. 18/20
59. Counsel for the plaintiff adopts his submissions raised while arguing issue no.1.
FINDINGS ON ISSUE NO. 360. Defendant has not proved that he had made payment of Rs.35 lacs as alleged to the plaintiff. No D.E. was lead. Plaintiff evidence remained unchallenged.
61. In view of findings on issue no.1, the present issue is decided against the defendant on whom the onus lay.
62. Issue no.3 is decided against the defendant.
RELIEF
63. Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs, subject to limitations as provided by law. Plaintiff is entitled to :
a. Rs.35 lacs on account of principal sum. b. Plaintiff is granted interest (pre suit) @ 18% per annum i.e. from 09.06.2021 till date of suit i .e. 20.01.2022 amounting to Rs.3,88,356/-.
c. Plaintiff is entitled to pendentelite and future interest @ 6% per annum till realization on the principal sum adjudged (principal sum held payable by defendants to plaintiff plus pre suit interest).
64. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedVIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2026.03.11 16:58:13 +0530 CS DJ No.59 - 2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Arora Page No. 19 / 20
65. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of this order to the defendants.
Digitally signedVIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2026.03.11 16:58:26 +0530 (VIKRAM BALI) DISTRICT JUDGE-02, NORTH Announced in the open Court. ROHINI COURT COMPLEX, ROHINI (Order contains 20 pages) DELHI/11.03.2026 CS DJ 59-2022 Pooja Arora vs. Renu Gupta Page No. 20/20