Delhi District Court
Rahul Khandelwa And Ors vs Sunita on 16 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF NAVEEN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-09
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-003017-2020
CS DJ No. 356/2020
In the matter of:-
1. RAHUL KHANDELWAL
S/o Sh. Pradeep Khandelwal,
2. Maya Devi
W/o Sh. Pradeep Khandelwal,
Both R/o WZ-91, First Floor,
Ram Nagar Ext. Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi -110018. ..... Plaintiffs
VERSUS
SUNITA
W/o Sh. Dharam Bir,
KG-1, 305, First Floor,
Vikas Puri,
New Delhi - 110018. ..... Defendant
Date of institution : 03.09.2020
Reserved for Judgment : 09.09.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 16.09.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.7,00,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant.
CS DJ 356/2020 Page no. 1/16 Digitally signed by NAVEENNAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.16 16:53:34 +0530
2. Succinctly put, the case of plaintiffs is that the defendant approached them with request for a loan of Rs.8,00,000/- and in turn, she agreed to hand over the possession of property bearing no. WZ-91, First Floor (without roof rights), Ram Nagar Extension, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'the mortgaged property') as security for the said amount. Thereafter, the plaintiffs gave a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to her vide agreement dated 29.09.2017 and a receipt was also signed in this regard. It was agreed by the defendant that the loan amount would be returned back to the plaintiffs within two years and in turn, they would vacate the premises on repayment of the loan amount. Simultaneously, it was agreed that the plaintiffs could live in the said property without paying any rent to the defendant. After completion of the period of two years, the plaintiffs requested the defendant to take back the possession of the said property and repay the loan amount, but the defendant did not pay any heed to the said request. Thereafter, the plaintiffs sent a legal notice dated 17.03.2020 to the defendant, but she failed to repay the loan amount to them. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit praying for decree of Rs.7,00,000/- with pendente lite interest @18% per annum from October 2017.
3. In her written statement, the defendant has raised preliminary objection that the plaintiffs had not paid any amount against electricity and water charges of the mortgaged property from the date of execution of the said mortgaged deed dated 29.09.2017. Hence, the plaintiffs were liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards electricity charges as per the sub-meter of electricity installed at the said property. The plaintiffs were also liable to pay a sum of Rs.42,000/- for water charges i.e. CS DJ 356/2020 Page no. 2/16 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.16 16:53:43 +0530 Rs.300/- per month for six years. Further, the defendant approached the plaintiffs several times to hand over the said property back to her. Moreover, after receiving the legal notice, the defendant replied through her Counsel. It was the plaintiffs who never responded to the defendant on one pretext or the other just to usurp the said property. The defendant has further submitted that she, through her son, had transferred a total amount of Rs.33,000/- in the account of plaintiff no. 1 and it was agreed that the last entry of Rs.5,000/- was paid as token to the plaintiffs as he had assured that he would start vacating the premises and also start paying rent of the premises. The defendant has further submitted that she was ready and willing to pay an amount of Rs.5,25,000/- subject to handing over of the physical and vacant possession of the mortgaged property. She has prayed that the present suit shall be dismissed with direction to the plaintiffs to pay the statutory charges and after deduction, take the above amount of Rs.5,25,000/- and hand over the possession of the suit property to her.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 07.02.2024:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs.7,00,000/-, as prayed? OPP (2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form? OPD (3) Relief.
5. In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff no.1 as PW-1. In his evidence affidavit Ex.PW-1/1, he submitted on the CS DJ 356/2020 Page no. 3/16 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.16 16:53:51 +0530 similar lines as stated by the plaintiffs in their plaint. He relied upon following documents in his evidence:
(i) Special Power of Attorney executed by Smt. Maya Devi (plaintiff no.2) in favor of plaintiff no.1/PW-1, Ex.PW-1/A.
(ii) Copy of Aadhar Cards of plaintiffs, Ex.PW-1/B.
(iii) Agreement to sell and receipt dated 29.09.2017, Ex.PW-1/C.
(iv) Legal Notice dated 17.03.2020 alongwith postal receipts, Ex.PW- 1/D.
(v) Copy of bank statement of plaintiff no. 2, Ex.PW-1/E. PW-1 has been cross-examined on behalf of the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 13.08.2024.
6. To prove her defence, the defendant examined her son/SPA namely Sh. Partik Mangi as DW-1. In his evidence affidavit Ex.DW-1/A, he submitted on the similar lines as stated by the defendant in her written statement. He relied upon following documents in his evidence:
(i) Special Power of Attorney [executed by defendant in favor of DW-1], Ex.DW-1/A.
(ii) Copy of Aadhar Card, Ex.DW-1/B. DW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the defendant's evidence was closed on 01.09.2025.
7. Final arguments are heard from Ld. respective Counsels of the parties. The record has been perused. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has CS DJ 356/2020 Page no. 4/16 Digitally signed NAVEEN by NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.09.16 16:53:58 +0530 argued that the defendant has admitted the receipt of Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiffs. Further, she has also admitted the execution of mortgage agreement dated 29.09.2017, whereby as per clause '4', the mortgagee (plaintiffs) would not pay any monthly rent to the mortgagor (defendant) and so also the mortgagor would not pay any interest to the mortgagee. Further, as per clause '9', the defendant was to pay back the said amount to the plaintiffs and then, the plaintiffs would hand over the vacant possession of the said property back to the defendant. But, the defendant did not repay the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the plaintiffs within two years from the date of execution of mortgage agreement. Further, the defendant has not proved the payment of Rs.33,000/- to the plaintiffs in accordance with the applicable provisions of the law. Further, as per clause '5' of the mortgage agreement, the defendant was required to provide separate electricity meter for the mortgaged premises, but she did not do so. Hence, the plaintiffs are not liable to pay electricity charges for the said premises. Even otherwise, the defendant has not placed on record any electricity or water bill to show the liability of plaintiffs against the said bills. Thus, the plaintiffs have proved their case.
8. On other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that admittedly, the plaintiffs have not paid any electricity or water charges in respect of the mortgaged premises. The plaintiffs have not mentioned receipt of payment of Rs.33,000/- from the defendant against the said loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/-, thus, they have not come to the Court with clean hands. Further, the plaintiffs did not examine Smt. Maya Devi/Plaintiff no. 2, who was one of the parties to the mortgage agreement. Accordingly, the present suit shall be dismissed.
CS DJ 356/2020 Page no. 5/16 Digitally signed by NAVEENNAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.16 16:54:05 +0530
9. Issue-wise findings are as follows:
Issue no. 2 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form? OPD This issue has been taken up first, as this is a legal issue. Firstly, none of the parties has advanced arguments on this issue. Moreover, the defendant neither led any evidence nor put any question to PW-1 relating to this aspect. The present case is based upon the mortgage agreement dated 29.09.2017 and receipt, Ex.PW-1/C. Vide the said mortgage agreement, the plaintiffs had paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the defendant and in turn, the defendant handed over the possession of the mortgaged property to them. But, the parties did not get the said mortgage deed registered. Now, the question arises as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get recovery of the said amount of Rs.7,00,000/- through filing of suit for recovery of money, on the basis of said unregistered mortgage deed.
10. At this stage, the Court stands guided with the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Umde Bhojram v. Wadla Gangadhar, 2004 (2) ALD 339, after analysing several decisions of various High Courts, has observed that:
13. In Karan Raj v. Chunnilal, a single Bench of the Rajasthan High Court while dealing with Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 held that an unregistered mortgage deed may be received as evidence of personal obligation to pay the debt for the purpose of granting a simple money decree.CS DJ 356/2020 Page no. 6/16 Digitally signed by NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.16 16:54:11 +0530
14. According to the above rulings, a document required to be registered but not registered can be used as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by a registered document and it prohibits only the user of the documents for establishing any right, title or interest to or any immovable property.
15. In Pulaka Vetil Muthalakulangara Kunhu Moidin and Ors. v.
Thiruthipalli Madhava Memon and Ors., 19 MLJ 584 (FB), a Full Bench of the Madras High Court held that a document which contains a personal covenant to pay a debt and which purports to mortgage immovable property as a security for the debt is, if attested by two witnesses as required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, admissible in evidence to prove the personal covenant, notwithstanding the fact that it is not registered.
16. In Khantamoni Dassi v. Biswa Nath, AIR 1933 Cal. 768, the Calcutta High Court held as follows:
Even though a bond, which ought to be registered, is not registered, the promisee can rely on the simple contract contained in the bond for personal covenant to repay; but the suit on such simple covenant cannot affect the immovable property in the subject-matter of the bond.
17. In Sanjya v. Chauthmal, the Rajasthan High Court held as follows:
As the document was not registered as required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, there was no transaction of mortgage at all and it could not be admitted in evidence even for the limited purpose of proving the receipt of consideration in view of Section 17(1)
(c) read with Section 49 of the Registration Act.
18. In Habib Dar v. Smt. Zoona Bhibi, AIR 1965 J&K 48, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court held:
Where the defendant in a suit presented unregistered document inadmissible in evidence under Section 49 and wish to use the same merely to prove the admission of the executant to have received money, which was a clear defence to plaintiff's suit.
19. In Mon Koch v. Smt Guneshwari Bora and Ors., AIR 1968 Assam and Nagaland 10, the Gauhati High Court held that a mortgage deed securing debt of Rs. 500/-, but not registered, is inadmissible to prove the mortgage, but can be relied on for the purpose of proving personal covenant to repay the debt when it is severable from other parts of document.
CS DJ 356/2020 Page no. 7/16 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.16
16:54:18 +0530
20. In Mangal Singh v. Tek Ram, the Delhi High Court held as follows:
Under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, a document compulsorily registrable, not registered can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose of showing nature of possession subsequent to execution of the document.
21. In Sardar Amar Singh v. Smt. Surinder Kaur, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held as follows:
Section 49 of the Registration Act does not say that an unregistered document which is required to be registered shall not be received in evidence. The only bar is that such a document cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the property. As a matter of fact, the proviso to Section 49 clearly empowers the Courts to admit any unregistered document as evidence of collateral transaction not required to be registered.
22. In Bhavanarayana v. Official Receiver, 1971 (II) ALT 39, this Court held as follows:
Here a deposit of title deeds was made by a letter in which it was mentioned why the document was deposited. There is nothing but the letter to connect the deposit with the debt. The letter does not show that it is merely evidential of something which either had already been done earlier or to be done in future. Therefore, by Ex.A.7 the bargain was reduced into writing and it embodied the contract of the contract of the mortgage itself between the parties. If that is so, Ex.A7 required registration and not having been registered, it cannot be used in evidence at all and the transaction cannot also be proved by oral evidence either.
23. In B. Narayanamma v. Ramaiah, (1975) 2 APLJ 298, the AP High Court held as follows:
An unregistered document of transfer which is required to be registered and not registered is admissible in evidence to prove the date of entering into and the fact of possession of the transferee and to show the character of his possession. Though an unregistered document required to be registered under law is, not admissible in evidence to claim any right under it, it would be admissible in evidence for a collateral purpose i.e., for a purpose other than that for which the document was created.
24. In State Bank of India v. Smt. B. Laxmamma, 1975 (1) APLJ 252 (HC), a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act held that the unregistered letters CS DJ 356/2020 Page no. 8/16 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.16 16:54:24 +0530 of guarantee executed by the surety in favour of the Bank for the amounts borrowed by the borrower giving immovable property as collateral security are enforceable to the extent of personal guarantee of the surety.
25. In L. Yadava Reddy v. Anasuyanuna and Ors., 1977 APHCN 166, the A.P. High Court held that the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case, and as such an unregistered usufructuary mortgage, executed by the defendant, is admissible in evidence to prove the collateral transaction viz., the borrowal by the defendant by which he agreed to pay the amount borrowed.
26. In Hari Waman v. Pappula Narsimulu, a learned Single Judge of this Court while dealing with the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act held that an unregistered usufructuary mortgage deed is admissible in evidence to show the nature and character of possession. The order refusing to admit such document in evidence is liable to be set aside.
27. As per the above decisions of various High Courts, including this Court, an unregistered mortgage deed can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose of recovery of money covered by an unregistered mortgage deed without touching upon the right regarding the property when there is a personal covanent to repay the debt, which is severable from other parts of the document.
28. The learned Counsel for the respondent-defendant relied on a judgment of this Court in P. Narayana Rao v. Smt. K. Venu Kumari, wherein a Single Judge of this Court held that unregistered simple mortgage deed, not disclosing any covenant undertaking to discharge liability personally by mortgagor without reference to mortgaged property is not admissible in evidence to prove the borrowing and the suit on the basis of such document is not maintainable.
29. In the above decision, the learned Judge made the position clear that if the document in question contains a covenant whereby the executant undertakes to discharge the liability personally and without reference to the mortgaged property and if that document is not registered, still it can be admitted in evidence for the purpose of proving the personal liability and the borrowing. But, since the document referred in the case covered by the above decision does not contain any covenant undertaking to discharge the liability personally without reference to the mortgaged property, the Court held that the document is not admissible in evidence to prove the borrowing also.
CS DJ 356/2020 Page no. 9/16 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.16
16:54:30 +0530
30. In the light of the principle laid down by the majority of the Courts, I am also of the view that an unregistered simple mortgage deed disclosing any covenant undertaking to discharge the liability personally by the mortgagor without reference to the mortgaged property is admissible in evidence to prove the suit debt.
31. In the case on hand, the relevant portion of the unregistered simple mortgage deed dated 10-10-1996 reads as follows:
.... by this deed I agree that I will repay the entire amount prior to Ugadi 1997 and will get back my land and this document. If in case of my failure to repay the amount, the period of agreement will be extended for one more year automatically. Till the amount is repaid, I or my legal heirs or successors will not claim any right in possession, if any. Such claim if made will be null and void and its entire responsibility will be mine.
32. The lower Court after going through the said document observed that there is no covenant undertaking to discharge the liability personally without reference to the mortgage property and from the above recital it cannot be said that the executant agreed to pay the money personally. The lower Court erred in not taking into consideration the above underlined portions of the unregistered simple mortgage deed regarding the personal undertaking given by the executant. Since the suit is for recovery of money covered by the claim, it can be marked for collateral purpose for the recovery of money. The order of the lower Court is therefore liable to be set aside.
11. It is worth noting that vide receipt Ex.PW-1/C, the defendant had acknowledged to have received Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiffs for mortgage of the said property. Furthermore, clause '8' of the mortgage agreement Ex.PW-1/C states that 'the mortgagor shall pay back the said amount to the mortgagee within two years from the date of execution of the mortgage'. Thus, the mortgagor (defendant) had made herself bound to return the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- within a specified time limit i.e. within two years from the date of execution of the mortgage agreement. The above precedent would be squarely applicable in the present case. Accordingly, the present suit is maintainable in its present form.
CS DJ 356/2020 Page no. 10/16 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.16
16:54:38 +0530
Further, since the suit is for recovery of money covered by the claim, the mortgage agreement can be marked for collateral purpose for the recovery of money. Thus, issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
12. Issue No. 1Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs.7,00,000/-, as prayed? OPP The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. It is the case of plaintiffs that on 29.09.2017, an agreement was executed between them and defendant, whereby they agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the defendant, who in turn, handed over the possession of the mortgaged property to them. The defendant has agreed to repay the said amount within two years from the date of execution of the said agreement. In their written statement, the defendant has admitted to have received Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiffs. However, she has claimed that the plaintiffs had not paid any amount against the electricity and water charges of the mortgaged property from the date of execution of mortgage deed dated 29.09.2017. Thus, the plaintiffs were liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards electricity charges and Rs.42,000/- for water charges. She has further stated that she had transferred Rs.33,000/- in the account of plaintiff no. 1 through her son.
13. During his cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that the document Ex.PW-1/C was a mortgage deed and not an agreement to sell. He deposed that he was residing at first floor of WZ-91, Ram Nagar Extension. He admitted the suggestion that he had not paid electricity bills and water bills of the said property and the same were CS DJ 356/2020 Page no. 11/16 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.16 16:54:46 +0530 paid by the defendant. He denied the suggestion that he had paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the defendant at the time of mortgage of the said property. He further admitted that the defendant had paid Rs.33,000/- to him. However, he voluntarily stated that the said amount was paid by her for different purposes. He admitted the suggestion put to him that the defendant was ready to pay the security amount after deducting the water and electricity bills till date.
14. It is worth noting that during cross-examination of PW-1/Plaintiff no. 1, the defendant could not create any doubt regarding the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- given by the plaintiffs to her against handing over of the possession of the mortgaged property. Further, no doubt could be created on the version of PW-1 that it had been agreed by the defendant that the said loan amount was to be returned back by her within two years of the date of execution of the mortgage agreement dated 29.09.2017, Ex.PW-1/C. So far as claim of defendant of having paid Rs.33,000/- as part re-payment of loan amount is concerned, PW-1 admitted the receipt of the said amount. But, he voluntarily stated that the said amount was paid for different purpose. It is pertinent to note that he did not clarify/explain as to for what different purpose, the said amount had been paid to him by the son of defendant. Further, surprisingly, the defendant did not put to PW-1 the amount of electricity and water charges liable to be paid by the plaintiffs in respect of the mortgaged property.
15. On other hand, the son of defendant/DW-1 during his cross- examination, deposed that his mother had executed a mortgage agreement with the plaintiffs. He identified the signatures of his mother CS DJ 356/2020 Page no. 12/16 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.16 16:54:52 +0530 on the mortgage agreement, Ex.PW-1/C and also on the receipt of acknowledgment of payment of Rs.7,00,000/-. He further deposed that the payment of Rs.7,00,000/- was received by his mother. No separate electricity meter was installed by his mother in the premises in which the plaintiff was living. During his cross-examination, DW-1 produced the record of account statement of his brother, whereby amount of Rs.7,000/- was transferred to plaintiff on 14.10.2019, Rs.7,000/- on 30.10.2019, Rs.7,000/- on 11.12.2019 and Rs.7,000/- on 18.01.2020.
Further, an amount of Rs.5,000/- was transferred by defendant to the plaintiff on 02.08.2020. DW-1 denied the suggestion that defendant was supposed to provide the separate electricity meter for the premises in possession of the plaintiff. He further denied the suggestion that had the defendant got separate electricity meter installed at the premises, the plaintiff would have received zero electricity bill according to the policy of GNCTD. He voluntarily stated that it could not have been possible as the plaintiff had AC, Refrigerator and cooler at the said premises. DW-1 further deposed that there was a common electricity meter for first and third floor of the premises, out of which, first floor was with the plaintiff and third floor was with them [defendant]. For some time, they had brought one sub-meter installed for first floor. They made payment of almost 2-2.5 lacs amount of electricity bills since the year 2017. There was water meter installed at the premises. There were almost 1-1.5 lacs amount due against the said water meter. As and when, there would be amnesty scheme of Delhi Jal Board, they would clear the said dues. DW-1 further deposed that there was one tenant at third floor of the premises since the year 2017.
CS DJ 356/2020 Page no. 13/16 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.09.16
16:55:00 +0530
16. Thus, the plaintiffs could not create any doubt on the version of DW-1 about transfer/payment of Rs.33,000/- by/on behalf of defendant to the plaintiffs against the said loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. So far as payment of electricity and water charges of the mortgaged property by the plaintiffs is concerned. Clause '5' of the mortgage agreement, Ex.PW-1/C states that 'the mortgagee shall pay the electricity charges and water charges as per bill and separate electricity meter provided by first party within one month'. First of all, the defendant has not placed on record the copies of electricity bills as well as of water bills relating to the said property, which had been paid by her. Further, from the testimony of DW-1, it is made out that there was common electricity meter and water meter for first and third floor of the premises. The defendant has not brought on record as to what portion of liability was of the plaintiffs out of the consolidated electricity and water bills issued against the first floor (in possession of the plaintiffs) and third floor (in possession of the defendant) of the premises. Moreover, the mortgage deed specifically states that a separate electricity meter was to be provided by the defendant, but, admittedly, no separate meter was provided by the defendant for the said property in possession of the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, even though as per the mortgage agreement, the plaintiffs were to pay electricity and water charges as per bill, the defendant has failed to prove the exact liability of the plaintiffs against the electricity and water consumption in respect of the mortgaged property. Merely mentioning that the defendant had paid Rs.2-2.5 lacs of electricity bills and 1-1.5 lacs against the water bills, does not prove the amount to be payable by the plaintiffs against the said bills. Thus, she would not be entitled to deduct any amount from CS DJ 356/2020 Page no. 14/16 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.16 16:55:07 +0530 the said amount of Rs.7,00,000/- in lieu of the electricity and water charges. Accordingly, after deducting Rs.33,000/- already received by them, the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 6,67,000/- from the defendant.
17. Though the Court has conclusively decided the liability of defendant towards the plaintiffs, however, the issue of payment of electricity charges can be looked into from another angle too. It is worth noting that with their replication, the plaintiffs had placed on record reply of the defendant dated 12.08.2020 sent pursuant to the legal notice dated 17.03.2020, Ex. PW-1/D, of the plaintiffs. The said reply has not been tendered in evidence by either party. Yet, it is pertinent to note that the defendant in para '5' of the reply has claimed that the plaintiffs are liable to pay electricity charges on an average of 135 units per month. This proves the claim of plaintiffs (put to DW-1 during his cross-examination) that had the defendant got separate electricity meter installed at the premises, the plaintiff would have received zero electricity bill according to the policy of GNCTD. Thus, the plaintiffs cannot be made liable for payment of electricity charges for the mortgaged property,
18. The plaintiffs have also prayed for pendente lite interest @18% per annum from October, 2017. Firstly, the plaintiff no. 1/PW-1 had admitted the suggestion that the defendant was ready to pay the security amount after deducting the water and electricity bills till date. He deposed that he did not remember the date when the defendant requested him to vacate the property and hand over the possession to her. Moreover, in her written statement too, the defendant had stated CS DJ 356/2020 Page no. 15/16 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.09.16 16:55:14 +0530 that she was ready and willing to pay the amount of Rs.5,25,000/-. Secondly, as per clause '4' of the mortgage agreement Ex.PW-1/C, the mortgagee was not to pay any monthly rent to the mortgagor and the mortgagor was not to pay any interest to the mortgagee. Furthermore, admittedly, the plaintiffs had been enjoying the fruits of the mortgaged property since the date of taking over its possession i.e. 29.09.2017. He had never offered to vacate the said premises during the proceedings of the present case. Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to grant any pendente lite interest to the plaintiffs on the amount of Rs.6,67,000/- payable to them by the defendant. However, since the plaintiffs have proved their claim to get Rs.6,67,000/- from the defendant, thus, they are granted future interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of decree till the realization of the amount.
19. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the suit of plaintiffs is decreed in favour of plaintiffs and against defendant in the sum of Rs.6,67,000/- along with future interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the sum adjudged from the date of decree till the date of realization. Defendant shall be liable to pay the aforesaid sum to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are also entitled to recovery of costs of the suit from defendant. Decree sheet shall be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed by NAVEEN Announced in the open Court NAVEEN GUPTA on the 16th day of September, 2025 GUPTA Date: 2025.09.16 16:55:24 +0530 (Naveen Gupta) District Judge-09, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. CS DJ 356/2020 Page no. 16/16