Delhi District Court
Kamlesh Narang vs Bala Sharma on 24 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF NAVEEN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE - 09
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-004652-2017
CS DJ No. 613/2017
In the matter of:
Kamlesh Narang
W/o Late Shri Dharampal,
R/o A-5/273, First Floor,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063.
..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Bala Sharma
R/o A-5/273, Third Floor,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063.
..... Defendant
Date of institution : 23.05.2017
Reserved for Judgment : 10.12.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 24.12.2025
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, DECLARATION AND MESNE PROFITS
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for declaration of the sale deed dated 25.05.2016 executed by late Sh. Dharamapal in favour of defendant in respect of suit property i.e. A-5/273, Third Floor, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063 as null and void, recovery of possession of the suit property and mesne profits.
CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 1/ 42Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:15:57 +0530
2. Succinctly put, the case of plaintiff, as per plaint, is that she is an illiterate lady. In the year 1979, her husband late Sh. Dharampal was allotted a plot bearing no. A-5/273, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi measuring 70 sq meters by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and a perpetual lease deed was executed in his favour. He had initially constructed ground floor on the said plot and shifted to the said premises with his wife. Thereafter, for three decades, the plaintiff was residing at the same address and three children were born out of the said wedlock at the very same address. Her husband had got the said property free-hold from DDA vide conveyance deed dated 22.01.2000. In the year 2010, her husband with the consent of his legal heirs, entered into a collaboration agreement with a builder and got constructed ground to third floor on the said property. In terms of the collaboration agreement, second floor was transferred by her husband at the instance of the builder vide sale deed executed on 13.08.2010.
3. It has been further averred that husband of the plaintiff was an alcoholic and had an addiction towards women. A lot of differences had arisen between the plaintiff and her husband for the said reason. Her husband was actually suffering from progressive intimacy disorder. To the knowledge of plaintiff, the defendant was inducted as a tenant on third floor of property bearing no. A-5/273, Paschim Vihar, Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'suit property') by her husband sometime in September, 2015 on a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-. After being inducted as a tenant, the defendant started residing therein with her children.
4. It has been further averred that the plaintiff and her husband were having differences at that time and an undue advantage of the same was CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 2/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:16:06 +0530 drawn by the defendant of the said situation. Her husband was residing on the ground floor of the property. On 18.03.2016, he inducted one another lady namely Veena Sahni as tenant in the rear portion of the ground floor. Prior to inducting Smt. Veena Sahni as tenant, her husband was asking the defendant to vacate the premises, but she refused to do the same. On the contrary, the defendant used to threaten him by stating that she would initiate police complaint against him as he had misbehaved with her. He had even told his son Nikhil that the defendant was not even paying the rent and he was in financial difficulties. Further, he was in depression since May, 2016. The plaintiff had made efforts to recover him from his depressed state of mind, but her efforts did not yield any result. He started consuming a lot of liquor and even lost his health.
5. It has been further averred that some differences arose between husband of the plaintiff and defendant. At times, it was found from the neighbors that the defendant was stating that she would lodge a complaint of rape against him. As he had limited talking terms with the plaintiff and hence, she never disclosed much but told to their son Nikhil that the defendant was threatening him that she would implicate him in some frivolous case of rape. This was quite apparent that a honey trap was laid down by the defendant, but what benefits she had drawn was not known to the plaintiff. As her husband had limited talking terms with his children, so he also never disclosed everything to any of his family members. On 21.10.2016, the plaintiff was shocked to receive the dead body of her husband from an ambulance which came from Mathura. His death was in very mysterious condition as he had left the house about a week back without any intimation.
CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 3/ 42Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:16:11 +0530
6. It has been further submitted by the plaintiff that on 16.02.2017, the plaintiff went to the terrace of the above property and was opening the door of terrace. At that time, the defendant came to the terrace and asked her not to open the door in future without her permission. The plaintiff got furious and asked the defendant to pay the rent or else to vacate the premises. At that time, the plaintiff came to know from the defendant that her husband had sold the suit property to the defendant and executed a sale deed. The plaintiff verified the factum of sale deed from Sub-Registrar Office and found that the sale deed was executed by her husband on 25.05.2016 and the same was duly registered on 26.05.2016. But, the same was without consideration. The sale deed was an act of fraud. The plaintiff also checked the bank statement of her husband and found that no amount was ever credited to his bank account. In the sale deed, no details of the cheque or draft is given, whereby the amount of sale consideration was transferred and it is not even stated that the sale consideration amount was encashed. Thus, the agreement of sale was void ab initio as the same was without any consideration. Even the defendant never had any financial resources to pay such a huge amount in cash or even through bank transfer. It is quite apparent that the execution of sale deed in favour of defendant by her husband is an act under coercion, fraud and without any consideration. Further, similar situated premises of 84 sq yards in the said vicinity would have at least fetched Rs.70,00,000/-
7. The plaintiff has further submitted that after the death of her husband, in addition to the plaintiff, her children are other legal heirs. They had no objection for institution of the present proceedings by the plaintiff. The defendant was having no right in respect of the suit CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 4/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:16:18 +0530 premises. Further, she had gained the possession of suit property on the basis of false documents executed under the state of hypnotism/ intoxication without consideration by her husband and furthermore, all the said documents as got executed by the defendant are forged. Thus, the plaintiff has filed the present suit praying for declaring the said sale deed dated 25.05.2016 executed in favour of the defendant by her husband as null and void, decree of possession of the suit property and mesne profits.
8. In her written statement, the defendant has raised preliminary objection that the plaintiff under the garb of the present suit wanted to extort money from her. Further, she did not properly value the suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and file the Court fees accordingly. She has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed true and material facts. On merits, the defendant has submitted that the plaintiff is not illiterate and she has done matriculation. Further, she is adopting all kind of illegal means to throw away the defendant from the suit property, which had been purchased by her out of her hard earned money. The defendant has denied that she was inducted as a tenant on the suit property by the husband of plaintiff in September, 2015. She admitted that there were differences between the plaintiff and her husband. But, she denied that an undue advantage of the same was drawn by her. Further, the quarrels became the regular feature of life of the husband of plaintiff as the plaintiff was not happy to live with her husband. She (plaintiff) used to abuse her husband unnecessarily in order to harass him. The defendant came to know from various sources that the plaintiff had several times beaten her husband in public view. She has further denied that the husband of plaintiff had ever asked her to vacate the suit premises and she ever threatened to CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 5/ 42 NAVEEN GUPTA Digitally signed by NAVEEN GUPTA Date: 2025.12.24 16:16:23 +0530 take action against him before police officials for misbehaving with her. The defendant has further submitted that the story narrated by the plaintiff is only a fictitious story.
9. The defendant has further submitted that late Sh. Dharampal had sold the suit property to her and executed a sale deed on 25.05.2016. The said deed was registered on 26.05.2016. Further, late Sh. Dharampal had himself offered to sell the suit property to her and asked to pay consideration amount in cash as he did not want to bring this fact in the knowledge of plaintiff as litigation was going on between him and the plaintiff. The defendant paid the consideration amount in cash, which she had gathered through committees and from her own business. She reiterated that late Sh. Dharampal had stated that his wife would extort his money through Court and other sources and that was why, he wanted to take all the consideration amount in cash. She has further submitted that he was very well versed in preparing the documents. He himself had got the sale deed prepared and signed the same before the Sub-Registrar. She denied that she had no means to pay the sale consideration. She further denied that the similar situated premises in the said vicinity with new construction would have at least fetched Rs.70,00,000/-. The defendant has further denied all the allegations leveled by the plaintiff against her in her plaint. She has prayed for dismissal of the present suit.
10. In her replication, the plaintiff has denied all the averments made by the defendant against her in her written statement. She has further submitted that she had lodged a police complaint against the defendant on 04.03.2017. She has reiterated the submissions made in her plaint.
CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 6/ 42Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:16:28 +0530
11. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 03.04.2018:-
1. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees? OPD.
2. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material facts on record? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession of the suit property, as prayed for? OPP.
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mense profit, if so, at what rate, at what amount and for which period? OPP.
6. Relief.
12. To prove her claim, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. She affirmed the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Aadhar card of plaintiff, Ex.PW-1/A.
2. Photocopy of certified copy of Perpetual Lease, Mark A.
3. Conveyance Deed, Ex.PW-1/C.
4. Original site plan, Ex.PW-1/D.
5. Death certificate of Shri Dharampal, Ex.PW-1/E.
6. Certified copy of sale deed dated 25.05.2016, Ex.PW-1/F.
7. Affidavits of Nikhil Narang, Charu and Jyoti Narang, all LRs of late Shri Dharampal, Ex.PW-1/G (Colly).
8. Complaint dated 04.03.2017 made to SHO PS Paschim Vihar, Ex.PW-1/H. She was cross-examined on behalf of the defendant.CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 7/ 42
Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:16:34 +0530
13. PW-2 is Sh. Nikhil Narang, son of the plaintiff. In his evidence affidavit Ex.PW-2/A, he submitted on the similar lines as stated by the plaintiff in her plaint. He relied upon the same documents exhibited by the plaintiff. He was cross-examined on behalf of the defendant. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 23.05.2022.
14. To prove her defence, the defendant examined herself as DW-1. She tendered her evidence affidavit as Ex.DW-1/3. She submitted almost on the similar lines as stated by her in her written statement. She has submitted that she gave her hard earned money to late Sh. Dharampal from her savings and business and some of the amount was taken from her known persons namely Subhash Chand and Ajay Kumar. Further, late Sh. Dharampal had apprised her that plaintiff did not even provide food to him. He had also moved an application in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act ('the Act'), wherein he had sought direction to the petitioner (the plaintiff herein) to hand over LPG stove with gas cylinders. She tendered the copy of said application as Ex.DW-1/1 and copy of petition under Section 12 of the Act filed by the plaintiff and her family members against Sh. Dharampal as Ex.DW-1/2. She has further submitted that Sh. Dharampal had sold the suit property to her without any coercion, misrepresentation and fraud. He was well aware about the law and Court proceedings as he was not dependent on an advocate. She was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereafter, while her cross-examination had been partly conducted, due to her non- appearance, defence evidence was closed vide order dated 09.06.2025. However, on an application moved on her behalf, the defendant was granted an opportunity to lead evidence and for presenting herself for CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 8/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:16:40 +0530 further cross-examination, which was conducted on 28.10.2025. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.
15. I have heard respective Ld. Counsels for the parties. I have carefully perused the material available on record. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that from the impugned sale deed dated 25.05.2016, Ex.PW-1/F itself, it can be made out that no sale consideration amount had been paid by the defendant to late Sh. Dharampal. Clause no. 1 of the sale deed is silent as to in what manner, the sale consideration amount of Rs.30,00,000/- had been received by the vendor. It is trite law that sale without consideration is void. Thus, since there was no payment of sale consideration, the above sale deed is void. Further, the defendant did not examine any of the attesting witnesses of the said sale deed to prove the authenticity of payment of consideration amount. Furthermore, the defendant has failed to prove her financial resources from where she had arranged the consideration amount of Rs.30,00,000/-. She did not examine any of her relatives namely Sh. Subhash Chand and Sh. Ajay Kumar from whom she had allegedly taken assistance for making payment of the consideration amount. Moreover, she had not mentioned this aspect of having taken assistance from her relatives, in her written statement. Further, there are contradictions in the testimony of DW-1/defendant as to when did she make payment of consideration amount of Rs.30,00,000/-, whether in installments prior to the execution of sale deed or in one go, at the time of execution of sale deed. Further, the defendant, who was the alleged purchaser of suit property, did not deposit TDS of 1% with Income Tax Department. The defendant has concealed the fact that she was tenant over the suit property at the time of execution of sale deed. This fact CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 9/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:16:45 +0530 can be inferred from the aspect that the address of defendant mentioned in the sale deed is the same as of the suit property. Further, the defendant has tendered two documents related to the litigations pending between the plaintiff and her husband, without seeking permission to produce documents, as the same had not been filed alongwith the written statement. Ld. Counsel has relied upon two precedents in support of his arguments: Kewal Krishan v. Rajesh Kumar, in Civil Appeal Nos. 6989-6992/2021 decided on 22.11.2021 and Shanti Devi (since deceased) through LRs v. Jagan Devi, in Civil Appeal No. 11795/2025 decided on 12.09.2025. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the defendant did not examine Mr. Kasim Ali, from whom she got another sale deed executed without payment of consideration amount. This reflects that she is in the habit of entering into such type of deals. Accordingly, the plaintiff has proved her case.
16. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that the defendant had duly paid the consideration amount of Rs.30,00,000/- for purchase of the suit property from late Sh. Dharampal. The said amount was paid in cash as per the willingness of late Sh. Dharampal, since he wished not to disclose, the receipt of consideration amount, to the plaintiff, as litigation between him and his family members was pending before the Court. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to prove commission of any fraud, coercion or misrepresentation on the part of defendant at the time of execution of sale deed, entitling her to seek declaration of sale deed as null and void. It is not the case of plaintiff that late Sh. Dharampal had ever told her that sale consideration had not been paid by the defendant to him. Even otherwise, there is recital in the sale deed that 'vendor admits prior receipt of entire consideration amount of CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 10/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:16:50 +0530 Rs.30,00,000/-'. The contents of the impugned document had been explained to the parties who understood the conditions and admitted the same as correct. Ld. Counsel has argued that as per Section 194-IA (1) of the Income Tax Act, any person, being a transferee, responsible for paying to a transferor any sum by way of consideration for transfer of any immovable property (other than agricultural land), shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the transferor or at the time of payment of such sum in cash, or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to 1% of such sum as income tax thereon. Further, as per sub-section (2), no deduction under sub-section (1) shall be made where the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than Rs.50,00,000/-. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the copy of pleadings produced on record by the defendant, regarding the application moved under Section 12 of the Act by the plaintiff herein and her children against late Sh.
Dharampal, shows the differences between late Sh. Dharampal and his family members. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the plaintiff has not produced any evidence to show that the defendant had ever been tenant over the suit property or paid any rent either to late Sh. Dharampal or to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove her case.
17. Issue wise findings:-
Issue No. 3Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession of the suit property, as prayed for? OPP.Issue No. 4
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of declaration, as prayed for? OPP.CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 11/ 42
Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:16:56 +0530 The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff. Firstly, the Court proceeds to examine the plaintiff's evidence. The Court takes up different aspects raised by the plaintiff one by one. The plaintiff/PW-1 and her son/PW-2 have submitted in their evidence affidavits that late Sh. Dharampal was alcoholic and had an addiction towards the women. He had relationship with a number of women in his life. Further, he was actually suffering from progressive intimacy disorder. In this regard, PW-1 has deposed during her cross-examination that there were several complaints filed by her against her husband with respect to the alcoholism and addiction towards women. She did not have copy of the said complaints. No other person including any neighbor had filed any complaint against her husband with respect to the alcoholism and addiction towards women.
18. The plaintiff did not lead any evidence to substantiate her claim that late Sh. Dharampal was alcoholic. She could have filed any medical record of late Sh. Dharampal having observation that he was alcoholic. Further, except the bald statement about he being addicted towards the women, no other evidence has been brought on record by the plaintiff. The above version of PW-1 shows that the plaintiff has leveled the allegation of alcoholism and addiction towards women qua her husband without producing any proof. Surprisingly, PW-2 has deposed that he did not know the meaning of 'progressive intimacy disorder', it might have been discussed with his mother and is written in his evidence affidavit.
19. The plaintiff has claimed that the defendant was inducted as a tenant on the third floor of property no. A-5/273 in September, 2015 on CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 12/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:17:02 +0530 a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-. It is further claim of plaintiff that on 16.02.2017, when she went to the terrace of the property, the defendant had objected and asked her not to open the door in future without her permission. Thereafter, she came to know that the suit property had been sold to the defendant by her husband.
20. The plaintiff has not produced any rent receipt to support her claim that defendant was inducted as tenant over the suit property for monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-. Even if, it is accepted that the rent must have been received by her husband till his death on 21.10.2016, but she must have demanded the rent amount thereafter from the defendant. The plaintiff has not brought on record any proof of steps taken by her against the defendant for non-payment of rent of the tenanted premises from 21.10.2016 till 04.03.2017 (when a complaint Ex.PW-1/4 was written to the SHO PS Paschim Vihar).
21. The plaintiff has further averred that on 18.03.2016, late Sh. Dharampal inducted one another lady namely Veena Sahni as tenant in the rear portion of the ground floor. Prior to inducting Smt. Veena Sahni as tenant in the rear portion of ground floor, late Sh. Dharampal asked the defendant to vacate the premises. On the contrary, the defendant used to threaten him that she would initiate police complaint against him.
22. During her cross-examination, PW-1 has deposed that she could not tell the date, month or year when the defendant threatened her husband. She had filed complaint against the defendant regarding the threats extended by her. She voluntarily stated that however, the police used to send them back saying that she should file a Court case. She CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 13/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:17:07 +0530 further deposed that she did not know whether her husband filed any case against police officials or the defendant before any Authority. She did not know whether her son Nikhil had filed any complaint to any authority when her husband told him that defendant was not paying rent and was also threatening him. She could not tell the name of neighbors mentioned in para no. 15 of her plaint, who had informed her regarding threats extended by the defendant to her husband. She admitted the suggestion put to her that sale documents with respect to the suit property were executed and registered before the Sub-Registrar concerned.
23. During his cross-examination, PW-2 has deposed that fights between his parents were going since after their marriage. His father had not taken consent from any of the legal heirs as all the legal decisions were taken by him solely as he was the owner of the property. He can not produce the complaints filed by her mother regarding the habits of his father of addiction of alcoholism and of women before police station. The defendant took suit property on rent in September 2015. They asked the defendant to vacate the premises after death of his father. He could not tell if his father had during his lifetime, asked the defendant to vacate the suit premises as they were not having good relations with his father. He admitted the suggestion put to him that his father never used to discuss anything related to the property dealing with them.
24. The plaintiff did not produce any evidence to substantiate her such claim that late Sh. Dharampal had inducted any tenant over the rear portion of the ground floor. It appears that this version has been introduced in the plaint just to strengthen the claim of plaintiff that late CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 14/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:17:12 +0530 Sh. Dharampal had relationship with a number of women in his life. Had the defendant threatened late Sh. Dharampal with filing of police complaint, he being well versed with the legal system, could have initiated a legal action against her for such threats. But, the plaintiff has not produced any such evidence of legal action initiated by late Sh. Dharampal against the defendant. The plaintiff has stated that late Sh. Dharampal had told his son Nikhil that defendant was not even paying the rent. Surprisingly, PW-2 during his cross-examination, has deposed that he can not tell if his father had during his lifetime, asked the defendant to vacate the suit premises as they were not having good relations with his father. Again, it is surprising to note that what could have restrained him (late Sh. Dharampal) to initiate action against the defendant for non-payment of the rent.
25. It is the case of plaintiff that late Sh. Dharampal was going in depression since May, 2016 and she made efforts to recover him from his depressed state of mind. When a question was put to PW-2 as to from where his father was getting the treatment, he answered that his father never told him from where he was undergoing treatment. He never took his father to any doctor/hospital when he told him (PW-2) about his depression, as he told him (PW-2) that he would take the treatment himself. When PW-2 was asked as to whether he ever took it as his responsibility to take his father to some doctor or hospital, he replied that his father used to take his own decisions and did not listen. His mother never took his father to any doctor/hospital. Occasionally, he used to call his father when they did not get in touch for few days. The above version of PW-2 negates the claim of plaintiff that she made efforts to recover late Sh. Dharampal from depression. She did not CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 15/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:17:17 +0530 produce any medical record to support her claim that he was in depression since May, 2016. It appears that this version of he being under depression has been introduced just to create a ground that at the time of execution of the impugned sale deed on 25.05.2016, he was not of sound mental health.
26. The plaintiff has stated that on 21.10.2016, the plaintiff was shocked to receive the dead body of late Sh. Dharampal from an ambulance which had come from Mathura. The driver of the ambulance told her that he had expired in Mathura in some nursing home. His death was in very mysterious conditions as he had left the house about a week back without any intimation. PW-2 during his cross-examination has deposed that the driver of ambulance did not tell them from which hospital of Mathura he came. He left immediately after leaving the dead body. When the ambulance left the body, he (PW-2) was at his office. No call was made to the police. There was lot of pressure to cremate the body. No complaint was ever filed by him or his family members of the death of his father under mysterious circumstances. He did not get the postmortem done in order to ascertain the mysterious circumstances, as the suggestion of postmortem came after one or two days of his cremation.
27. Above testimony of PW-2 shows that the plaintiff or his son/ PW-2 did not use to take care of medical condition, if so required, of late Sh. Dharampal. They did not even make any effort to find out the circumstances in which he expired. The conduct of plaintiff and her son as observed in the preceding paragraphs reflects that they had no concern at all with late Sh. Dharampal. In such situation, it shall be safely inferred that in no circumstance, late Sh. Dharampal had ever CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 16/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:17:23 +0530 divulged to them that the sale deed of suit property was got executed by the defendant through fraud, coercion or misrepresentation or without payment of the consideration amount. This aspect of non-payment of consideration amount has merely been assumed by the plaintiff. Had there been any circumstance of non-payment of consideration amount, late Sh. Dharampal would have initiated legal action in this regard. But, the case of plaintiff is silent as to whether any such action was initiated by him from the date of execution of sale deed i.e. 25.05.2016 till his death on 21.10.2016, i.e. during the period of almost five months.
28. The plaintiff has claimed that similar situated premises of 84 sq yards in the said vicinity with new construction would have fetched at least Rs.70,00,000/-. But, the plaintiff did not examine any witness or produce any document to substantiate her version regarding actual market value of the suit property as on 25.05.2016, to show that the sale consideration was valued significantly less than the market value and inference shall be drawn to the effect that the sale was executed out of extraneous considerations.
29. During her cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that cases were pending between her and her husband in Tis Hazari Courts. She had not gone through the collaboration agreement. Her husband used to do everything himself as they used to remain in the house only. She admitted that her husband used to do everything as per his wishes. Her husband used to work as typist in Tis Hazari Courts. He was working there before their marriage in the year 1976. Since he was working as a typist in Court, so he might have little bit legal/procedural knowledge of Court procedure. PW-1 further deposed that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was pending in Tis Hazari Courts, filed by her CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 17/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:17:30 +0530 against her husband. She admitted that in the said complaint, her husband used to appear himself and contest his case without the assistance of any advocate. She further admitted that he used to prepare and file all his pleadings himself in the Court.
30. PW-1 has further deposed that she was having dispute with her husband for last 15 years before his death. She could not tell name of the woman with whom her husband used to stay. In the case which was pending between her and her husband under the Act, no maintenance was awarded. She did not know whether her husband had filed any income affidavit or income proof in the said case.
31. From above versions of PW-1 and PW-2, it is made out that late Sh. Dharampal used to take decisions on his own, without informing anything to his wife/plaintiff and children. He had an experience of a typist in the Court of almost 40 years on the date of execution of the impugned sale deed. Even more, he used to contest the case filed by the plaintiff on his own. It can be safely inferred that he must be having sufficient knowledge about the implications of such sale deed executed by him in favour of the defendant.
32. Above analysis of plaintiff's case and evidence shows that the plaintiff has failed to prove anything about habits of her husband. She could not prove that the defendant had been inducted as tenant over the suit property prior to the execution of impugned sale deed. It stands proved that her husband was a typist in the Court for 40 years and he must be aware of the implications of executing the impugned sale deed. The plaintiff had strained relation with her husband leading to minimal connect with her to the extent that she did not even try to enquire about CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 18/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:17:35 +0530 the reason of his death which occurred in mysterious circumstances. She had merely made assumption about non-payment of consideration amount for the impugned sale form the contents of the sale deed. It is not the case that the executor/vendor/her husband had ever divulged to her or any other person that he did not receive the sale consideration or he executed the sale deed due to fraud, coercion or misrepresentation. It was the duty of plaintiff to prove her case first. It is trite law that the plaintiff cannot take benefit of the weakness of the defendant and she has to stand on her own legs.
33. Now, the Court proceeds to examine the defendant's evidence. In her evidence affidavit Ex.DW-1/3, the defendant has submitted that she is the bonafide purchaser of the suit property. Late Sh. Dharampal had himself offered to sell the suit property to her and specifically asked her to pay the consideration amount in cash as he did not want to get this fact in the knowledge of plaintiff. The plaintiff and other family members had already filed false complaints/case against late Sh. Dharampal and he was having apprehension that the plaintiff and other family members would also grab the amount taken by him out of consideration of selling the suit property to the defendant. Further, only after payment of the consideration amount to him, he executed the sale deed in her favour. She had given the said amount from her savings and business and some of the amount was taken from her known persons namely Subhash Chand and Ajay Kumar.
34. The defendant has further submitted that late Sh. Dharampal also apprised her that the plaintiff did not even provide food to him and always treated him badly and even many a times, resisted him from entering his own property. He had moved an application in the CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 19/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:17:41 +0530 complaint under PWDV Act seeking direction to the plaintiff herein to hand over LPG Stove with gas cylinders.
35. The defendant has submitted that late Sh. Dharampal had sold the suit property to her without any coercion, misrepresentation and fraud, but with his own willingness. He was working in the Court as a typist and was very well aware about the law and even prepared sale deed and signed the same before Sub-Registrar.
36. During her cross-examination, DW-1 has deposed that she came into contact with late Sh. Dharampal as her house was situated nearby his house. She came into his contact in 2015. There was no broker/property dealer for the sale and purchase of the suit property. She shifted into the suit property after she purchased the same in the month of May 2016. She was an income tax payee. She denied the suggestion that the market value of suit property at the time of its purchase was Rs.70,00,000/-. She used to run a boutique in the name of Allure, when she purchased the suit property. She admitted that she had not filed any document to show that she was running a boutique from A-5/10, Basement, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. She was paying rent of Rs.40,000/- for the said premises. She could not produce any rent agreement with respect to the said property. She used to earn somewhere around Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- profit per month from her business in the year 2015-16. She used to keep her earnings with her only and did not deposit the same in bank account. Her son also used to earn. The income of her husband in the year 2015-16 was Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/- per month. She could not bring ITR of her husband as some family dispute was going on. Her husband was not CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 20/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:17:46 +0530 presently residing with her and her kids. She denied the suggestion that she used to stay in the suit property as a tenant till September 2015.
37. DW-1 deposed that she entered into an agreement with late Sh. Dharampal when she initially entered into talks to purchase the suit property. Late Sh. Dharampal used to issue receipts to her whenever she used to make part payments to him. The said receipts were not with her as after getting the sale deed registered, she handed over those back to late Sh. Dharampal as he used to keep them stating her to have faith upon him. She admitted the suggestion put to her that late Sh. Dharampal told her that he was residing separately from his family. Prior to purchase of suit property, she used to reside in Kothi No. 23, A-5, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Late Sh. Dharampal himself used to force her to give the consideration amount in cash. He told her that he did not want to disclose about selling of suit property to his family members. The amount paid by her was collected from her savings, selling of her jewelery and from relatives and known persons. She sold her jewelery to Shagun Jewelers and Vardhman Jewelers worth Rs.10- 12 lakh, both situated at Paschim Vihar.
38. During her examination, DW-1 produced her ITRs for the financial years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17, Ex.DW-1/P-1. She had not filed ITR for the financial year 2015-16 as her son took over the charge of business. She could not produce any document to show that she used to earn Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per month in the year 2015-16. She voluntarily stated that she used to deal in cash with respect to her business. She used to maintain cash register with her business. She could not produce the same as the record was too old.
CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 21/ 42Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:17:50 +0530
39. DW-1 has further deposed that she has one son and one daughter, both are doing job. She got married in the year 1987 and lived with her husband till the year 2016. She shifted to the suit property in May 2016. Before shifting to the suit property, she used to reside at her own property bearing no. A-5, Kothi No. 23, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The said property was owned by her father-in-law. She shifted to the suit property after purchasing the same. She denied the suggestion that she took the possession of the suit premises as a tenant and started residing therein in the same capacity.
40. DW-1 has deposed that she had not taken any loan for purchase of the suit property. She did not have any document/receipt to show that she had sold her gold articles for the purchase of suit property. She had not withdrawn any amount from the bank as she was having money in cash for the purchase of suit property. She had taken Rs.10,00,000/- from Mr. Subhash and approximately Rs.5,50,000/- to Rs.7,50,000/- from Mr. Ajay. There was no execution of any document in writing regarding taking of the abovesaid loan amounts from the said relatives. She admitted that the fact of taking abovesaid loan amount from her relatives was not mentioned in her evidence affidavit.
41. DW-1 has deposed that she was 12th passed. Before execution of sale deed, number of documents were executed regarding the suit property. She voluntarily stated that those documents were prepared by uncle and he used to keep the same in his own possession. She never asked for those documents as she had faith on her uncle. She had given Rs.30,00,000/- to uncle before the Registrar office for registry in the presence of her children, Mr. Ajay and Mr. Subhash and some known CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 22/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:17:55 +0530 persons of uncle. She had not informed the Registrar regarding the payment of consideration amount of Rs.30,00,000/-. She voluntarily stated that uncle had informed the same to the Registrar regarding the receipt of above-mentioned consideration amount and further, the Registrar had asked her about the payment and she had also informed the Registrar that she had given the said amount. She did not remember the names of the witnesses who were present during the execution of sale deed. She did not remember when she first met with Mr. Dharampal (uncle).
42. It is true that the sale deed Ex.PW-1/F bears the address of defendant as of suit property. But, the plaintiff during her detailed cross-examination did not seek any explanation/clarification from DW-1 as to under what circumstances the address of vendee/defendant in the impugned sale deed was mentioned as of the suit property. It is pertinent to note that the defendant/DW-1, during her cross- examination has several times deposed that she shifted to the suit property after purchasing the same. She had deposed to the extent that she lived with her husband till the year 2016. She was earlier residing in the property owned by her father-in-law. The said previous residence i.e. A-5, Kothi No. 23, Paschim Vihar, of the defendant also falls in the same area of the suit property i.e. A-5/273, Paschim Vihar. The plaintiff could not bring anything on record by leading any evidence or during cross-examination of DW-1 to challenge the veracity of her version in this regard.
43. The defendant/DW-1 has categorically explained as to under what circumstances, she had given the entire sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- in cash to late Sh. Dharampal that he did not want to get CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 23/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:18:01 +0530 this fact in the knowledge of plaintiff. He was having apprehension that the plaintiff and other family members, who had already filed false complaints against him, would grab the amount taken by him in consideration of selling the suit property. It is admitted case of plaintiff that she had matrimonial disputes with her husband and litigation was also pending between them in this regard. Moreover, DW-1 has reiterated this fact during her cross-examination that late Sh. Dharampal himself used to force her to give the consideration amount in cash. During her cross-examination, the plaintiff could not successfully controvert her version in this regard. Moreover, DW-1 has categorically explained that late Sh. Dharampal had informed the Registrar regarding the receipt of consideration amount and upon inquiry from Registrar, she too had informed him about the same.
44. So far as financial capacity of defendant for payment of consideration amount is concerned. It is true that she did not examine her relatives Mr. Subhash and Mr. Ajay from whom she had allegedly taken financial assistance for payment of the consideration amount. But, during her cross-examination, she had remained firm and consistent about her sources of income and the sources from where she had arranged the entire amount of sale consideration. It is true that in her written statement, the defendant has stated that she had gathered the amount through committees and from her own business, while in her evidence affidavit, she has stated that she gave the amount from her savings and business and some of the amount was taken from her known persons namely Subhash Chand and Ajay Kumar. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff had asked DW-1/defendant to produce her ITRs. The ITRs of the defendant prove that she was not an unemployed person and negate the argument that she did not have any paying CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 24/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:18:07 +0530 capacity at all. She remained consistent about her business of boutique, its address and income from the said boutique, prior to the year of purchase of the suit property. She has unhesitatingly provided details of her expenditures, sources of her earnings, income of her family members during the relevant period. Thus, it was not the case that the defendant has not been able to depose about the source for payment of consideration amount at all.
45. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the defendant did not examine the attesting witnesses of the impugned sale deed. It is pertinent to note that no specific question was put to the defendant challenging the presence of attesting witnesses at the time of execution of sale deed. Moreover, it is not the case of plaintiff put to DW-1 that the sale deed has not been executed by late Sh. Dharampal at all and the document Ex.PW-1/F is a forged document.
46. At this stage, the argument of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff regarding recital in the sale deed is to be considered. Ld. Counsel has contended that in clause no. 1, the details of manner of payment of consideration amount have not been mentioned. This raises doubt on alleged payment of the consideration amount. It is pertinent to note that coupled with the version of DW-1, clause no. 1 of the sale deed Ex.PW-1/F depicts that 'the vendor hereby admits and acknowledges the receipt of the same [consideration amount of Rs.30,00,000/-] before the Sub-Registrar, Delhi, at the time of presentation/registration of this sale deed'. This recital is corroborated with the endorsement of Registrar at the backside of page no. 2 of the sale deed, which states 'contents of the document explained to the parties who understand the conditions and admit them as correct'. It states further 'Vendor(s) CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 25/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:18:12 +0530 Mortgagor(s) admit(s) prior receipt an entire consideration Rs.30,00,000/-'. This endorsement confirms the version of DW-1 about inquiry having been conducted by the Sub-Registrar about payment of the consideration amount, before registration of the impugned sale deed.
47. DW-1 has deposed that she knew Mr. Kasim Ali, in respect of some property issues. He intended to sell his flat. She had some discussions with her brothers, however, wife of Mr. Kasim Ali refused to sell the said flat. She admitted the suggestion put to her that she got the sale deed of flat of Mr. Kasim Ali executed without making payment of the sale consideration amount. She admitted that the said flat was still in the possession and occupation of Mr. Kasim Ali. She voluntarily stated that he got the registry done back in his name and payment was done. She deposed that the sale deed was executed in the year 2017.
48. So far as arguments of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff are concerned that the defendant, by the modus operandi of honey trap, uses to get sale deeds executed without payment of consideration. The plaintiff has not examined Mr. Kasim Ali in respect of his dealing with the defendant, as to under what circumstances the sale deed of his flat had been executed in favour of the defendant herein. Moreover, the defendant has stated that the registry had been done back in his name and payment was done. This version of DW-1 reflects that the said sale had been canceled and the sale consideration had been repaid to the vendor. The plaintiff has not brought anything on record to controvert this version of DW-1 about cancellation of the sale deed, if any, got executed by Mr. Kasim Ali in favour of defendant. In the absence of CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 26/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:18:17 +0530 any cogent evidence on record, the argument of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff in this regard is not tenable.
49. Thus, the defendant has explained the circumstances due to which the sale consideration had been paid in cash. There was due enquiry conducted by Sub-Registrar from the vendor about the receipt of consideration amount. The defendant has shown as to from where she had arranged the consideration amount.
50. If the precedents relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff are taken into consideration, the case of Kewal Krishan (supra) pertains to the factual aspect of absolute inability of the vendees of making payment of the consideration amount and of execution of the impugned sale by the vendor in favor of his wife and minor sons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
17. [T]hus, undisputed factual position is that the respondents failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the minor sons had any source of income and that they had paid the consideration payable under the sale deed. They did not adduce any evidence to show that Sudarshan Kumar's wife was earning anything and that she had actually paid the consideration as mentioned in the sale deed.
18. xxx Hence, a sale of an immovable property has to be for a price. The price may be payable in future. It may be partly paid and the remaining part can be made payable in future. The payment of price is an essential part of a sale covered by Section 54 of the TP Act. If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eye of the law. It is of no legal effect. Therefore, such a sale will be void. It will not effect the transfer of the immovable property.
19. Now, coming back to the case in hand, both the sale deeds record that the consideration has been paid. That is the specific case of the respondents. It is the specific case made out in the CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 27/ 42 NAVEEN GUPTA Digitally signed by NAVEEN GUPTA Date: 2025.12.24 16:18:22 +0530 plaints as originally filed that the sale deeds are void as the same are without consideration. It is pleaded that the same are sham as the purchasers who were minor sons and wife of Sudarshan Kumar had no earning capacity. No evidence was adduced by Sudarshan Kumar about the payment of the price mentioned in the sale deeds as well as the earning capacity at the relevant time, of his wife and minor sons. Hence, the sale deeds will have to be held as void being executed without consideration. Hence, the sale deeds did not affect in any manner one half-share of the appellant in the suit properties. In fact, such a transaction made by Sudarshan Kumar of selling the suit properties on the basis of the power of attorney of the appellant to his own wife and minor sons is a sham transaction. Thus, the sale deeds of 10-4-1981 will not confer any right, title and interest on Sudarshan Kumar's wife and children as the sale deeds will have to be ignored being void. It was not necessary for the appellant to specifically claim a declaration as regards the sale deeds by way of amendment to the plaint. The reason being that there were specific pleadings in the plaints as originally filed that the sale deeds were void. A document which is void need not be challenged by claiming a declaration as the said plea can be set up and proved even in collateral proceedings. (emphasis supplied)
51. The case of Shanti Devi (supra) is related to factual aspect of fraudulent transaction in the name of plaintiff and thereby, non-payment of consideration to the plaintiff. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
35. As far as the facts of the present matter are concerned, the plaintiff specifically averred that she never obtained any sale consideration from the defendant. On this aspect, the plaint reads as follows:
"(c) That the plaintiff never got any sale consideration of the alleged sale deed and she came to know about this fraudulent transaction only when she came to the village mourn the death of Ram Saran and heard that her land is going to be sold by the defendant without any right in it"
38. Concurrent findings of both the First Appellate Court and the High Court indicated that the husband of the defendant i.e., one Bagdawat, who had allegedly given the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 6,000/- during the time of execution of the CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 28/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:18:28 +0530 sale deed, had not stepped into the witness box. Furthermore, one of the attesting witnesses to the execution of the sale deed i.e., the Sarpanch had also died before his deposition could be recorded. One Budhu, who was the second attesting witness, was the brother of the defendant and both the Courts had doubted his testimony as being partial to the defendant. All in all, there was no witness who could substantiate the case of the defendant that there was part-payment of the sale consideration, i.e., Rs. 6,000/- during the time of execution of the sale deed. Furthermore, no evidence was adduced by the defendant to prove that even the initial amount of Rs. 9,000/- which was purportedly paid before the execution of the sale deed was actually received by the plaintiff. Therefore, the averment of the plaintiff in the plaint, that she had not received the sale consideration, had not been otherwise proven as false. In such circumstances as well, i.e., in the absence of the sale consideration being tendered, the sale deed would be void and the plaintiff would not be required to seek its cancellation. Therefore, Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not be said to be applicable to the present facts.
(emphasis supplied)
52. There is no quarrel with the argument that sale without consideration is void. However, with utmost respect, the Court is of the opinion that considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case discussed herein above, the precedents relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff do not provide any assistance to the plaintiff.
53. At this stage, the Court is conscious of the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, (1999) 3 SCC 573, wherein it has been held that:
18. Defendant 1 himself was not a party to the transaction of sale between Defendant 2 and the plaintiff. He himself had no personal knowledge of the terms settled between Defendant 2 and the plaintiff. The transaction was not settled in his presence nor was any payment made in his presence. Nor, for that matter, was he a scribe or marginal witness of that sale deed. Could, in this situation, Defendant 1 have raised a plea as to the validity of the sale deed on the ground of inadequacy of consideration or part-
payment thereof? Defendant 2 alone, who was the executant of the sale deed, could have raised an objection as to the validity of CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 29/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:18:33 +0530 the sale deed on the ground that it was without consideration or that the consideration paid to him was highly inadequate. But he, as pointed out earlier, admitted the claim of the plaintiff whose claim in the suit was based on the sale deed, executed by Defendant 2 in his favour. The property having been transferred to him, the plaintiff became entitled to all the reliefs which could have been claimed by Defendant 2 against Defendant 1 including redemption of the mortgaged property.
35. Even if the findings recorded by the High Court that the plaintiff had paid only Rs 500 to Defendant 2 as sale consideration and the remaining amount of Rs 4500 which was shown to have been paid before the execution of the deed was, in fact, not paid, the sale deed would not, for that reason, become invalid on account of the provisions contained in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which provide as under:
"54. 'Sale' is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument.
In the case of tangible immovable property, of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.
It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property."
36. The definition indicates that in order to constitute a sale, there must be a transfer of ownership from one person to another, i.e., transfer of all rights and interests in the properties which are possessed by that person are transferred by him to another person. The transferor cannot retain any part of his interest or right in that property or else it would not be a sale. The definition further says that the transfer of ownership has to be for a "price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised". Price thus constitutes an essential ingredient of the transaction of sale. The words "price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised" indicate that CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 30/ 42 NAVEEN GUPTA Digitally signed by NAVEEN GUPTA Date: 2025.12.24 16:18:37 +0530 actual payment of the whole of the price at the time of the execution of sale deed is not a sine qua non to the completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid but the document is executed and thereafter registered, if the property is of the value of more than Rs 100, the sale would be complete.
37. There is a catena of decisions of various High Courts in which it has been held that even if the whole of the price is not paid, the transaction of sale will take effect and the title would pass under that transaction. To cite only a few, in Gayatri Prasad v. Board of Revenue, it was held that non-payment of a portion of the sale price would not affect validity of sale. It was observed that part- payment of consideration by the vendee itself proved the intention to pay the remaining amount of the sale price. To the same effect is the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sukaloo v. Punau.
38. The real test is the intention of the parties. In order to constitute a "sale", the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property and they must also intend that the price would be paid either in praesenti or in future. The intention is to be gathered from the recital in the sale deed, the conduct of the parties and the evidence on record.
39. Applying these principles to the instant case, it will be seen that Defendant 2 executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, presented it for registration, admitted its execution before the Sub- Registrar before whom the remaining part of the sale consideration was paid and, thereafter, the document was registered. The additional circumstances are that when the plaintiff instituted a suit on the basis of his title based on the aforesaid sale deed, Defendant 2, who was the vendor, admitted in his written statement, the whole case set out by the plaintiff and further admitted in the witness-box that he had executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and had also received the full amount of consideration. These facts clearly establish that a complete and formidable sale deed was executed by Defendant 2 in favour of the plaintiff and the title in the property passed to the plaintiff. The findings recorded by the High Court on this question cannot, therefore, be upheld.
40. The judgment of the High Court on this point is also erroneous for the reason that it totally ignored the provisions contained in Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act which are set out below:
CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 31/ 42Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:18:42 +0530 "55. In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the buyer and seller of immovable property respectively are subject to the liabilities, and have the rights, mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property sold:
(1)-(3)*** (4) The seller is entitled--
(a)***
(b) where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer before payment of the whole of the purchase money, to a charge upon the property in the hands of the buyer, any transferee without consideration or any transferee with notice of the non-
payment, for the amount of the purchase money, or any part thereof remaining unpaid, and for interest on such amount or part from the date on which possession has been delivered. (5)-(6)***"
41. Clause (b) extracted above provides that where the ownership of the property is transferred to the buyer before payment of the whole of the sale price, the vendor is entitled to a charge on that property for the amount of the sale price as also for interest thereon from the date of delivery of possession. Originally, there was no provision with regard to the date from which interest would be payable on the amount of unpaid purchase money. The Special Committee which suggested an amendment in this section gave the following reason:
"This clause is also silent as to the date from which the interest on the unpaid purchase money should run. It seems fair that it should run from the date when the buyer is put in possession."
It was on the recommendation of the Special Committee that the words "from the date on which possession has been delivered"
were inserted into this clause by Section 17 of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 1929 (20 of 1929).
42. This clause obviously applies to a situation where the ownership in the property has passed to the buyer before the whole of the purchase money was paid to the seller or the vendor. What is contained in this clause is based on the English doctrine of equitable lien as propounded by Baron Rolfe in Goode v. Burton. This clause confers statutory recognition on the English doctrine of equitable lien. As pointed out by the Privy Council in Webb v. Macpherson the statutory charge under this paragraph is inflexible. The charge does not entitle the seller to retain possession of the property as against the buyer but it positively gives him a right to enforce the charge by suit.
CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 32/ 42Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:18:46 +0530
54. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366, has held that:
8. The plaintiffs contended that they were totally illiterate, and were not able to read and write, and were only able to put their thumb impression on the sale deed dated 2-7-2009. The sale deed was obtained without payment of full consideration. Respondent 1 had paid only Rs 40,000 through 6 cheques, and remaining 30 cheques for Rs 1,73,62,000 were "bogus" cheques. The plaintiffs prayed for cancellation of the sale deed dated 2-7-2009, and also prayed that the subsequent sale deed dated 1-4-2013 be declared as illegal, void and ineffective; and, the physical possession of the suit property be restored to the plaintiffs.
29.2. The case made out in the plaint is that even though they had executed the registered sale deed dated 2-7-2009 for a sale consideration of Rs 1,74,02,000, an amount of only Rs 40,000 was paid to them. The remaining 31 cheques mentioned in the sale deed, which covered the balance amount of Rs 1,73,62,000 were alleged to be "bogus" or "false", and allegedly remained unpaid. We find the averments in the plaint completely contrary to the recitals in the sale deed dated 2-7-2009, which was admittedly executed by the plaintiffs in favour of Respondent 1. In the sale deed, the plaintiffs have expressly and unequivocally acknowledged that the entire sale consideration was "paid" by Defendant 1-Respondent 1 herein to the plaintiffs.
29.3. Clauses (3) and (4) of the sale deed are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:
"Since the full amount of consideration of the sale as decided above, has since been paid by you, the vendees to we, the vendors of this sale deed, for which we the vendors of this sale deed acknowledge the same so, we or our descendants, guardian or legal heirs is to take any dispute or objection in future that such amount is not received, or is received less, and if we do so then, the same shall be void by this deed and, if any loss or damage occurs due to the same then, we the vendors of this sale deed and descendants, guardians, legal heirs of we, the vendors are liable to pay the same to you the vendees or your descendants, guardian, legal heirs and you can recover the same by court proceedings. (4) We the party of second part i.e. vendors of the sale deed since received full consideration on the above facts, the physical possession, occupancy of the land or the property mentioned in this sale deed has been handed over to you the vendee of this sale CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 33/ 42 NAVEEN GUPTA Digitally signed by NAVEEN GUPTA Date: 2025.12.24 16:18:52 +0530 deed, and that has been occupied and taken in possession of the land or property mentioned in this sale deed by you the vendee of this sale deed by coming at the site and therefore, we the vendors of this sale deed have not to raise any dispute in the future that the possession of the land or the property has not been handed over to you. ..." (emphasis supplied) 29.4. The sale deed records that the 36 cheques covering the entire sale consideration of Rs 1,74,02,000 were "paid" to the plaintiffs, during the period between 7-7-2008 to 2-7-2009.
29.5. If the case made out in the plaint is to be believed, it would mean that almost 99% of the sale consideration i.e. Rs 1,73,62,000 allegedly remained unpaid throughout. It is, however, inconceivable that if the payments had remained unpaid, the plaintiffs would have remained completely silent for a period of over five-and-half years, without even issuing a legal notice for payment of the unpaid sale consideration, or instituting any proceeding for recovery of the amount, till the filing of the present suit in December 2014.
29.6. The plaintiffs have made out a case of alleged non-payment of a part of the sale consideration in the Plaint, and prayed for the relief of cancellation of the sale deed on this ground.
29.7. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides as under:
"54. "Sale" defined.--"Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part- promised."
The definition of "sale" indicates that there must be a transfer of ownership from one person to another i.e. transfer of all rights and interest in the property, which was possessed by the transferor to the transferee. The transferor cannot retain any part of the interest or right in the property, or else it would not be a sale. The definition further indicates that the transfer of ownership has to be made for a "price paid or promised or part-paid and part- promised". Price thus constitutes an essential ingredient of the transaction of sale.
29.8. In Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, this Court held that the words "price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised" indicates that actual payment of the whole of the price at the time of the execution of the sale deed is not a sine qua non for completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid, but the CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 34/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:18:57 +0530 document is executed, and thereafter registered, the sale would be complete, and the title would pass on to the transferee under the transaction. The non-payment of a part of the sale price would not affect the validity of the sale. Once the title in the property has already passed, even if the balance sale consideration is not paid, the sale could not be invalidated on this ground. In order to constitute a "sale", the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property, on the agreement to pay the price either in praesenti, or in future. The intention is to be gathered from the recitals of the sale deed, the conduct of the parties, and the evidence on record.
29.9. In view of the law laid down by this Court, even if the averments of the plaintiffs are taken to be true, that the entire sale consideration had not in fact been paid, it could not be a ground for cancellation of the sale deed. The plaintiffs may have other remedies in law for recovery of the balance consideration, but could not be granted the relief of cancellation of the registered sale deed. We find that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is vexatious, meritless, and does not disclose a right to sue. The plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a).
55. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaliaperumal v. Rajagopal, (2009) 4 SCC 193, has laid down some exceptions to the proposition that upon registration of sale deed, ownership stands transferred to the purchaser. The Court has held that:
15. The question posed for our consideration is whether title to the disputed properties passed to the appellant when the sale deed dated 26-6-1983 was registered on 26-10-1983, though admittedly no amount was paid towards consideration to the respondents.
16. Sale is defined as being a transfer of ownership for a price. In a sale there is an absolute transfer of all rights in the properties sold. No rights are left in the transferor. The price is fixed by the contract antecedent to the conveyance. Price is the essence of a contract of sale. There is only one mode of transfer by sale in regard to immovable property of the value of Rs 100 or more and that is by a registered instrument.
17. It is now well settled that payment of entire price is not a condition precedent for completion of the sale by passing of title, as Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ("the Act", for CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 35/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:19:03 +0530 short) defines "sale" as "a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised". If the intention of parties was that title should pass on execution and registration, title would pass to the purchaser even if the sale price or part thereof is not paid. In the event of non-payment of price (or balance price as the case may be) thereafter, the remedy of the vendor is only to sue for the balance price. He cannot avoid the sale. He is, however, entitled to a charge upon the property for the unpaid part of the sale price where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer before payment of the entire price, under Section 55(4)(b) of the Act.
18. Normally, ownership and title to the property will pass to the purchaser on registration of the sale deed with effect from the date of execution of the sale deed. But this is not an invariable rule, as the true test of passing of property is the intention of parties. Though registration is prima facie proof of an intention to transfer the property, it is not proof of operative transfer if payment of consideration (price) is a condition precedent for passing of the property.
19. The answer to the question whether the parties intended that transfer of the ownership should be merely by execution and registration of the deed or whether they intended the transfer of the property to take place, only after receipt of the entire consideration, would depend on the intention of the parties. Such intention is primarily to be gathered and determined from the recitals of the sale deed. When the recitals are insufficient or ambiguous the surrounding circumstances and conduct of parties can be looked into for ascertaining the intention, subject to the limitations placed by Section 92 of the Evidence Act.
20. In this case, the execution of the sale deed on 26-6-1983 is not in dispute. The said instrument was presented for registration on 21-10-1983 and registered on 26-10-1983, as the first respondent vendor appeared before the Sub-Registrar and admitted that the vendors had executed the documents, but refused to make an endorsement to that effect on the deed as the vendors had not received the balance consideration of Rs 40,000.
22. There is yet another circumstance to show that title was intended to pass only after payment of full price. Though the sale deed recites that the purchaser is entitled to hold, possess and enjoy the scheduled properties from the date of sale, neither the possession of the properties nor the title deeds CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 36/ 42 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:19:09 +0530 were delivered to the purchaser either on the date of sale or thereafter. It is admitted that possession of the suit properties purported to have been sold under the sale deed was never delivered to the appellant and continued to be with the respondents. In fact, the appellant, therefore, sought a decree for possession of the suit properties from the respondents with mesne profits. If really the intention of the parties was that the title to the properties should pass to the appellant on execution of the deed and its registration, the possession of the suit properties would have been delivered to the appellant. (emphasis supplied)
56. The Hon'ble Supreme Court followed the decision of Kaliaperumal (supra) in Janak Dulari Devi v. Kapildeo Rai, (2011) 6 SCC 555 and has held that:
11. Where the intention of the parties is that passing of title would depend upon the passing of consideration, evidence is admissible for the purpose of contradicting the recital in the deed acknowledging the receipt of consideration. In Bishundeo Narain Rai v. Anmol Devi this Court had occasion to consider the question as to when the ownership and title in a property will pass to the transferee, under a deed of conveyance. This Court observed: (SCC p. 503, para 11) "11. ... Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act declares that on a transfer of property, all the interests which the transferor has or is having at that time, capable of passing in the property and in the legal incidence thereof, pass on such a transfer unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied. A combined reading of Section 8 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act suggests that though on execution and registration of a sale deed, the ownership and all interests in the property pass to the transferee, yet that would be on terms and conditions embodied in the deed indicating the intention of the parties. It follows that on execution and registration of a sale deed, the ownership title and all interests in the property pass to the purchaser unless a different intention is either expressed or necessarily implied which has to be proved by the party asserting that title has not passed on registration of the sale deed. Such intention can be gathered by intrinsic evidence, namely, from the averments in the sale deed itself or by other attending circumstances subject, of course, to the provisions of Section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872."CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 37/ 42
NAVEEN GUPTA Digitally signed by NAVEEN GUPTA Date: 2025.12.24 16:19:14 +0530
13. Where the sale deed recites that on receipt of the total consideration by the vendor, the property was conveyed and possession was delivered, the clear intention is that title would pass and possession would be delivered only on payment of the entire sale consideration. Therefore, where the sale deed recited that on receipt of the entire consideration, the vendor was conveying the property, but the purchaser admits that he has not paid the entire consideration (or if the vendor proves that the entire sale consideration was not paid to him), title in the property would not pass to the purchaser.
57. In the background of above precedents, the Court examines the recitals of the impugned sale deed. It is admitted case of the plaintiff that the plot no. A-5/273, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was re-constructed by late Sh. Dharampal in the year 2010 through a builder from ground floor to third floor and second floor of the property was transferred to Smt. Vandana Verma at the instance of the builder. It is further case of the plaintiff that late Sh. Dharampal used to reside at the ground floor of the property. While, the plaintiff/PW-1 and PW-2 have mentioned their address as of first floor of the property.
58. The Court has already observed about recital mentioned in clause no. 1 of the impugned sale deed. The intention of vendor to sell the suit property i.e. third floor of property no. A-5/273 to the defendant could be further made out from other recitals of the sale deed. In clause no. 12, it has been mentioned that 'the vendee shall have proportionate 1/4 th share in land rights out of total land beneath the above-mentioned property in case of building collapses due to any natural or man calamities like flood, earthquake, fire, war, etc.'. The property is built- up of four floors. Accordingly, the vendor has specifically mentioned in clause no. 12 that the vendee would have 1/4 th share in the entire property no. A-5/273.
CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 38/ 42NAVEEN GUPTA Digitally signed by NAVEEN GUPTA Date: 2025.12.24 16:19:19 +0530
59. In clause no. 14, it has been mentioned that the vendee has become the absolute owner of the said portion of the property [suit property] and has acquired the rights of ownership in the abovesaid portion of the property and is fully entitled to use, to mortgage, to sell the said portion of the property and in future, the vendor and his legal heirs shall have no right or concern with the abovesaid portion of the property. Thus, through the above recital, the vendor i.e. late Sh. Dharampal had forgone all his rights and that of his legal heirs over the suit property.
60. In clause no. 15, it has been mentioned that if the vendor sells the ground and first floor of the said property in future to someone, he will make a clear distribution of the remaining original documents among all the occupants of the building, in a manner as he deems fit and will also provide the necessary documents required by the vendee for future reference. This recital shows that the vendor has provided fine details of conveyance of the suit property to the vendee and has taken care of all future eventualities so as to protect the interests of vendee over the suit property.
61. In clause no. 16, it has been mentioned that the separate overhead water tanks for each floor are installed on the roof of top floor of building. All the occupants of the building can go to the roof of the top floor for repair of water tank etc. during normal hours of the day and the owner of top floor shall have no objection thereto. Again, the sale deed deals with the issues which are likely to be arisen in such structures, wherein different floors are occupied by different families.
CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 39/ 42Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:19:24 +0530
62. In clause no. 18, it has been mentioned that this sale will remain irrevocable and binding on the parties, their heirs, successors etc. Neither the vendor nor any of his heirs or legal representatives etc. would make any claim whatsoever against the vendee. Thus, the vendor had himself made the impugned sale of the suit property irrevocable on his behalf as well as on behalf of his legal heirs.
63. It is pertinent to note that the description of property under sale has been mentioned as 'entire third floor without roof/terrace rights, part of freehold built-up property no. 273...'. Thus, the vendor did not sell the terrace rights to the vendee. This shows that late Sh. Dharamapal had kept roof rights over the third floor with himself.
64. The above recitals lead to infer that had late Sh. Dharampal been under any undue influence, it is most likely that he would not have taken care of all the aspects mentioned herein above and provided fine details of conveyance of suit property to the defendant. He was mindful of the factual position existing over the above plot no. A-5/273 that ground and first floors were still under his ownership and second floor had already been transferred through builder. In these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the vendor had not intended to sell the suit property or he had been under any misrepresentation, coercion or fraud while executing the impugned sale deed. Thus, the prayer of plaintiff to declare the impugned sale deed as null and void is rejected. Consequently, she is also not entitled to decree of possession of the suit property. Accordingly, the issues no. 3 and 4 are decided against the plaintiff.
CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 40/ 42Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:19:29 +0530 65. Issue No. 5 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mense profit, if so, at what rate, at what amount and for which period? OPP.
The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. Since the issues no. 3 and 4 have been decided against the plaintiff, this issue does not require any adjudication. Thus, issue no. 5 also stands decided against the plaintiff.
66. Issues no. 1 and 2
1. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees? OPD.
2. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material facts on record?
OPD.
The onus to prove these issues was upon the defendant. The defendant has not led any evidence as to what could have been the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees. The plaintiff has sought declaration of sale deed as null and void. The consideration amount in the sale deed was Rs.30,00,000/-. Thus, the plaintiff has rightly valued the present suit as of Rs.30,00,000/- and paid ad valorem court fees. The issue no. 1 is decided against the defendant.
67. Though the plaintiff has not been able to prove her claims on several aspects, but the defendant has not been able to prove that what material facts have been suppressed by her. Accordingly, the issue no. 2 is also decided against the defendant.
CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 41/ 42Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.24 16:19:37 +0530 Relief
68. In view of the findings on above issues, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed in the plaint. This suit is dismissed. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by NAVEEN Announced in the open Court NAVEEN GUPTA on the 24th day of December, 2025 GUPTA Date: 2025.12.24 16:19:42 +0530 (Naveen Gupta) District Judge-09, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. CS DJ 613/2017 Page no. 42/ 42