Delhi District Court
Deepak Tuli vs Jai Parkash Saini And Anr on 6 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI M JAIN : DISTRICT JUDGE-05,
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS
NEW DELHI
CS DJ ADJ 17798/2016
CNR No. DLSW010089042016
IN THE MATTER OF:
MR. DEEPAK TULI
S/O SH.P.L.TULI,
R/O HOUSE NO.113,
MAA VILLA, OLD GUPTA COLONY,
DELHI-110009. ...........Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. MR. JAI PARKASH SAINI,
S/O SH.SHER SINGH SAINI,
2. MRS. SAVITA SAINI,
W/O MR.JAI PARKASH SAINI
BOTH R/O FLAT NO.605,
SAKSHAM APARTMENTS,
SECTOR 10, PLOT NO.40B,
DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075
ALSO AT:-
FLAT NO. 84, POCKET 8,
DDA FLATS, SECTOR-12,
DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075. ...................Defendants
SHILPI Date of Institution : 22.11.2016
M JAIN
Digitally signed
by SHILPI M
JAIN
Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 1 of 33
17:11:23 +0530
Date of arguments : 19.05.2025
Date of judgment : 06.06.2025
SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, EJECTMENT,
POSSESSION ARREARS OF RENT, DAMAGES/UNAUTHORISED
USE AND OCCUPATION CHARGES & PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
JUDGMENT
INDEX FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..................4 ISSUES .................15 EVIDENCE GIVEN BY PARTIES .................16 SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES ................17 ISSUEWISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ...............19 CONCLUSION ...............32
1. Present suit for specific performance, ejectment, possession arrears of rent, damages/unauthorised use and occupation charges & permanent injunction filed on behalf of plaintiff qua the suit property i.e. Freehold Society Built-up Flat No.605, Sixth Floor, situated in the lay out plan of Niji Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. known as Shanksham Appartments, Plot No.40-B, Sector- 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 (hereinafter referred as the "suit property") against the defendants with the following relief:
"(a) pass a decree of Specific Performance of contract in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, thereby directing the Defendant No.1 to execute the SHILPI M JAIN sale deed of the suit property i.e. Freehold Society Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 2 of 33 17:11:24 +0530 Built-up Flat No.605, Sixth Floor, situated in the lay out plan of Niji Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. known as Shanksham Appartments, Plot No.40-
B, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, as duly shown in Red colour in the Site Plan attached with the plaint in favour of the Plaintiff and also to do the necessary things for the completion of the sale transaction so that the suit property is transferred in the name of the Plaintiff. In case the Defendants failed to execute a Sale Deed of the suit property and get it registered in favour of the Plaintiff, then this Hon'ble Court may appoint some official/Local Commissioner to execute the Sale Deed of the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant No. 1;
(b) pass a decree of ejectment and possession of the suit property i.e. Freehold Society Built-up Flat No.605, Sixth Floor, situated in the lay out plan of Niji Co- operative Group Housing Society Ltd. known as Shanksham Appartments, Plot No.40-B, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, as duly shown in Red colour in the Site Plan attached with the plaint, in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants;
(c) pass a decree of recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) of the suit property for the period from August, 2015 to October, 2016 @ Rs.20,000/- per month in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants;
(d) pass a decree of mesne profits/damages and unauthorised use and occupation charges of the suit property i.e. Freehold Society Built-up Flat No.605, Sixth Floor, situated in the lay out plan of Niji Co- operative Group Housing Society Ltd. known as Shanksham Appartments, Plot No.40-B, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants Rs.5,000/- per day wef SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 3 of 33 17:11:19 +0530 01.11.2016 till handing over of possession of the suit property by the Defendants to the Plaintiff;
(e) pass a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, thereby restraining the Defendants, their family members, associates, authorised representatives, etc. from selling, transferring, parting with the possession and creating any third party interest of the whole or any part of the suit property i.e. Freehold Society Built-up Flat No.605, Sixth Floor, situated in the lay out plan of Niji Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. known as Shanksham Appartments, Plot No.40-B, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, as duly shown in Red colour in the Site Plan attached with the plaint, in any manner, except the Plaintiff;
(f) Cost of the suit be also awarded to the Plaintiff and against the Defendants;
(g) Such other and further relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may also be awarded to the Plaintiff and against the Defendants."
FACTUAL BACKROUND:
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that, on 09.10.2006 plaintiff alongwith his wife Smt Rachna Sharma purchased the Freehold Society Flat No. 605, 6th floor, situated in the Lay Out Plan of Niji Co- operative Group Housing Society Ltd. known as Shanksham Apartments, Plot No. 40-B, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi i.e. the suit property from its erstwhile owner/allottee Shri Kailash Chand Gupta vide Sale Deed bearing Registration No.12832 in Book No.1, Volume No.3159 on pages 23 to 28 duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar-IX, New Delhi. It is further averred that erstwhile allottee SHILPI had already got converted the suit property from leasehold to freehold M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 4 of 33 17:11:20 +0530 vide Conveyance Deed dated 28.09.2006 vide registration no 20538 Book No.1 Volume No. 2235 from pages 68 to 69. Subsequently, the plaintiff and his wife sold the suit property to defendant no vide Sale Deed bearing Registration No.1897 in Addl Book No.1. Volume No. 4756 on pages 151 to 156 on 13/18.03.2009. It is further averred that, defendant no. 1 intended to sell the suit property to plaintiff who agreed to buy the same. It is further averred that, Plaintiff applied for a loan for the said purpose and defendant no. 1 agreed to hand over his original sale deed after completion of dealing i.e. after registration of sale deed by him in favour of the plaintiff. It is further averred that, a sum of Rs. 79,00,000/- through RTGS was paid to defendant no.1 and agreement to sell and purchase dated 06.10.2012 was entered into between the parties for a total sale consideration of Rs. 85,00,000/-. The relevant extract of the said Agreement to Sell and Purchase were also reproduced in the plaint which are as follows:
"Whereas the Party No.1 for his/her/their bonafide needs and requirements has agreed to sell the afore said property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 85,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Lac only) and Party No.2 has agreed to purchase the same on the following terms and conditions of this agreement:-
1. That the Party No.2 has paid an amount of Rs.79,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Nine Lac via RTGS) as earnest money.
3. That the Party No.1 shall not create any charge over the said property after the execution of this agreement and Party No.1 has no right to sell it to any body else after the signing of this agreement.
7. That the Party No. 1 will deliver the vacant physical possession of the said property at the time of full and final payment and registration of SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 5 of 33 17:11:30 +0530 documents in favour of the purchaser or his nominee or any his prospective buyers.
10. That Party No. 1 hereby, further confirms and declares that this agreement is IRREVOCABLE and shall be final and binding on them, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns".
3. It is further averred that, defendants could not vacate the suit premises and a rent agreement dated 06.10.2012 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants for a period of 11 months whereby the defendants agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- in lieu of rental amount towards occupying the above suit property for a period of 11 months. It is further averred that, thereafter the tenancy was agreed to be extended for two years. It is further averred that, after completion of two years in the month of August 2015, plaintiff approached the defendants for vacating the suit property and execution of relevant documents, however, defendant no. 1 again sought some more time to arrange for suitable accommodation for his family so considering the close relations, plaintiff allowed the defendants to stay in the suit property on a month by month tenancy in lieu of rent on the assurance of the defendants that they would payt he rent regularly. It is further averred that, thereafter, the intention of defendants turned dishonest and ever since the month of August 2015 they did not even pay the rent. It is further averred that, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant no. 2 vide legal notice dated 30.08.2016 for her failure to pay the agreed rent of Rs. 20,000/- per month and for not handing over the peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. It is further averred that, thereafter defendants in the month of September, 2016 filed a malicious suit for permanent injunction on the SHILPI M JAIN basis of falsely concocted allegations against the plaintiff and his wife Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 6 of 33 17:11:25 +0530 which was disposed off on 07.11.2016 on statements by the defendants.
4. It is further averred that, the plaintiff has already terminated the tenancy of the Defendant No. 2 vide legal notice dated 30.08.2016 for her failure to pay the agreed rent of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) per month of the suit property. It is further averred that, the Defendant No.1 has not handed over the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property and is occupying the premises as an unauthorised occupant. It is further averred that, the Defendant No. 2 failed to pay the rent of the suit premises ever since August, 2015 and thus she is also liable to pay arrears of rent of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) w.e.f. August, 2015 till 31.10.2016 and since the Defendant No.2 is occupying the suit premises unauthorisedly, thus she is liable to pay the charges of unauthorised use and occupation charges/damages @ Rs. 5,000/- per day, which the said property presently can easily fetch if let out on rent. Hence, the present suit is filed against the defendants.
WRITTEN STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT NO. 15. It is stated by the defendant no. 1 in his WS that, averments contained in the plaint are concocted, misleading and the plaintiff has suppressed the relevant material and concealed the documents disclosing the same hence, the present suit grossly suffers defects of Suppressio Veri, Suggestio Falsi and fraud; hence, deserves to be dismissed on the ground of fraud. It is further stated that, the plaintiff has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has filed the present suit with ulterior motive just in order to put undue SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 7 of 33 17:11:25 +0530 pressure upon the defendant no.1 so that defendant no. 1 could keep mum pursuant to involvement of the plaintiff in the criminal case arising out of FIR No.66/2016 dated 21.01.2016, P.S. EOW, u/s.406/409/420/120B IPC. It is further stated that, plaintiff had worked as the treasurer of Vedanta Welfare Society and hold the post till April, 2014. It is further stated that, Plaintiff was instrumental to bring the defendant no.1 in Vedanta Welfare Society through Shashi Bhushan Mishra (S.B. Mishra). It is further stated that, Defendant no. 1 was offered by SB Mishra to work as the secretary of said society which was at that time under process of formation and that the Defendant no. 1 had accepted the said offer only on the persuasion of plaintiff. It is further stated that, at that time, Devender Mann was the president of society and later on, defendant no. 1 was made the president of said society and plaintiff became treasurer of the same. It is further stated that, after becoming Treasurer, plaintiff in connivance with S.B. Mishra and K.S. Krishnan had convinced the defendant no.1 to initiate housing project in the name of society. Accordingly, plaintiff and S.B. Mishra had prepared leaflet and brochure of the Housing Project. It is further stated that, S B Mishra and KS Krishnan had earlier offered land for the said project on joint venture basis but later on plaintiff had insisted to purchase the land from them in the name of society with the use of funds collected from its members. It is further stated that, thereafter, agreement to sell (ATS) was executed on 28.01.2013 with RLG Infratech Private Limited in order to purchase land for the society. The said ATS dated 28.01.2013 was later on substituted with Deecon Infrastructure Private Limited vide ATS 28.03.2013 through K.S. Krishnan. It is further stated that in view of both the ATS, at least Rs. 3,20,00,000/- (Three Crore Twenty Lakh) SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 8 of 33 17:11:24 +0530 was paid in cash to S.B. Mishra and K.S. Krishnan through the plaintiff who was handling the cash amount and had given cheques as security against the said cash amount which were received by him after withdrawal from the bank account of the society.
6. It is further stated that, when Defendant no. 1 was in Police Custody in the case FIR No. 66/2016 dated 21.01.2016, he was compelled to sign some fabricated documents included alleged back dated receiving and acceptance of the resignation letter of the plaintiff from the said society, so that plaintiff could get a safe passage from the criminal case. It is further stated that, the alleged resignation letter of the plaintiff from the post of treasurer of the society is available on page no. 847 of the charge sheet filed in the said FIR and that the said resignation letter bears date of 15.01.2013 and receiving of the same by defendant no.1 also bears the same date. Whereas, alleged acceptance letter pursuant to said resignation which is available on page no. 848 of the charge sheet bears the date of 18.01.2013, however, share certificate vide serial no. 054 of the society, which was issued on 08.03.2013 in favour of M/s. Satish Chander & Sons (HUF) Karta and which also bears the signature of the plaintiff as treasurer of the society is available on page no. 209 of the charge sheet. It is further stated that, in the same manner, share certificates issued after 18.01.2013 in favour of other members bearing signatures of the plaintiff are also available on page nos. 239, 243, 247, 470 and 702 of the said charge sheet, which substantially prove the fact that resignation and acceptance letters of the plaintiff are fabricated documents because he had been working as the treasurer of the society even after 18.01.2013.
SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 9 of 33 17:11:33 +0530
7. It is further stated that, during November, 2019 when defendant no. I was in the Police Custody, plaintiff had given undated cheque of Rs. 3,20,00,000/- (Three Crores and Twenty Lakh Rupees) to the deceased father of defendant no.1 Late Sher Singh Saini, for refunding the amount taken in cash during the land deal with Deecon Infrastructure Private Limited vide ATS dated 28.03.2013 so that his name could not be included in the investigation. It is further stated that, consequently, Defendant no. 1 was compelled to sign some fabricated documents including alleged back dated receiving and acceptance of the resignation letter of the plaintiff, which have been mentioned above so that plaintiff could be given safe passage. The said cheque was given in the name of Defendant no.1 and was supposed to be encashed after his release from jail. It is further stated that, in the meanwhile, father of Defendant no.1 was died of COVID on 11.07.2020 and defendant no. 1 could be released from jail on 01.07.2022. Thus, mother of the defendant no.1 had handed over the said cheque, which was presented in the bank and was found non-CTC instrument, invalid for clearance.
8. It is further stated that, since 04.08.2011 till 06.10.2012 when the alleged ATS was executed, the plaintiff had received at least Rs. 1,09,95,000/- (Rupees One Crore, Nine Lakh and Ninety-Five Thousand Only) from the bank account of defendant no.1 or his proprietorship firm J.J. Estates. It is further stated that, after 06.10.2012, the plaintiff has received Rs. 52,15,000/- (Rupees Fifty- Two Lakh and Fifteen Thousand only) from defendant no. 1 and Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) from the account of Jitender Saini, SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 10 of 33 17:11:20 +0530 the younger brother of Defendant no.1. However, plaintiff had refunded Rs. 79,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Nine Lakh only) to defendant no.1 on 07.09.2012 i.e. one month before the alleged ATS. The plaintiff had further refunded Rs. 85,000/- (Rupees Eighty-Five Thousand) to defendant no.1 on 23.10.2012 and Rs.1.00.000/- (One Lakh Rupees) on 07.02.2013. In this way plaintiff has received at least Rs. 1,64,10,000/- (One Crore, Sixty-Four Lakhs and Ten Thousand Rupees) till date from defendant no.1 and his family whereas, plaintiff has refunded total amount of Rs. 80,85,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakh and Eighty-Five Thousand) to defendant no. 1 till date. Thus, balance of payment in favour of defendant no.1 is still exiting at least Rs. 83,25,000 (Eighty-Three Lakh and Twenty-Five Thousand Rupees), which is payable by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 and his family. It is further stated that, the Rent Agreement dated 06.10.2012 and ATS dated 06.10.2012, which have been filed by the plaintiff, are contradictory to each other. It is further stated that, the plaintiff cannot be the owner/ landlord and intended buyer of the same property on same date. It is further stated that, Rent Agreement dated 06.10.2012 shows plaintiff as the owner/ landlord of the suit property. Whereas, ATS dated 06.10.2012 shows defendant no.1 as the owner of suit property on the same date. In fact, plaintiff had another flat numbered as 606 in the same Saksham Apartment, Plot no.40R, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110095 and plaintiff was intended to sell the said flat no.606 of Saksham Apartment to defendant no.1. However, plaintiff had played dishonest tricks and he had deceitfully prepared the said documents, perhaps using some erasable ink pen or by way of some other fraudulent means. In his para-wise reply on merit, defendant no. 1 denied the contents of plaint. SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 11 of 33 17:11:26 +0530
9. Defendant no. 1 relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions made in his WS;
a) Boyce's Executors v. Grundy (1830) 28 U.S. 210
b) Nudd v. Burrows (1875) 91 U.S. 416
c) United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 70
d) Lazarus Estates v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702,712
e) Dalip Singh Vs.State of U.P. and others, (2010) 2 SCC 18
f) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead)
by LRs & Ors. [(1993) Supp. 3 SCR 422
g) State of A.P. & Anr. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao [(2005) 6 SCC
h) Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi & Ors. (2003)
i) A.P. & Anr. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao [(2005) 6 SCC
j) Hamza Haji vs. State of Kerala and Anr. (2006) 7 SCC 416
WRITTEN STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT NO. 2
10. In his WS defendant no. 2 stated that, the present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff with ulterior motive to put an immense pressure upon the Defendant no. 2 to favour unreasonable and unlawful demands of the Plaintiff. It is further stated that, the Plaintiff has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from this Hon'ble Court and submitted totally false and concocted stories hence, the Suit is liable to be rejected with heavy costs. It is further stated that, the entire Suit is misrepresentation and distortion of facts and no cause of action arose against the Defendant no. 2.
11. It is further stated that, the Suit property is in the name of Defendant No. 1 and therefore, the Rent Agreement in question, on Stamp Paper, presented by the Plaintiff is null and void, since he is not the owner of the Suit property. It is further stated that, in the alleged SHILPI Rent Agreement on page no. 28, the name of first party is written as M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 12 of 33 17:11:22 +0530 Deepak Tuli and the name of the second party is Jai Prakash Saini and on the next page and that the agreement is executed between Deepak Tuli i.e. the Plaintiff and Mrs. Savita Saini i.e. the Defendant No. 2. It is further stated that, the said Rent Agreement is Hand written and on page no. 30, para no. 12 the rental is written as Nil and therefore the genuineness of the Rent Agreement can be ascertained. It is further stated that, the executant of the Rent Agreement is not the owner of the property and therefore it is not a valid agreement therefore, the Defendant no. 2 is not the proper party to the present Suit and her name should be deleted from the list of defendant in the present case.
12. It is further stated that, there is no cause of action arose in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant and that, defendant no. 2 is nowhere related in the present matter. It is further stated that, Defendant No. 2 is the wife of Defendant No. 1 and that Defendant no. 1 and Plaintiff were doing property business by the name of J J Estates in Dwarka, New Delhi. It is further stated that, the Plaintiff was involved in business transactions with the Defendant No. 1 as per the mutual understanding between them and such business can be ascertained by the Banking transactions between both the parties which are placed on record. It is further stated that, it can be ascertained from the Bank Records that the Defendant No. 1 has transferred a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lacs only) towards the Plaintiff on dated 08.08.2012 and from said Statement of Account of the Defendant No. 1, it seems that the Plaintiff has returned the said amount being transferred by the Plaintiff of which he is claiming to have been transferred on the pretext of earnest money of the suit property. It is further stated that, the amount of Rs. 79,00,000/- SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 13 of 33 17:11:19 +0530 (Rupees Seventy Nine Lacs only) has been transferred by the Plaintiff as mentioned by them on 07.09.2012, and the alleged Agreement to Sale and purchase has been entered into on dated 06.10.2012, i.e. after one month of the said transfer. Details of amount transferred to the plaintiff by the firm J J Estates, whose proprietor is the Defendant No. 1, as appearing from the Statement of Account of the Firm JJ Estates are as follows:
Sl. no. Date Amount (in Rupees)
1. 08/12/2012 1,30,000/-
2. 14/05/2012 50,000/-
3. 04/06/2013 1,35,000/-
4. 05/12/2013 3,00,000/-
5. 08/01/2014 1,50,000/-
6. 14/02/2012 75,000/-
7. 14/03/2014 9,00,000/-
TOTAL 17,40,000/-
13. It is further stated that, the Plaintiff has failed to explain the delay of one month in execution of the alleged agreement to sale and purchase. It is further stated that, the said Agreement to Sale and purchase is a written document not being duly notarized or registered and such documents are not permissible in the eyes of law since, such kind of documents can be easily manipulated and therefore cannot be taken as evidence. It is further stated in the WS that in view of above, it is clear there was no Agreement to Sale and Purchase and the alleged Agreement has been forged. It is further stated that, there is no time line mentioned in the alleged Agreement to Sale and Purchase, and therefore it lacks the very essence of the same. SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 14 of 33 17:11:31 +0530
14. It is further stated that, the Plaintiff has not disclosed that on which property, the said loan has been obtained by him, since till date, the Suit property is in the name of Defendant no. 1. It is further stated that, there are several Blank cheques being issued by the Plaintiff towards the Defendant No. 1 which clarifies the business relationship between them which are placed on record. It is further stated that, the Defendant no. 1 who is the husband of Defendant No. 2 is missing from 06.06.2016, and the missing complaint has already been lodged by the Defendant no. 2 on 08.06.2016, vide DD no.-17A, P.S.-Dwarka, Sector-23, New Delhi, and the copy of the same has been placed on record. It is further stated that, the Plaintiff has also purchased a Flat No.-606, which is adjacent to the flat of the Defendant No. 1. In her para-wise reply on merit, defendant no. 2 denied the contents of plaint and prayed that the present Suit may be dismissed with exemplary costs towards the Defendant and also compensate the Defendant for causing Mental torture and harassment for all false allegations levied upon the Defendant by compensating the Defendant monetarily. It is further prayed that cost of the present Suit may also be awarded in favour of Defendant.
15. No replication filed to the written statement of defendant no. 1 by plaintiff. However, replication to the written statement of defendant no. 2 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, thereby, reiterating and reaffirming the contents of the plaint.
ISSUES
16. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 13.12.2018:
SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 15 of 33 17:11:28 +0530 i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance of contract thereby directing the defendant no.1 to execute sale deed of Flat No.605, 6th Floor, situated in the lay out plan of Niji Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited known as Shanksham Apartments, Plot No.40-B, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 (suit property), in favour of plaintiff ? OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of ejectment and possession of the aforesaid suit property? OPP iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs) as arrears of rent from August 2015 to October 2016 @ Rs.20,000/- per month from the defendants? OPP iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages/mesne profits against the defendants, as claimed in prayer clause (d) of the plaint? OPP v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as sought in prayer clause (e) of the plaint?
vi. Relief.
EVIDENCE GIVEN BY THE PARTIES :
17. In support of his case, plaintiff examined total three witnesses in all. PW1 Sh. Deepak Tuli S/o. Sh. P. L. Tuli tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and has relied upon following documents:
Sl. No. Particulars of Documents Exhibits/Mark 1. Rent agreement Ex. PW1/1
2. Agreement to sale and purchase Ex. PW1/2 3. Legal Notice Ex. PW1/2
4. Receipts of speed post Ex. PW1/4A to Ex. PW1/4D
5. Copy of Tracking Report Mark P-A SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 16 of 33 17:11:27 +0530 PW1 has been cross-examined on behalf of Ld. defendants at length and discharged.
18. PW-2 Sh. Mandeep Singh Anand, S/o Sh. Trilochan Singh Anand tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. PW2 stated that he is the attesting witness on the rent agreement dt. 06.10.2012 already Ex.PW1/1 bearing his signatures at point X and agreement to sell and purchase already Ex.PW1/2 bearing his signatures at point Y. PW2 has been cross-examined on behalf of Ld. defendants and discharged
19. PW3 Sh. Bhavneet Walia S/o Sh. Tejpal Singh tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW/A. He stated that he was the attesting witness on the rent agreement dt. 06.10.2012 already Ex.PW1/1 bearing his signatures at point C and agreement to sell and purchase already Ex.PW1/2, bearing his signatures at point D. He has been cross-examined on behalf of defendants and discharged.
20. Thereafter, plaintiff evidence was closed and the matter was listed for defendant's evidence.
21. Despite multiple opportunities, defendants failed to lead any defence evidence, hence DE was closed vide order dated 15.04.2025 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court and matter was fixed for final arguments.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PARTIES :
22. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that, initially SHILPI M JAIN on 09.10.2006 plaintiff purchased free hold suit property from Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 17 of 33 17:11:29 +0530 erstwhile owner vide registered sale deed. However, due to bonafide needs, same was sold to defendant no. 1 for total sale consideration of Rs. 23,00,000/- vide registered sale deed dt. 18.03.2009. It is further submitted that, in the year 2012, defendant no. 1 approached plaintiff and proposed him to re-purchase the suit property for Rs. 85,00,000/-.
It is further submitted that, as per mutual understanding between the parties, plaintiff took LAP (Loan Against Property) for Rs. 79,00,000/- from its bank and immediately transferred the same to the account of defendant no. 1 via RTGS on 07.09.2012 and thereafter agreement to sell and purchase dt. 06.10.2012 entered between the parties wherein receipt of Rs. 79,00,000/- was duly acknowledged by defendant. It is further submitted that, in terms of agreement, defendant no. 1 was supposed to deliver vacant physical possession of the suit property at the time of full and final payment and registration of documents. It is further submitted that, on 06.10.2012, plaintiff offered balance amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- to defendant no.1 but, he requested plaintiff to give the suit property on lease for 11 months at monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- p.m. Defendant no. 1 further assured the plaintiff to execute sale deed after expiry of 11 months but, defendant no. 1 failed to do so rather, requested plaintiff for extension of lease for two years. It is further submitted that, considering the relationship between the parties, plaintiff agreed for said extension but, thereafter intention of defendant turned dishonest and they neither pay rent nor transferred the property in favour of plaintiff.
23. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that, since plaintiff was always willing and ready to execute the sale deed and pay remaining SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 18 of 33 17:11:25 +0530 amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-, decree of specific performance may be passed in his favour.
24. Perusal of the record reveals that, defendant failed to appear and argue the present matter despite opportunity. In fact, on 19.05.2025 liberty was granted to defendants to file written synopsis if any, within two weeks but, no such synopsis are filed.
25. This court has carefully gone through the material available on record as well as submissions made by plaintiff.
ISSUEWISE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Issue No. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance of contract thereby directing the defendant no.1 to execute sale deed of Flat No.605, 6th Floor, situated in the lay out plan of Niji Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited known as Shanksham Apartments, Plot No.40-B, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 (suit property), in favour of plaintiff ? OPP
26. In the matter of Global Music Junction Pvt. Ltd V. Shatrughan Kumar Aka Khesari Lal Yadav & ORS1, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi discussed in detail the scope of Specific Performance before and after amendment as follows:
'This Court is of the view that the Amendment Act, 2018 introduces a paradigm shift in law regarding contractual enforcement in India. A glaring instance of SHILPI the legislative shift is the amendment of Section 14 of M JAIN 1 FAO(OS) (COMM) 7/2023 Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 19 of 33 17:11:26 +0530 Act, 1963 which deletes the earlier sub-clause (a) which prescribed that the contracts for the non-performance of which compensation in money was an adequate relief would not be specifically enforced, meaning thereby that the plea that a party could be compensated in monetary terms as damages for breach of the contract and resultant refusal of interim injunction on the said ground, is no longer a ground to refuse specific performance of the contract. Consequently, the Amendment Act, 2018 does away with the primacy given to damages as a relief over specific performance. It shifts the focus from the previous default remedy of award of damages for breach of contract to enforcing specific performance of contracts.' WHETHER 2018 AMENDMENT APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY OR PROSPECTIVELY?
27. Recently, in M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Katta Sujatha Reddy & Ors2 as decided on November 08, 2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recalled its 2022 judgment which held that the 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963, will apply only prospectively to transactions effected after the date when the amendment came into force (01.10.2018). Meaning thereby, 2018 Amendment shall be applicable retrospectively.
28. Now, issue is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance for PW1/2? For the purpose of specific per- formance, plaintiff relied upon Ex.PW1/2 i.e. agreement to sell and purchase dt. 06.10.2012 wherein defendant no. 1 agreed to sell the suit property for Rs. 85,00,000/- and also acknowledged Rs. 79,00,000/- as SHILPI M JAIN 2 Review Petition (C) No. 1565 of 2022 in C.A. No. 5822 of 2022 Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 20 of 33 17:11:23 +0530 earnest money. However, careful perusal of agreement reveals that, time was not an essence of contract as no timeline fixed for execution of sale deed rather, same was left blank. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, he was ready to make balance payment for Rs. 6 lacs on the day of execution of agreement to sell itself but, defendant no. 1 re- quested to provide suit premises for 11 months on monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- which was extended for 2 years but, thereafter intention of de- fendant turned dishonest. On the other side, in para no. 11 of Written Statement, defendant made following avernments:
"11. It is imperative to mention that since 04.08.2011 till 06.10.2012 when the alleged ATS was executed, the plaintiff had received at least Rs.1,09,95,000/- (One Crore, Nine Lakh and Ninety-Five Thousand Rupees) from the bank account of defendant no.1 or his proprietorship firm J.J. Estates. Whereas, after 06.10.2012, the plaintiff has received Rs.52,15,000/- (Fifty-Two Lakh and Fifteen Thousand Rupees) from defendant no. 1 and Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh Rupees) from the account of Jitender Saini, the younger brother of Defendant no.1. However, plaintiff had refunded Rs.79,00,000/- (Seventy-Nine Lakh Rupees) to defendant no.1 on 07.09.2012 i.e. one month before the alleged ATS. The plaintiff had further refunded Rs.85,000/- (Eighty-Five Thousand) to defendant no.1 on 23.10.2012 and Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees) on 07.02.2013. In this way plaintiff has received at least Rs.1,64,10,000/- (One Crore, Sixty-Four Lakh and Ten Thousand Rupees) till date from defendant No. 1 and his family. Whereas plaintiff has refunded total amount of Rs.80,85,000/- (Eighty Lakh and Eighty-Five Thousand Rupees) to defendant no.1 till date. Thus, balance of payment in favour of defendant no.1 is still exiting at least Rs.83,25,000 (Eighty-Three Lakh and Twenty-Five Thousand Rupees), which is payable by the plaintiff to defendant no. 1 and his family.
12. Moreover, Rent Agreement dated 06.10.2012 and ATS dated 06.10.2012, which have been filed by the SHILPI M JAIN plaintiff, are contradictory to each other. The plaintiff Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 21 of 33 17:11:28 +0530 cannot be the owner/ landlord and intended buyer of the same property on same date. Rent Agreement dated 06.10.2012 shows plaintiff as the owner/ landlord of the suit property. Whereas, ATS dated 06.10.2012 shows defendant no.1 as the owner of suit property on the same date. In fact, plaintiff had another flat numbered as 606 in the same Saksham Apartment, Plot no.40R, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110095 and plaintiff was intended to sell the said flat no.606 of Saksham Apartment to defendant no.1. However, plaintiff had played dishonest tricks and he had deceitfully prepared the said documents, perhaps using some erasable ink pen or by way some other fraudulent means."
(emphasis is mine)
29. Bare perusal of above averment reveals, specific admission of receipt of Rs. 79,00,000/- on 07.09.2012 on the part of defendant No. 1. However, contention of defendant is two fold firstly, plaintiff received Rs. 1,64,10,000/- from defendant and his brother but, returned only 79,00,000/- on 07.09.2012, Rs. 85,000/- on 23.10.2012 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 07.02.2013 respectively while Rs. 83,25,000/- is still pending Secondly, Agreement to Sell dated 06.10.2012 is forged and fabricated as plaintiff was intended to sell his another flat no. 606, Saksham Apartment, Plot No. 40R, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110095 to defendant no. 1 and used erasable ink pen in preparation of document in deceitful manner.
30. Thus, from the averment made in the WS, it is clear that, defendant no. 1 didn't specifically disputed execution of agreement to sell rather asserts that, same is for some other flat. However, the burden of proving the fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it but, defendant SHILPI M JAIN No. 1 failed to produce any material on record in support of his Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 22 of 33 17:11:28 +0530 contention. It is settled that,. In Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh3 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India discussed law on onus and burden of proof in following terms:
"19. There is another aspect of the matter which should be borne in mind. A distinction exists between burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is, which party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways: (i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later, (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter-evidence; and (iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of the others. The elementary rule in Section 101 is inflexible. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same."
(emphasis is mine)
31. In view of settled law, as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court India, since plaintiff is claiming relief of specific performance on the basis of Exh. PW1/2, he must prove that said documents/agreement exist. If he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same.
SHILPI M JAIN 3 (2006) 5 SCC 558 Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 23 of 33 17:11:29 +0530
32. To discharge his onus Plaintiff examined himself and both witnesses of Ex. PW1/2. But, despite cross-examination, defendant failed to disprove contention of plaintiff. Cross examination of all PWs is reproduced herein below:
- XXXX of PW-1 Sh. Deepak Tuli "It is wrong to suggest that I have received amount of Rupees more than one crore nine lakhs from the defendant no.1 in the period from August, 2011 to 06.10.2012. Vol. I have not received any amount against the subject property. Whatever amount has been received that may be from our old personal transactions.
Q. What was the nature of old personal transactions ? Ans. I have invested the fund with the defendant no.1 in lieu of some other properties and the defendant no. 1 time to time given me the profits.
I did not sell any property other than the suit property to the defendant no.1. Vol. I have done multiple transactions with the defendant no. 1 so I do not remember exactly whether I have sold some other property to defendant no.1.
Q Whether you have purchased any other property except the suit property from the defendant no. 1 ? Ans. I have done multiple transactions with the defendant no. 1 so I do not remember exactly whether I have purchased some other property to defendant no. 1. It is wrong to suggest that the amount of Rs. 79 lakhs given by me to defendant no.1 was as the refund of earlier amount taken from him by me. Vol. Rs. 79 lakhs was given by me as sale consideration of the suit property pursuant to agreement to sell dated 06.10.2012. It is wrong to suggest that I have taken loan on the property of defendant no.1 with the misuse of documents and the same amount paid to the defendant no. 1.
SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 24 of 33 17:11:32 +0530 I have no transaction with defendant no. 1 related to Vedanta Welfare Society. Vol. The defendant no. 1 had cheated hundreds of investors in the name of Vedanta Welfare Society and in that scam, he went to judicial custody also and he also tried to dragged me in that scam deliberately.
I was never an office bearer of Vedanta Welfare Society on record. I have taken the loan from HDFC bank. There was another property ie. flat no. 606, in the same society in my name which was purchased and sold through defendant no 1. I had sold out flat no. 606 in the year 2012. I have the proof regarding the sale purchase of flat no. 606 through defendant no.1.
I do not remember whether cheque of Rs. 10 lakhs given by defendant no.1 in the year 2016 was dishonoured but a cheque was dishonored through my account.
Q. When you were going to purchase the suit property from the defendant no.1 in the year 2012, why did you taken a cheque of Rs. 10 lakhs in the year 2016?
Ans. The cheque which has been deposited by me in the year 2016 that was in lieu of the security of rent of the subject property.
It is correct that I am not having original sale deed of year 2009 with me which is in the name of defendant no.1. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
XXXX of PW2 Mandeep Singh "Rent agreement Ex.PW1/1 was executed by wife of Jai Prakash Saini and agreement to sell Ex.PW1/2 was executed by Sh. Jai Praksah Saini. Both above documents were executed at the same time and at the same place i.e. in Sector 12, Dwarka at ground floor which was an office and this office was located in a residential area. I have seen the wife of Mr Jai Prakash SHILPI M JAIN Saini. She is of medium height. At the time of Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 25 of 33 17:11:20 +0530 execution of both above documents, me, Deepak Tuli, Jai Prakash Saini, his wife namely Savita Saini and Bhavneet Wali were present. I have gone through the both above mentioned documents i.e. agreement to sell and rent agreement before signing the same. Both above documents were executed with respect to the same property. Agreement to sell was executed by Mr. Jai Prakash Saini in favour of Sh. Deepak Tuli. Rent agreement wsa executed by Deepak Tuli in favour of Ms. Savita Saini who is wife of Jai Prakash Saini. At the time of execution of rent agreement, Deepak Tuli was the owner of the suit property as per me.
Q. Can a person be declared owner just after execution of agreement to sell?
Ans. Court Observation: question disallowed being legal question.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
XXXXX of PW-3 Sh. Bhavneet Walia "Agreement to sell and rent agreement were executed on the same day at the office of Mr. Jai Saini at Sector 12, Dwarka. The office of Mr. Jai Saini was in the DDA Flats at ground floor. At the time of the execution of both the documents, Mr. Jai Saini, his wife, Deepak Tuli, Ms. M S Anand, myself and brother of Mr. Jai Saini were present. I have gone through both the above documents before signing the same. Agreement to sell was executed by Mr. Jai Saini in favour of Mr. Deepak Tuli. Rent agreement was executed by Mr. Deepak Tuli in favour of Mrs. Savita Saini who is the wife of Mr. Jai Saini. The signature on the rent agreement Ex.PW1/1 was done in my presence by Mrs. Savita Saini.
Q. Who was the owner of the suit property at the time of execution of rent agreement as per your knowledge?
SHILPI M JAIN Ans. I am not aware. Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 26 of 33 17:11:21 +0530
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
(emphasis is mine) READINESS AND WILLINGNESS:
33. Readiness and willingness broadly refer to the capacity and preparedness of a party to a lis to perform his part of the contract. The aforesaid requirement is one of the essential ingredients under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is clear that in order to prove readiness and willingness, the burden is on the purchaser to prove that he was always ready and it is only the vendor who refused to perform the contract for extraneous consideration. Readiness insofar as a purchaser/plaintiff is concerned boils down to the question whether he was possessed of the necessary funds to pay the sale consideration. It must be shown that the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is continuous, right from the date of contract till the decree. Readiness and willingness is a matter to be established from the overall conduct of the plaintiff and not a rhetoric of assertion. The compliance of readiness and willingness has to be in spirit and substance; and not in letter and form. To test whether a party has performed his obligations, one has to see the pith and substance of his plea.
34. The legal position has been succinctly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aniglase Yohannan v. Ramlatha & others 4 as follows:
'It is thus clear that an averment of readiness and willingness in the plaint is not a mathematical formula which should SHILPI only be in specific words. If the averments in the plaint as a M JAIN 4 (2005) 7 SCC 534 Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 27 of 33 17:11:21 +0530 whole do clearly indicate the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to fulfil his part of the obligations under the contract which is the subject-matter of the suit, the fact that they are differently worded will not militate against the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale.
Lord Campbell in Cork v. Ambergate etc. and Railway Co., (1851) 117 ER 1229 observed that in common sense the meaning of such an averment of readiness and willingness must be that the non-completion of the contract was not the fault of the plaintiffs, and that they were disposed and able to complete it had it not been renounced by the defendant.
The basic principle behind Section 16(c) read with Explanation (ii) is that any person seeking benefit of the specific performance of contract must manifest that his conduct has been blemishless throughout entitling him to the specific relief. The provision imposes a personal bar. The Court is to grant relief on the basis of the conduct of the person seeking relief. If the pleadings manifest that the conduct of the plaintiff entitles him to get the relief on perusal of the plaint he should not be denied the relief. Section 16(c) of the Act mandates the plaintiff to aver in the plaint and establish as the fact by evidence aliunde that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On considering almost identical fact situation it was held by this Court in Surya Narain Upadhyaya v. Ram Roop Pandey and Ors., AIR (1994) SC 105 that the plaintiff had substantiated his plea.'
35. Coming to the facts, this court noticed that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded that he was and is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. This case will first consider the 'readiness' of the plaintiff, which essentially refers to his financial SHILPI capacity and willingless, as referred earlier. Out of total 85,00,000/-, M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 28 of 33 17:11:31 +0530 plaintiff already paid Rs. 79,00,000/- to the defendant No. 1 at the time of execution of Agreement to Sell and Purchase dated 06.10.2012. As per the version of plaintiff, after execution of agreement to sell, defendant no. 2 entered into lease agreement dt. 06.10.2012 for subject property for 11 months and same was mutually extended for 2 years. Plaintiff also relied upon legal notice on 30th Aug 2016 wherein plaintiff asked defendants to take balance consideration amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- and pay arrears of rent.
36. What is important to note here, said legal notice duly admitted by defendant but, no material placed on record in rebuttal. In fact, in WS, no specific parawise reply given which deems to admission on part of defendant. Contents of parawise reply in WS is reproduced herein below:
"18. That, para no.1 to 3 of the Plaint contain formal and procedural submissions and the same are matters of record; hence, to the extent of matters of record no specific comment is required in this regard.
19. That, para no.4 to 21 of the Plaint are wrong, concocted, manipulated and misleading; hence they are vehemently denied and in this regard defendant no.1 affirms the reply made by defendant no.2 in her written statement. Defendant no.1 further adds that balance of payment of at least Rs.83,25,000 (Eighty- Three Lakh and Twenty-Five Thousand Rupees) is still exiting in favour of defendant no.1. The said amount of Rs.83,25,000 is payable by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 and his family, in addition to cheque of Rs.3,20,00,000/- (Three Crores and Twenty Lakh Rupees) given by the plaintiff in view of recoverable amount of the Vedanta Welfare Society, which was presented by the defendant no.1 in the bank and was found non-CTC instrument, invalid for clearance. In this regard, defendant no.1 reserves his right to take SHILPI appropriate legal recourse including filing of separate M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 29 of 33 17:11:22 +0530 suit as cause of action is directly not connected with the present suit.
20. That, para no. 22 regarding cause of action is wrong. Hence, it is denied, as no cause of action arose in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
21. That, Para 23 of the plaint contains formal and procedural submissions regarding jurisdiction and the same are matters of facts and records: hence, to the extent of matters of facts and records no specific com is required in this regard. However, the present suit deserves to be dismissed on several grounds such as fraud, collusion and lack of proper cause of action.
22. That, Para 24 of the plaint is also false, misleading, deceptive and irrelevant; hence it is denied to the extent of relief sought therein. Contents of this para is further disputed for the want of proper knowledge."
37. Thus, considering overall facts and circumstances of present matter this court is of the opinion that, the fact of readiness and willingness established in favour of plaintiff. Hence, issue no. 1 decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of ejectment and possession of the aforesaid suit property? OPP Issue No. 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs) as arrears of rent from August 2015 to October 2016 @ Rs.20,000/- per month from the defendants? OPP Issue No. 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages/mesne profits against the defendants, as claimed in prayer clause (d) of the plaint? OPP SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 30 of 33 17:11:30 +0530
38. Since above issues are interrelated hence, taken simultaneously.
39. Apart from rent agreement dated 06.10.2012 (Exh. PW1/1) no material placed on record by plaintiff to show landlord- tenant relationship. Admittedly, defendant No. 1 is still owns suit property and title is yet to be transferred. Moreover, in terms of Ex. PW1/2 no possession is given to plaintiff. Hence, there is no question for giving the suit premises on rent to the actual owner. During cross- examination plaintiff deposed that he executed rent agreement in capacity of owner but, in considered opinion of this Court this is not correct preposition of law as agreement to sell does not confer any title for the immovable property in favour of proposed buyer. Hence, once landlord tenant relationship is not established plaintiff cannot be held entitled for arrears of rent or mesne profit. So far as, issue with respect to possession and ejectment is concerned same is passed in favour of plaintiff subject to execution of sale deed. Above issue disposed of accordingly.
Issue No. 5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as sought in prayer clause (e) of the plaint?
40. In view of foregoing discussion, decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of plaintiff. Defendant no. 1, his agent, attorney, family members are restrained to create any third party right w.r.t. suit property. This issue decided in favour of plaintiff. SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 31 of 33 17:11:31 +0530 Relief (Conclusion)
41. Considering facts and circumstances of present matter present matter stands disposed off in following terms:
a) Decree of specific performance passed in favour of plaintiff for execution of Ex.PW1/2 i.e. agreement to sell and purchase dt.
06.10.2012. Defendant no. 1 shall execute Sale Deed w.r.t. suit property i.e. Freehold Society Built-up Flat No.605, Sixth Floor, situated in the lay out plan of Niji Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. known as Shanksham Apartments, Plot No.40-B, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, as shown in red colour in the Site Plan attached with the plaint in favour of the Plaintiff and also to do the necessary things for the completion of the sale transaction so that the suit property is transferred in the name of the Plaintiff. In case, the Defendant No. 1 failed to execute a Sale Deed of the suit property, plaintiff would be at liberty to get it registered through official/Local Commissioner as appointed by executing court on behalf of the Defendant No. 1;
b) Plaintiff shall pay balance consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs.
Six Lac) in favour of Defendant No. 1 at the time of execution of Sale Deed;
c) Decree of possession and ejectment is also passed in favour of plaintiff against defendant no. 1 subject to execution of sale deed;
d) Decree of permanent injunction passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No. 1, thereby restraining the Defendant No. 1, his family members, associates, authorised representatives, etc. from selling, transferring, parting with the possession and creating any third party interest of the whole or SHILPI any part of the suit property, except the Plaintiff; M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 32 of 33 17:11:32 +0530
e) Plaintiff shall also be entitled for cost of suit against defendant No. 1
42. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
43. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court on 06.06.2025 (SHILPI M JAIN) District Judge-05, South West District Dwarka Courts, New Delhi SHILPI M JAIN Digitally signed by SHILPI M JAIN Date: 2025.06.06 CS No. 17798/16 Deepak Tuli .Vs. Jai Prakash and Anr. Page no. 33 of 33 17:11:22 +0530