Delhi District Court
Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar on 20 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS GOMA DABAS GUPTA:
DISTRICT JUDGE-06 : WEST DISTRICT :
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CS No.612025/16
CNR No.DLWT01-000132-2008
Sudesh Arora
S/o Late Sh Mulkh Raj Arora
R/o E-20-223, Sector-3
Rohini, Delhi-110085
.......Plaintiff
Versus
Jagdish Raj Sagar
Proprietor of JR Telecom
S/o Sh Janak Raj Sagar
R/o E-19-298, Sector-3
Rohini, Delhi-110085
Also at
Flat No. 50, MIG Flat
1st Floor, Mahamanav
Sidharth Cooperative Housing Society
Plot No. 10, Rohtak Road
Near Indra Enclave
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
.......Defendant
Date of Institution: 28.11.2008
Date reserved for Judgment:06.01.2026
Date of Judgment:20.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgement, I shall decide the suit filed by the plaintiff CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 1/25 for specific performance, possession, permanent injunction and consequential relief of damages.
2. The brief facts as per the plaintiff's case are :
(i) That the plaintiff and the defendant are neighbours of each other having developed friendly relationship with each other. The defendant became owner of the MIG flat bearing no.50, 1st floor, Mahamanav, Siddhartha cooperative group Housing Society Ltd at Plot No. 10, Rohtak Road (Shiv Vihar), near Indra Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property').
(ii) That the defendant made an offer to the plaintiff to sell the suit property against the consideration for a sum of Rs.25 Lacs. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property against consideration and an Agreement to Sell was executed between the parties. The defendant has admitted receipts of Rs.21 Lakhs from the plaintiff as a bayana in the said agreement on 26/06/2008. It was mutually agreed between the parties that the plaintiff will pay balance amount of Rs.4 Lakhs on or before 26/12/2008 to the defendant and the defendant will deliver the original documents and vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
(iii) That the defendant received the balance sale CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 2/25 consideration of Rs.4 Lakhs from the plaintiff on 20/08/2008 and handed over the documents in respect of the suit property to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant agreed to get the Sale Deed registered in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property in writing. The plaintiff purchased the E-stamp papers to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- for the registration of Sale Deed.
(iv) That on 28/08/2008, the defendant approached the plaintiff to get the transaction completed and accordingly the draft titled as "Deed of Sale Agreement" along with general power-of-attorney was signed/executed by plaintiff and defendant. The defendant promised the plaintiff that he would execute the Sale deed in respect of suit property on 29/08/2008, however, the defendant visited the office of Sub- registrar and left without executing the Sale deed with dishonest and fraudulent intention. Accordingly, the plaintiff reported the matter to the Commissioner of Police vide his representation dated 29/08/2008.
(v) Since the defendant, despite having received the entire sale consideration of Rs.25 Lakhs, neither handed over physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff nor executed Sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff served a legal notice upon the defendant dated 19/09/2008 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 3/25 deed. The defendant did not comply with the legal notice and hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for specific performance, possession, permanent injunction and damages against the defendant.
3. Written Statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant wherein it is averred that the defendant carries on the business of sale and purchase of properties in the name and style of 'Dr. Properties'. The plaintiff is a moneylender who gives finance to property dealers and charges interest thereupon. The plaintiff approached the defendant and induced the defendant to take finance from the plaintiff at low rate of interest than others. The defendant took loan from the plaintiff on interest on different dates and as a business practice prevalent in the area, handed over original documents of title of suit property along with cheques and blank signed stamp papers as a security. The defendant has categorically denied any Agreement to sell with the plaintiff and has submitted that there was a transaction of money lending only between the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant has submitted that an amount of Rs.30 Lakhs along with interest with effect from 16/08/2008 is due and payable by the defendant towards the plaintiff and has further prayed for dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 4/254. Replication has been filed by plaintiff wherein he has reiterated all the contents of the plaint and has denied the contents of the written statement filed by the defendant.
5. Vide order dated 30.08.2010, following issues were framed:-
Issue No.1:- Whether the plaintiff proves that valid, binding and enforceable agreement was entered into to purchase the suit property from the defendant? OPP Issue No.2:- Whether the defendant proves that the true nature of the transaction with the plaintiff was not for sale of property but for securing a loan (from the plaintiff), as alleged in the written statement? OPD Issue No.3:- Is the plaintiff estopped from claiming the reliefs in the present suit? OPD Issue No.4:- If the answer to the first issue is in affirmative, does the plaintiff establishes that he was ready and willing at all material times to perform his part of the contract?
Issue No.5:- Is the plaintiff entitled to decree for specific performance? OPP Issue No.6:- Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence
6. PW-1, Sudesh Arora, examined himself by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A, and has relied upon following documents:
CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 5/25 Sr Exhibit Particulars
No.
1 Ex.P-1 Copy of allotment letter dated
24.03.1988 in favour of Sh T C
Bandarwal by the Mahamanav Coop.
Housing Society Ltd.
2 Ex.P-2 Copy of possession letter dated
20.08.1989
3 Ex.P-3 Copy of GPA executed by Sh T C
Banderwal
4 Ex.PW1/4 Copy of site plan
5 Ex.PW1/5 Copy of Agreement to Sell and
Purchase dated NIL
6 Ex.PW1/6 Copy of acknowledgment by defendant
7 Ex.PW1/7 Copy of E-stamp paper
8 Ex.PW1/8 Copy of Deed of Sale Agreement dated
22.08.2008
9 Ex.PW1/9 Copy of GPA
10 Ex.PW1/10 Copy of letter dated 29.08.2008
alongwith its translated copy
11 Ex.P-4 Copy of legal notice dated 19.09.1998
(mentioned as
Ex.PW1/11 in
CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 6/25
affidavit)
12 Ex.PW1/12 Registry receipts
13 Ex.PW1/13 UPC receipts
14 Ex.PW1/14 Income tax documents of PW/bank
account
No other witness has been examined by the Plaintiff. Hence, Plaintiff's evidence has been closed on 26/11/2011.
7. DW-1, Jagdish Raj Sagar, examined by way of affidavit as Ex.DW1/A and relied upon following documents:-
Sr Exhibit Particular
No.
1 Ex.DW1/1 CD having recording of plaintiff and
Kulbir Kumar, Fauji, Ashok Kumar, Avtar
Singh and Police officials
2 Ex.DW1/2 Copy of plaint filed by Jagdish Raj Sagar
against Sudesh Kumar and Dheeraj Kumar
Arora before the High Court of Delhi
3 Ex.DW1/3 Complaint to SHO dated 08.09.2008
4 Ex.DW1/4 Not traceable in judicial file
5 Ex.DW1/5 Legal cum demand notice dated
10.09.2008
CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 7/25
6 Ex.DW1/6 Reply dated 26.09.2008 to legal cum
demand notice
7 Ex.DW1/7 Legal cum demand notice u/s 138 of NI
&
Act and its reply
Ex.DW1/8
8 Ex.DW1/9 Legal cum demand notice dated
10.09.2008 sent by Vivek Arora
9 Ex.DW1/10 Reply dated 26.09.2008 to legal cum
demand notice
10 Ex.DW1/11 Reply dated 30.09.2008 to legal cum demand notice 11 Ex.DW1/12 Reply dated 02.01.2009 sent by defendant 12 Ex.DW1/13 Copy of Written Statement filed by defendant in case "Dheeraj Arora Vs Jagdish Raj Sagar"
13 Ex.DW1/14 Reply filed by defendant to complaint of plaintiff 14 Ex.DW1/15 Photograph 15 Ex.DW1/16 Copies of order dated 08.12.2008 passed & by Ld MM in CC Titled as Sudesh Kumar Ex.DW1/17 Vs Jagdish Raj 16 Ex.DW1/18 Status report filed by SI Surya Prakash 17 Ex.DW1/19 Four courier receipts CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 8/25 18 Ex.DW1/20 UPC receipts 19 Ex.DW1/21 Aapsi Sehmati Patar (family settlement) dated 16.08.2008 20 Ex.DW1/22 Agreement to Sell and Purchase, notarized attested on 07.07.2008 21 Ex.DW1/23 Report of expert opinion 22 Ex.DW1/24 Copy of plaint filed before the Ld Senior Civil Judge titled as 'Dhiraj Arora Vs Jagdish Raj Sagar and ors.' 23 Ex.DW1/25 Copy of order dated 17.07.2009 passed by the Ld JSCC/ASCJ (NW), in CS No 110/09 24 Ex.DW1/26 Copy of replication filed in case titled as 'Dhiraj Arora Vs Jagdish Raj' 25 Ex.DW1/27 Complaint to SHO PS Rohini 26 Ex.DW1/28 Request letter for registration of FIR 27 Ex.DW1/29 Copy of plaint/criminal complaint filed before the ld CMM, Rohini 28 Ex.DW1/30 Status report 29 Ex.DW1/31 Complaint filed by plaintiff before the Ld CMM, Rohini 30 Ex.DW1/32 Status report filed by SI Surya Prakash CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 9/25 31 Ex.DW1/33 Status report filed in case titled as 'Vivek Arora Vs Jagdish Raj' 32 Ex.DW1/34 Complaint filed by Vivek Arora against the defendant herein and Amit Sagar 33 Ex.DW1/35 Status report filed by SI Anwar Khan & Ex.DW1/36 34 Ex.DW1/37 status report filed on behalf of SHO PS Rohini.
8.1 DW-2, Krishan Lal was also examined by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/A. 8.2 DW-3, Pradeep Kumar, examined by way of affidavit as Ex.DW3/A 8.3 DW-4, Sh Vijay Kumar, examined by way of affidavit as Ex.DW4/A 8.4 DW-5, Sh Lalit Saini,Ahlmad from the court of sh Dharmender Singh, the then MM-03, North-West, Rohini is a summoned witness. He has brought the summoned record i.e certified copy of status report dated 13.02.2009 as Ex.DW5/1. He has also brought the status report filed in CC No. 249/1/2010 as Ex.DW5/2. He has also filed the status report filed in CC No. 236/1/2008, which is already on record as Ex.DW1/18 (OSR).
8.5 DW-6, SI Surya Prakash from PS Timarpur, is a CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 10/25 summoned record. He has brought certified copy of record which is already Ex.DW1/18 and Ex.DW5/1 as same were prepared by him.
8.6 DW-7, SI Anwar Khan from PS K N Katu Marg.
He has relied upon the status report filed by him in complaint case titled as Jagdish Raj Sagar Vs Sudesh Kumar Arora on 20.11.2009, as Ex.DW7/1. He has relied upon the document Ex.DW5/2 as the same was prepared by him.
8.7 DW-8, Amit Saggar examined by way of affidavit as Ex.DW8/A. 8.8 DW-9, Kulbir Kumar Fauji, examined by way of affidavit which is Ex DW9/A. Thereafter, DE was closed.
8. I have heard final arguments advanced by counsel for both the parties. I have perused the record as well as Written Submissions on behalf of plaintiff and defendant.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS With respect to Issue No. 3 Issue No.3:- Is the plaintiff estopped from claiming the reliefs in the present suit? OPD
9. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance, CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 11/25 possession, permanent injunction and consequential relief of damages. Per contra, the defendant has submitted that the agreement between the parties was not primarily an agreement for sale, but was a loan transaction. No evidence has been led by the defendant to prove the issue no.3. The nature of the agreement, whether is an Agreement for Sell or a loan transaction, can only be decided after the issues in the present matter are decided comprehensively. Hence, issue no.3 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
10.With respect to Issues No 1, 2, 4 & 5 Since all these issues are inter connected, the same are dealt together.
"Issue No.1:- Whether the plaintiff proves that valid, binding and enforceable agreement was entered into to purchase the suit property from the defendant? OPP"
"Issue No.2:- Whether the defendant proves that the true nature of the transaction with the plaintiff was not for sale of property but for securing a loan (from the plaintiff), as alleged in the written statement? OPD"
Issue No.4:- If the answer to the first issue is in affirmative, does the plaintiff establishes that he was ready and willing at all material times to perform his part of the contract?
And Issue No.5:- Is the plaintiff entitled to decree for specific CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 12/25 performance? OPP
11. While the plaintiff has sought the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell, the defendant has argued that the present suit is not maintainable as the transaction between the parties was in the nature of a loan transaction by handing over title documents of defendant's properties to the plaintiff.
12.The defendant has averred in his written statement that since the relation between the parties was of money lending, the plaintiff has files pertaining to 7 properties of the defendant with him as a security which are as follows :
i. E-20/90, Shop No.1, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi ii. E-19/320, Shop No.2, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi iii. E-19/298, Shop No.1, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi iv. E-9/82, Shop No.2, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi v. E-20, DDA Market, CSC-8, Shop No.25, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi vi. Flat No. E-20/84, Ground Floor, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi vii. Flat No. 59, Sidhartha Apartment, Paschim Vihar, Delhi
13.In the replication, the plaintiff has admitted that in respect of the list of properties mentioned in paragraph No. 10 of the written CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 13/25 statement, the plaintiff has the documents of the property at serial no.(vii) which is the suit property in the present case. Regarding the property at serial No. (v), the plaintiff has submitted that the defendant has no locus-standi with respect to the same. The plaintiff has further submitted that the properties at serial no.(i), (ii) and (iv), the defendant had executed Agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff.
14.It is submitted by the defendant that in respect of the property at serial No. (ii) mentioned above, the son of the plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant for specific performance which has been dismissed by Ld ADJ-02, North West, Rohini, Delhi vide judgement dated 10/06/2016. In respect of property at serial No.
(iii), the son of the plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant for possession and other reliefs and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 17/07/2009 passed by the then Ld JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (NW), Delhi. The certified copy of the said order is Ex.DW1/25.
15.In respect of the property at Serial No (iii) mentioned above, during his cross-examination, the PW 1 has deposed that he does not have any title documents in respect of property number E-19/298, Sector -3, Rohini; but he has admitted that he is in possession the original bayana receipt in respect of property number E-18/58, Sector -3, Rohini. He has further deposed that CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 14/25 he had paid an amount of Rs.7 Lacs in cash to the defendant in respect of property number E-18/58, Sector-3, Rohini on 23/06/2008. The receipt pertaining to the property E-19/298, Sector -3, Rohini is being confronted to the plaintiff during cross examination which is Ex.PW1/D3 and the plaintiff has deposed that he does not know in whose hand writing the said document is, however he has admitted his signature at point A on the said document.
16.During his cross examination, the plaintiff has deposed that he has not advanced money towards loan to any person. The plaintiff has denied the suggestion that he advanced money towards loan to "Mr. Surender Nagpal, Mr Bhanu Gupta, ...........Mr. Krishan Lal, ...Mr Pradeep Kumar........".
17.Shri Krishan Lal appeared as a defendant's witness and filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW2/A. He has deposed that he was present in the office of the defendant on 29/08/2008. He has further deposed that he knew that the plaintiff is a financier and moneylender and the defendant is a property dealer. He has further deposed that on 29/08/2008 at 9:30 AM, the plaintiff came to the office of the defendant and asked the defendant to accompany him to the office of sub- registrar by pressurizing the defendant. DW-2 further deposed that the plaintiff further assured the defendant that he would CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 15/25 return the 5 files, 8 cheques, blank stamp papers and other blank papers signed by the defendant. The plaintiff further told the defendant that the sale deed was in the nature of a security agreement for repayment of loan and the plaintiff would not use the sale deed as a sale of the suit property. The DW-2 has been cross-examined by the plaintiff whereby he has deposed that he did not have knowledge about any specific transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant though he was aware that there were transactions between them. During the cross-examination, nothing could be elicited to impeach his credibility or discredit his testimony nor there are any suggestions to falsify the deposition of DW-2. Accordingly, the testimony of DW-2 remains unshaken and inspires confidence.
18. Sh Pradeep Kumar has also appeared as a defendant's witness and he has filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW3/A. He has deposed on affidavit that he knew the plaintiff and the plaintiff is a moneylender. He has further deposed that in the year 2007 he took a loan of Rs.2 Lakhs from the plaintiff and the plaintiff took original file of his flat and obtained signatures on blank papers and also took one cheque from him. In the year 2007 itself, he returned the loan amount and interest to the plaintiff and the plaintiff returned his original file, original cheque and blank signed papers. On 28/08/2008, he was in the office of the defendant when the plaintiff came to CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 16/25 the office of defendant with some papers and asked the defendant to sign those papers. The plaintiff assured the defendant that he was getting signatures of the defendant only as a security for repayment of loan amount and said documents would not be used as a sale transaction. The DW-3 has been cross-examined by the plaintiff whereby he has deposed that he did not have knowledge about any specific transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant though he was aware that there were transactions between them. During the cross-examination, nothing could be elicited to impeach his credibility or discredit his testimony nor there are any suggestions to falsify the deposition of DW-3. Accordingly, the testimony of DW-3 remains unshaken and inspires confidence.
19.Sh Vijay Kumar has also appeared as a defendant's witness and he has filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW4/A. He has deposed on affidavit that he was working as a servant with the defendant. On 16/08/2008, he was present in the office of the defendant along with some other persons and the plaintiff came to the office of the defendant and the defendant paid an amount of Rs.30 Lakhs to the plaintiff in his presence as well as in the presence of Sh Jugal Kishore and others. The defendant asked the plaintiff to return his 5 files of documents, cheques and blank papers. The defendant asked the plaintiff to retain 2 files of documents along with other CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 17/25 documents as a security for the remaining balance amount of Rs.30 Lakhs. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he has no specific knowledge about any transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. However no specific suggestions or questions have been put to the witness in respect of the contents of his evidence by way of affidavit. Thus nothing could be extracted from the cross-examination to disbelieve the version of the witness.
20.The defendant has put suggestion to the plaintiff in the cross- examination that the plaintiff assured the defendant that the transaction was not a sale transaction but was only a transaction in the nature of security for repayment of loan and that the plaintiff had asked the defendant to sign the documents and promised him to return 5 files with cheques and blank stamp papers/signed blank papers and also agreed to execute a separate agreement on the next day. This suggestion is denied by the plaintiff.
21. Sh Amit Saggar has also appeared as a defendant's witness and he has filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW8/A. He has deposed on affidavit that he is the son of the defendant and the plaintiff and his sons are the financiers and moneylenders of the area. In March-April 2008, the plaintiff approached the father of the DW8 to take finance from him at CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 18/25 lower rate of interest by giving title documents, cheques, blank stamp papers, blank papers etc which were to be returned at the time of clearing the outstanding amount. In his cross- examination the DW-8 has denied the suggestion is that the plaintiff and his sons are not moneylenders and they did not induce his father to take loan at a lower rate of interest on the basis of documents, that is cheques, blank stamp papers, blank papers etc. DW-8 has further deposed that he is not aware about any transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant and no transaction between the plaintiff and his father took place in his presence. The DW-8 has deposed contradictory to his evidence by way of affidavit and thus, his testimony cannot be relied upon.
22.Sh Kulbir Kumar Fauji has also appeared as a defendant's witness and he has filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex DW9/A. He has deposed on affidavit that it is a general practice above property dealers and financiers that at the time of the finance of advance, financier keeps with him original file of property belonging to property dealers and cheques for the amount advanced to the property dealer, and also documents in the nature of stamp papers, blank paper signed by the property dealers. On return of amount taken by property dealers, the financiers return the original files, cheques & stamp papers which he has received from the property dealers. He has further CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 19/25 deposed that the plaintiff is a financier and is in the business of money lending. He has further deposed that at the instance of plaintiff and defendant, he along with two others intervened in the matter and tried to get the matter compromised. In one of the meetings, which was held in the presence of police official, the plaintiff had admitted that he had advanced loan in favour of the defendant and also admitted that he was in possession of original files and cheques.
23.During his cross-examination, the DW9 has stated that he knows the plaintiff because the plaintiff lends money to property dealers. He further deposed that the plaintiff had given an amount of Rs.60 lakhs to the defendant in his presence. He further deposed that the defendant had given title documents pertaining to 2 properties in the year 2004/2005.
24.Now coming to the Agreement to sell which is Ex.PW1/5 on which the plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance. It is the plaintiff's case that the defendant made an offer to the plaintiff to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.25 Lakhs. It is further averred that the defendant received an amount of Rs.21 Lakhs as a bayana from the plaintiff on 26/06/2008 and further received the balance amount of Rs.4 Lakhs on 20/08/2008. Upon examination of the Agreement to sell Ex.PW1/5, it is significant to mention that no CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 20/25 date is mentioned on the said agreement and space for mentioning the date is left blank. Perusal of the back side of the stamp paper shows the date of stamp paper as 21/04/2008. In the contents of the said agreement it is mentioned that the 1 st party has received a sum of Rs.21 Lakhs from the 2 nd party on 26/06/2008 and the 2nd party will pay the balance amount of Rs.4 Lakhs on or before 26/12/2008. No witnesses have signed the said agreement. The receipt placed along with the Agreement to Sale is also not dated and not witnessed.
25.In his cross-examination, PW1, has stated that his first transaction with the defendant started in May 2008. He had given an amount of Rs.5.75 Lakhs to the defendant for his share of investment. He has further deposed that when he made investment with the defendant, no agreement in writing was entered into. Thus, it can be clearly inferred that there have been money transactions involved between the plaintiff and the defendant.
26.Further, the PW-1 in his cross examination has stated that he paid an amount of Rs.21 Lakhs to the defendant, however he did not take possession of the suit property. However, in the "Deed of Sale Agreement" dated 22/08/2008 which is Ex PW- 1/8, it is mentioned that actual physical vacant possession of the suit property has been handed over to the plaintiff. There is a CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 21/25 contradiction between the own version of the plaintiff and the document relied upon by the plaintiff. Further, as per the plaintiffs case, Rs.21 lakhs was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on 26/06/2008 and the balance sale consideration of Rs.4 lakhs was paid on 20/08/2008. In the ordinary parlance, no prudent person would pay entire sale consideration without taking possession of the property under sale. Another important aspect to be considered is that the agreement to sell which is Ex.PW1/5 was entered between the parties in June 2008, but the stamp paper on which it is made is dated 21/04/2008. This supports the version of the defendant that the plaintiff had taken signature of the defendant on blank documents. Thus, on the basis of the defendant's evidence and other material on record, an inference can be drawn that the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant was not a sale of immovable property transaction, but a loan transaction.
27.The plaintiff has relied upon the document Ex.PW1/5, allegedly an Agreement to Sell, which is un-dated, allegedly entered into in June 2008 upon a stamp paper dated 21/04/2008, and the same does not appear to be an agreement to sell in real sense. Meaningful and holistic reading of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, the styled as "Agreement to Sell" and "Deed of Sale Agreement" the substance of the transaction does not inspire confidence that the parties ever intended to enter into a CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 22/25 genuine contract for transfer of immovable property. It is a settled principle of law that the nomenclature of document is not determinative of its true character; rather, the court must ascertain the real nature of the transaction from the contents of the document, the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties.
28.In the present case, on the basis of the above findings, it is clear that the document in question was executed in the backdrop of ongoing financial dealings between the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant has specifically pleaded that various monetary transactions had taken place inter-se and in return, the defendant had also given files pertaining to various properties to the plaintiff. The defendant has specifically pleaded the impugned documents were executed as a measure to secure repayment of the loan advanced and not with the intention to effectuate transfer of property. The evidence of the defendants witnesses, read in conjunction with the surrounding financial transactions lends credence to this defence and probabalises the version that the document was in the nature of security for debt. Hence, issues no. 1 & 2 are decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
29.In a suit for specific performance, the court is required to be satisfied not only about the existence of a valid and enforceable CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 23/25 agreement but also about the bona fide intention of the parties to conclude a contract for transfer of immovable property. Where the material on record suggests that the document was executed as a collateral security in respect of a loan transaction, the same cannot be enforced as an agreement to sell. A transaction which is in substance a loan arrangement cannot be converted into a contract for sale merely by adopting the form or terminology of an agreement to sell.
30.In view of the aforesaid discussion, a genuine agreement to sell so as to entitle the plaintiff to the equitable relief of specific performance is not proved. The plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the contract was intended to operate as a sale transaction, and consequently, the relief of specific performance sought is not maintainable in law.
31.Even though the plaintiff has paid the entire alleged sale consideration showing his readiness and willingness, which is a pre condition for the relief of specific performance, however, since the nature of the contract between the parties is held to be a loan transaction, the amount of Rs.25 Lakhs paid by the plaintiff to the defendant is held to be in the nature of loan. Accordingly, issues No. 4 and 5 are decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
32.As far as the aspect of payment made by the plaintiff to the CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 24/25 defendant is concerned, the plaintiff has not sought for an alternative prayer for refund of the advance sale consideration in the suit as mandated by Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In view of the requirements under Section 22(2), it is held that, in the absence of a specific claim for refund of advance money, the plaintiff is not entitled to such refund and hence, no order is made to refund of the money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.
33.In view of the above discussion, the suit filed by plaintiff stands dismissed. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
34.Pending application, if any, stands disposed off.
35.File be consigned to record room as per rules Digitally signed GOMA by GOMA DABAS GUPTA Announced in the open court DABAS 2026.02.20 Date:
GUPTA 14:59:33 on 20.02.2026 (Goma Dabas Gupta) +0530 District Judge-06 West District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi/20.02.2026 CS No.612025/16 Sudesh Arora vs Jagdish Raj Sagar Page 25/25