Delhi High Court - Orders
Deepak Mehta vs Desh Bandhu Garg And Anr on 30 January, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~85
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA 878/2025
DEEPAK MEHTA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Parvinder Chauhan Senior
Advocate and Mr Nitin Jain,
Advocate.
versus
DESH BANDHU GARG AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Aditi Sharma, Advocate for
Respondent no. 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 30.01.2026 CM APPL. 59049/2025: under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the Appellant seeking Stay of Operation of Judgment dated 23.07.2025) and CM APPL. 77932/2025: under Order XLI Rule 5 read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking Stay of Operation of Sale Deed dated 04.04.2014 and 19.05.2014:
1. The Appellant (Defendant) has filed the two aforesaid Application for the stay of Judgment dated 23.07.2025 and operation of the Sale Deeds dated 04.04.2014 and 19.05.2014.
2. Respondent No. 2 had instituted Civil Suit bearing CS DJ No. 266/2025 tilted Hitender Jain vs. Deepak Mehta against the Appellant for Declaration/Cancellation of Sale Deeds dated 04.04.2014 and 19.05.2014, Recovery of Rs.12,87,413/- and for Permanent Injunction. The Plaintiff asserted that he is the owner of the Property bearing No. 1/11647 (new This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:36:39 number A-30), built on plot of land admeasuring 200 square yards bearing No. A-59, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-110032 (suit property), wherein he had been living with his family. He entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated 15.03.2013 with the Defendant No. 1, Mr. Desh Bandhu Garg, for getting the Property redeveloped/constructed. As per this Collaboration Agreement, the construction was to be completed within 15 months to be reckoned from the date of sanction of building plan or taking over of the possession for construction, whichever was later. Further, the Defendant No. 1 was required to complete the construction on or before 02.08.2014 i.e. 15 months from the date of sanction of the building plan. He was also to pay rent @Rs.45,000/- per month to the Plaintiff, in terms of the Clause 8 of the Collaboration Agreement till the possession of the constructed property was handed back to the Plaintiff.
3. For the purpose of construction, the Plaintiff and his family vacated the Suit Property and handed over the same to the Defendant No. 1 on 15.03.2013, itself. The sanction to the construction plans was accorded by EDMC vide Sanction Letter dated 03.06.2013.
4. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant No. 1 did not complete the work within the stipulated time period. Therefore, he executed the conditional Sale Deed dated 04.04.2014 in respect of the property in question, i.e. Third floor with terrace, for Rs.29,25,000/-. Thereafter, on 19.05.2014, the Defendant No. 1 executed the registered Sale Deed in respect of the aforesaid property in favour of the Defendant No. 2, Mr. Hitendra Kumar Jain, for Rs.29,90,000/-. The plaintiff claimed that this second Sale Deed was in violation of the terms and conditions of the Collaboration Agreement and the conditional Sale Deed dated 04.04.2014.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:36:39
5. The Plaintiff further submitted that since the construction work was stopped at the site due to insufficient funds available with the Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff also paid a total sum of Rs.9,13,000/- to the Defendant No.1 for completion of the construction work. Rs.7,13,000/- was given in cash during the period from November, 2014 to January, 2015, which was acknowledged by the Defendant No.1 as a loan, by way of separate receipts and loan agreement. The balance of Rs.2,00,000/- was by way of two cheques dated 02.12.2014 and 16.12.2014 for Rs.1 Lakh each.
6. The Plaintiff averred that although, Defendant No.1 was required to demolish the existing structure and to construct a new building comprising of stilt parking and three floors with automatic lift, but he turned dishonest and claimed that he did not have sufficient funds for construction of the building. In order to generate funds for construction, the Plaintiff even entered into the conditional Sale Deed in respect of the third floor with roof right of the building in favour of the Defendant No.1 despite which, the Defendant No.1 did not speed up the construction work due to the illegal design of grabbing the property of the Plaintiff.
7. The Plaintiff further claimed that he requested several times to the Defendant No.1 to complete the construction but every time, he pleaded financial constraint. Despite execution of Sale Deed dated 04.04.2014, he was not able to mobilize the requisite funds. The construction activity came to a complete stand still in January, 2015 and the Defendant No.1 also failed to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- per month as agreed under the Collaboration Agreement. He also did not pay the outstanding amount of the electricity bill of Rs.17,590/-, pursuant to which the BSES, YPL disconnected the temporary Electricity connection bearing CA No.350360973 installed by the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:36:39 Defendant No.1 in the Suit Property. The plaintiff claimed that defendant was liable to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.45,000/- per month till August, 2015, which comes to Rs.2,70,000/-; Rs.70,000/- towards the wages of the Chowkidar appointed for the security of the property from February, 2015 till April, 2015 and Rs.9,13,000/- towards the loan amount and the dues towards the electricity bills, which comes to a total of Rs.12,87,413/-. The Plaintiff also sought cancellation of Sale Deeds dated 04.04.2014 and 19.05.2014, executed in respect of the Suit Property.
8. The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed their respective Written Statements.
9. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed an Application under Section 151 CPC for permissions to complete the pending construction work, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, on 23.01.2017. Thereafter, the Plaintiff challenged the Order dated 23.01.2017 in CM(M) No.296/17 before this Court, which was allowed vide Order dated 29.08.2019 and the Plaintiff was permitted to complete the finishing in the building from the front and rear elevations and also to install water tanks and other finishing on the roof, with the direction that the same shall not be interfered by the Defendant No.2. Likewise, the completion of third floor was permitted to the Defendant No.2 with the direction that he shall not claim any special equities in the said completion and also directed not to occupy the third floor till the final decision of the Suit.
10. In support of his Case, the Plaintiff appeared as PW-1 and proved all the requisite documents and deposed on the facts as stated in the Plaint. He also examined PW-2, Sanjay Mehta. He also examined PW-3, Mr. Nishikant Sharma, who produced the record pertaining to the Sale Deed dated 04.04.2014 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant No. 1, This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:36:39 which is Ex.PW-1/2 and the Sale Deed dated 19.05.2014 executed by the Defendant No. 1, Mr. Desh Bandhu Garg in favour of the Defendant No. 2, Mr. Hitendra Kumar Jain. PW-4, Mr. Gurudeep Singh proved the Loan Agreement dated 16.03.2015, which is Ex.PW-4/A. PW-5, Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma had visited the site with Mr. Milind Upadhye, Architect and Valuer and have prepared the inspection-cum-cost estimation report, which is Ex.PW-1/5. PW-6, Mr. Babu Shankar produced the summoned record i.e. final bill of supply of electricity through electricity meter in the name of Mr. Deepak Mehta, as well as, in respect of the electricity meter in the name of the Defendant No.1 and Mr. Sanjay Mehta, which were Ex.PW-6/1 to PW- 6/3.
11. The Defendant No. 1 in support of his Case, appeared as DW-1 while the Defendant No. 2 as DW-2 and deposed about the facts as pleaded in their Written Statements.
12. The learned Trial Court, on appreciation of the documents and evidence, held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to Declaration in respect of the two Sale Deeds dated 04.04.2014 and 19.05.2014. However, it was held that the Plaintiff was entitled to recovery of Rs.9,13,000/-. The Suit of the Plaintiff was accordingly partly, decreed.
13. Aggrieved by the denial of the relief of cancellation of two Sale Deeds, the present Appeal has been preferred. It is submitted by the Appellant Deepak Mehta (defendant No.1 in the Suit) that the Sale Deed dated 19.05.2014 has been duly executed in his favour, by the Respondent No. 1. Since the Sale Deed dated 04.04.2014 executed by the Appellant in favour of the Respondent No. 1, is a subject matter of the challenge along with the Sale Deed dated 19.05.2014, it has become imperative to stay the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:36:39 operation of the Judgment dated 23.07.2025 as there is imminent and direct threat to the Appellant's proprietary interest unless the operation of the two Sale Deeds, is stayed.
14. The Appellant has further submitted that Mr. Hitendra Kumar Jain (Defendant No. 2 in the Suit), has filed a in Civil Suit No. 266/2025 for Possession against the Appellant, seeking possession on the basis of second Sale Deed dated 19.05.2014 executed by the Appellant in his favour.
15. The Appellant had moved an Application under Section 10 CPC for stay of the possession proceedings, on the ground of the present RFA but the said Application was dismissed vide Order dated 23.09.2025, by holding that the possession action is maintainable independent of the pending Appeal. The parties had even tried to settle the matter through the Mediation but did not succeed.
16. The Respondent No. 2 is insisting on seeking possession, on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 19.05.2014. The balance of convenience, equities and preservation of the subject matter weighs decisively in favour of the granting stay.
17. A prayer is, therefore, made that the operation of the two Sale Deeds, as well, as the operation of the Impugned Judgment dated 23.07.2025, may be stayed.
18. No formal Reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent, despite opportunity.
Submissions have been heard on both the stay Applications, from both the parties.
19. It is not disputed fact that the Respondent No. 1, had entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated 15.03.2013 with the Appellant, which was This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:36:39 not completed and the same was abandoned midway. In order to facilitate the completion of the construction, the Appellant had entered into the conditional Sale Deed dated 04.04.2014 in respect of third floor with terrace of the suit property wherein it was stipulated that the Sale Deed would be operational only after the completion of the entire construction. Despite the specific stipulations, the Respondent No. 1 had sold the third floors with terrace to the Respondent No. 2 vide Sale Deed dated 19.05.2014. It is further not in dispute that only the structure had been raised by the Respondent No.1 and thereafter, the construction was completed by the Appellant, from his own resources.
20. The Apex Court in the case of Ramkisore Lal vs. Kamal Narian, AIR 1963 SC 890, held that to ascertain the intention of the parties to the instrument, the document must be considered as a whole, and the surrounding circumstances under which the words had been used.
21. The Supreme Court of India in Dev Raj (Dead) Through LRs vs. Harbans Singh (Dead) Through LRs, (1996) 3 SCC 596, had held that in a conditional sale, if the opposite party fails to fulfil the stipulated condition, the sale becomes voidable. Furthermore, in District Board, Jhelum vs. Hari Chand, AIR 1934 Lah 474, it was held that a party to the contract, who commits a breach, cannot be compelled by the other party to perform the obligations under the contract.
22. There are multiple questions raised about the effect of the conditional Sale Deed dated 04.04.2014 and whether the possession and the title got transferred to the Respondent No. 1, under these Sale Deeds. If this question gets decided in favour of the Appellant, it would automatically have an impact on the second Sale Deed dated 19.05.2014 executed in favour of the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:36:39 Respondent No. 2.
23. The various triable issues raised in the present Appeal, need consideration. The prima facie case lies in favour of the Appellant as the validity of the conditional Sale Deed dated 04.04.2014 itself is under challenge.
24. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Appellant, as if the Sale Deed dated 04.04.2014 is set-aside, the Respondent No. 2 may not be entitled to seek the possession. In the circumstances, the balance of convenience lies with the Appellant to maintain a status quo and he be not dispossessed till the decision of the Appeal. For the same reason, if the Appellant despite having raised issues in the present Appeal, is dispossessed till the Appeal is decided, he would suffer irreparable loss and injury.
25. In these circumstances, these Applications are allowed and the operation of the Judgment dated 23.07.2025 along with the two Sale Deeds dated 04.04.2014 and 19.05.2014, is hereby stayed.
26. The Applications are disposed of accordingly.
RFA 878/202527. Be listed on 03.08.2026.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J JANUARY 30, 2026/RS This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/02/2026 at 20:36:39