Delhi District Court
Nalin Khanna vs Vijay Kumar Bhatia on 18 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRABH DEEP KAUR: DJ-05, SOUTH
EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ No. 187/2016 10119/16
CNR NO. DLSE01-001841-2014
In the matter of :-
Mr. Nalin Khanna
S/o Sh. S.K. Khanna,
R/o W-61, Greater Kailash Part-II,
New Delhi ....PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
Mr. Vijay Kumar Bhatia
Proprietor of M/s Vijay Cable Industries
R/o A-111, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi. ..... DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution : 28.05.2014
Arguments concluded on : 04.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 18.09.2025
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 40,00,000/- AND ALONGWITH
INTEREST AND COMPENSATION
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this Judgment, the suit for recovery of Rs. 40,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 15% per annum and for grant of compensation for mental and physical harassment filed by plaintiff against the defendant has been disposed off.
2. Admittedly, plaintiff purchased the property No. E-31, Sector-8, NOIDA (hereinafter referred to as the "suit Property") from the Defendant vide Transfer and Sale Deed dated 29.06.2005 for a total consideration of Rs. 48,50,000/- and took peaceful and vacant possession thereof. The Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment CS DJ NO. 187/2016 10119/16 Page No. 1 of 16 NALIN KHANNA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA Dated 18.09.2025 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date: 2025.09.18 KAUR 16:27:58 +0530 of the suit property since then. The defendant made the plaintiff aware of the dues with State Bank of Patiala, Wazirpur Branch, Delhi and at the time of release of the title deeds/documents in respect to the said property, State Bank of Patiala received the settlement amount from the plaintiff in December 2004. The defendant vide Transfer Deed cum Sale Deed had assured the plaintiff that the said property was free from all encumbrances.
3. Claim of the plaintiff.
At the time of sale, defendant had also agreed to keep the plaintiff indemnified against the losses/damages, if any suffered by the plaintiff. The defendant has concealed form the plaintiff about the pendency of two Execution Petitions no. 06/2002 and 07/2002 in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also concealed the objections filed by the Bank with regard to attachment order dated 08.01.2002 qua the suit property. The plaintiff has also filed an FIR crime No. 344/2010 under Section 406/420/120-B/34/506 IPC, at Police Station Sector 20, NOIDA against defendant and two more parties. Plaintiff also filed two suits i.e. CS (OS) 1582 and 1583 of 2009, the defendant appeared and filed his respective written statement(s). During the pendency of the said two suits, Dolf Leasing Ltd. and Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. and the plaintiff being tired of litigation executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.07.2011, entered into between the plaintiff, Dolf Leasing Ltd and the Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. and on the basis of said MOU, the plaintiff paid sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- to M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd. and Rs. 15,00,000/- to Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. towards the dues of defendant. The two parties i.e. Dolf Leasing Ltd. and the Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. got the attachment order on the CS DJ NO. 187/2016 10119/16 Page No. 2 of 16 NALIN KHANNA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA Dated 18.09.2025 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date: 2025.09.18 KAUR 16:28:03 +0530 suit property released from the NOIDA Court. In view of the indemnity provisions contained inter alia in clause 2, 5 and 11A of the Transfer- cum-Sale Deed dated 27.06.2005, the plaintiff filed two suits for indemnification/specific performance of the contract of indemnity as contained, inter alia in clause 5 & 11 of the Transfer-cum Sale Deed dated 27.06.2005 against defendant inter-alia under Section 124 & 125 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; for mandatory injunction etc. The indemnity is now being invoked after the indemnity holder i.e. the plaintiff has made the payment to Dolf Leasing Ltd. and Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd., giving a right to the indemnity holder to invoke the indemnity provision when the liability has been incurred, ascertained and become absolute which as evident from the language of Section 125 means a claim which has been adjudicated upon and crystallized into a legal inability in terms of the settlement recorded on 27.09.2011 in suits CS(OS) 1582/2009 and CS(OS) 1583/2009. The plaintiff was compelled to incur substantial financial losses and legal expenses to rectify the defendant's fraudulent misrepresentation. The defendant, despite being fully aware of the property's encumbrances, misrepresented its title and induced the plaintiff into purchasing it. Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amounts paid to clear the property's encumbrances, in addition to damages and interest.
4. Defence of defendant :
The alleged payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- was made by the plaintiff without the knowledge of the defendant and that too when the defendant had not to make any payment. Hence, the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. The Court has got no jurisdiction to deal with the present case since the suit property is CS DJ NO. 187/2016 10119/16 Page No. 3 of 16 NALIN KHANNA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA Dated 18.09.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.09.18 16:28:08 +0530 situated at NOIDA. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. Though the value of the property was in crores but the defendant sold it for Rs. 48,50,000/- since the defendant was in need of money. Hence, it was a distress sale. When the defendant neither had any dues against the third parties nor any liability or other proceedings against third parties in respect of the suit property, the question of informing the plaintiff about the alleged dues does not and cannot arise. The defendant assured the plaintiff that the property is free from all encumbrances. The defendant had not agreed to keep the plaintiff indemnified against losses/damages is suffered by the plaintiff. Neither the defendant was aware of pendency of alleged execution petitions no. 06/2002 or 07/2002 or the passing of attachment order dated 08.01.2002 or the alleged objections filed by the bank for removal of attachment order at the time of sale of property to the plaintiff. When the defendant is not aware of the attachment order dated 08.01.2002 passed by the Court in alleged execution petitions no. 06/2002 and 07/2002; the question of informing the Noida Authorities does not and cannot arise. Issuance of warrants of attachment outside the jurisdiction of Delhi is not within the domain of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Plaintiff filed false and frivolous complaint against the defendant on the basis of wrong facts. In so far as the FIR no. 344/2010 is concerned, the same was quashed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The plaintiff filed suits no. 1582 and 1583 of 2009 in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and defendant filed written statement but defendant had no knowledge that the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- to Dolf Leasing Ltd. and Rs. 15,00,000/- to Rubicon Securities Ltd. It is further submitted that neither the defendant was to pay any amount nor the defendant was informed by CS DJ NO. 187/2016 10119/16 Page No. 4 of 16 NALIN KHANNA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA Dated 18.09.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.09.18 16:28:15 +0530 the plaintiff about the alleged payment. The suits being no. 1582 and 1583 were dismissed as in-fructuous by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 11.03.2014. When the defendant sold the property to the plaintiff, the property was free from encumbrances. Moreover at the time of sale no litigation was pending in respect of suit property. One or two clause cannot be read in isolation and the entire agreement is to be read in order to reach just conclusion. Neither the alleged MOU dated 16.07.2011 was entered into in presence of the defendant nor the defendant is aware as to on what basis the alleged amount was paid, the defendant is not to pay any amount to the plaintiff.
5. Replication The Plaintiff has filed replication to the written statement of defendant thereby reaffirming and reiterating the contents of plaint and denying the contents of written statement.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 04.08.2016 :-
1. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of necessary or proper party, if so to what effect? OPD.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest of suit if so, at what rate and for which period ? OPP
4. Relief.
7. Plaintiff Evidence 7(a). The plaintiff no. 1 has examined himself as PW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the documents which are exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/7. PW-1 CS DJ NO. 187/2016 10119/16 Page No. 5 of 16 NALIN KHANNA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA Dated 18.09.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.09.18 KAUR 16:28:19 +0530 was cross examined by the Sh. Rajesh Banati, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
7(b). Plaintiff also examined Sh. Rakesh Kumar as PW2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. PW-2 was cross examined by the Sh. Rajesh Banati, Ld. Counsel for the defendant. 7(c). Plaintiff also examined Sh. Subhash Singh as PW3 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW3/1. PW-3 was cross examined by the Sh. Rajesh Banati, Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
8. Defendant Evidence The defendant has examined himself as DW-1. DW-1 was cross examined by Sh. Sharat Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
9. Final arguments.
Sh. Sharat Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. Rajesh Banati, Ld. Counsel for defendant have addressed final arguments. Both the parties have also filed written arguments in which they have reiterated the arguments addressed before the Court. The same are not reproduced here in verbatim for the sake of brevity but will be dealt alongwith the findings upon issues at the relevant stage. Record has been carefully perused.
10. My issue-wise findings are as follows:-
Issue no. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount as prayed for? OPP Issue no. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest of suit if so, at what rate and for which period ? OPP The onus to prove issue nos. 2 and 3 was placed upon the plaintiff. Both the issues are taken together for the sake of brevity as both the issues are interlinked and involve same discussion.
CS DJ NO. 187/2016 10119/16 Page No. 6 of 16
NALIN KHANNA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA Dated 18.09.2025
PRABH Digitally signed by
PRABH DEEP KAUR
DEEP Date: 2025.09.18
KAUR 16:28:24 +0530
11. As per plaintiff, after purchasing the property from defendant, he had to pay Rs. 40 lacs to two separate parties towards the dues of defendant as those parties got the attachment order against the suit property which plaintiff purchased from the defendant. As per plaintiff, defendant had concealed the factum of pendency of the execution petitions from the plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount and is also entitled for damages.
Defendant has denied the knowledge of pendency of execution petition and also denied the liability towards third party and the factum of any payment by the plaintiff to the third party.
12. Admittedly, plaintiff has filed two suits i.e. CS (OS) 1582/2009 and CS (OS) 1583/2009 and both were disposed off vide order dated 11.03.2014 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The order Ex. P1 sums up the factual proposition between parties :-
"(1) The paintiff has filed both the suits, pleading;
(i) that the defendant No.1 as sole proprietor of defendant No.2 M/s Vijay Cable Industries (the defendants No. 1&2 in both the suits are same) vide Transfer Deed cum Sale Deed, sold/transferred property bearing No. 31, Sector 8, Noida, U.P. to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.48,50,000/- paid by the plaintiff to/on behalf of, the defendants No.1&2 and the defendants No. 1&2, delivered vacant, peaceful and physical possession thereof to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in possession thereof;
ii) that the defendants No. 1&2 in the Transfer Deed cum Sale Deed had assured the plaintiff that the said property was free from all encumbrances and had also agreed to keep the plaintiff indemnified against the losses/damages, if any suffered by the plaintiff;
(iii) that however it subsequently transpired that the said property, prior to its sale/transfer in favour of the plaintiff, was also attached in execution filed by the defendant No.3 M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd. in CS(OS) 1582/2009 and in another execution filed by defendant No.3 Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. in CS(OS) 1583/2009, of decrees against the defendants No.1 & 2; the plaintiff accordingly filed these two suits.....
2. The plaintiff in the applications being I.A. No.8400/2013 and I.A. No.4228/2014, both in CS(OS) 1582/2009, for consolidation of the two suits, has now disclosed that the plaintiff, after filing these suits, has settled with the defendant No.3 in each of the suits, with the defendant No.3 in CS(OS) 1582/2009 CS DJ NO. 187/2016 10119/16 Page No. 7 of 16 NALIN KHANNA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA Dated 18.09.2025 PRABH Digitally signed by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date: 2025.09.18 KAUR 16:28:29 +0530 for Rs.15 lakhs and with the defendant No.3 in CS(OS) 1583/2009 for Rs.25 lakhs.
3. The counsel for the plaintiff admits that with the settlement aforesaid, the suits, insofar as for the reliefs impugning the decrees and for permanent injunction restraining sale of the property in execution proceedings, have become infructuous.
4. It has in the circumstances been enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff, as to how the suits for the remaining reliefs survive and whether not, after the settlement aforesaid, the remedy, if any of the plaintiff against the defendants No. 1&2, is only for recovery of the amounts paid/incurred by the plaintiff in settling with the defendant No.3 in each suit and in defending the execution proceedings. .......
10. As the plaint in two suits exists, there is no claim for recovery of monies, as the cause of action for recovery of monies had not accrued to the plaintiff on the date of the suits were instituted. The reliefs for which the suits were filed, have become infructuous owing to the subsequent events aforesaid.
11. The suits are accordingly dismissed as infructuous with liberty however to the plaintiff to, in accordance with law, make monetary claim against the defendant no. 1 & 2......."
Thus, the previous suits have been disposed off as infructuous and plaintiff was given liberty to file suit for monetary claim against defendant and therefore, the disposal of previous suits is not a bar on the maintainability of the present suit. Further the above mentioned order sums the controversy between the parties.
13. As per plaintiff, plaintiff paid Rs. 40 lacs to two parties namely Dolf Leasing Ltd. and Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. Now during cross examination, defendant/DW-1 deposed that:
"Q. How do you know Dolf Leasing Ltd. and Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd? A. I had business dealing with them.
Q. What kind of business dealings you have with said two companies? A. Financing of machinary.
Q. What was the nature of financing was it on lease basis or ownership basis? A. It was on lease basis. ....
Q. Is it correct that Vijay Cables Industries and Priya Cables Pvt. Ltd. were defaulters with Dolf Leasing Ltd. and Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. towards leasing transactions of the machinery?
Ans. No."
Thus, defendant/DW-1 admitted that he had business dealing with Dolf Leasing Ltd. and Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. though he denied having any dues towards them. It establishes that these two CS DJ NO. 187/2016 10119/16 Page No. 8 of 16 NALIN KHANNA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA Dated 18.09.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.09.18 KAUR 16:28:34 +0530 entities were not total strangers to the defendant.
14. Further, to assert his case plaintiff has filed certified copy of judgment dated 29.08.2001 in CS (OS) 2530/2000 and judgment dated 18.09.2001 in CS (OS) 2531/2000. Perusal of judgments and decrees reveal that M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd. and M/s Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. filed two separate suits u/O 37 CPC against defendant and its proprietorship firm. Both the suits were decreed u/O 37 CPC due to non appearance of defendant.
Admittedly, defendant has not challenged these decrees till date. The defendant cannot take the plea that he was not aware of these decrees because at least in 2009 when plaintiff filed two civil suits against the defendant and other two parties i.e. Dolf Leasing Ltd. and Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd., defendant through averments of the plaintiff must have gained the knowledge of those two decrees passed against the defendant. During pleadings as well as during cross examination defendant denied the knowledge of above mentioned proceedings, however, decrees being passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi are to be considered as law and ignorance of law is no excuse.
15. Admittedly, plaintiff filed an FIR against the defendant and other two parties i.e. Dolf Leasing Ltd. and Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. During evidence, plaintiff has filed copy of order dated 27.04.2010 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Ex. PW-1/7 whereby the FIR No.344 dated 24.3.2010 registered with Gautam Buddha Nagar Police Station, Noida Sector-20 under Section 406, 420, 120-B, 34 and 506 IPC was quashed in view of the compromise /MOU dated 16.07.2011 entered into between plaintiff and one Mr. Rajender Kumar Saini.
CS DJ NO. 187/2016 10119/16 Page No. 9 of 16 NALIN KHANNA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA Dated 18.09.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.09.18 KAUR 16:28:38 +0530
16. Further, plaintiff has filed certified copies of orders dated 27.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in both the suits filed by plaintiff against defendant and other two parties. Plaintiff herein filed 2 separate applications in both the suits i.e. CS (OS) 1582/2009 and CS (OS) 1583/2009 for deletion of defendant no. 3 i.e. M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd. and M/s Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. In both the orders, it has been recorded:
".....3. Mr. Vijay Kumar Bhatia, defendant no.1 accepts notice for himself as well as on behalf of defendant no.2. It is submitted by him that no reply is necessary and he does not oppose the prayer made in this application.
4. Mr.Shahzad Khan, advocate accepts notice on behalf of defendant no.3 (M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd. and M/s Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. in CS 1583/2009). It is submitted that the settlement pleaded in paras 4 & 5 of the application is correct. It is urged that in view thereof, no dispute survives for adjudication between the plaintiff and the defendant no.3.
5. Given the stand of the defendant and having regard to the nature of the prayers made therein, defendant no.3 is struck of from the array of the parties. The amended memo of parties is taken on record.
6. It is accordingly directed that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 16h July, 2011 is taken on record and shall bind the parties thereto.
7. The statement of the plaintiff that he has no further relief against defendant no.3 is taken on record and shall bind the adjudication in the present case.
17. From the above discussion, it is clear that plaintiff has been able to prove that he entered into MOU with M/s Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd and M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd and the perusal of MOUs both dated 16.07.2011 clarify how the above mentioned decrees passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi landed into executing Court of NOIDA. Both the MOUs refer the plaintiff as second party and record almost same terms and conditions. It has been mentioned that M/s Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd. extended certain financial facilities to defendant which could not maintain the financial discipline and M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd. and M/s Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. separate civil suits in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against M/s.
CS DJ NO. 187/2016 10119/16 Page No. 10 of 16 NALIN KHANNA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA Dated 18.09.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.09.18 16:28:45 +0530
Vijay Cable Industries and its Proprietor Shri Vijay Bhatia which were decreed by the said Hon'ble High Court on 29.08.2001 and 18.09.2001. Thereafter, M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd. and M/s Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. filed Execution proceedings before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in which vide Order dated 08.01.2002 Property bearing No. E-31/32, Sector 8, NOIDA, U.P. and B-7, B-8 & B-9, Sector 1, NOIDA, U.P. was attached. The above attachment order was in operation when defendant /Shri Vijay Kumar Bhatia sold the suit Property to plaintiff. Vide Order dated 05.10.2005 the Hon ble Delhi High Court transferred the execution petitions to the Court of the learned District Judge, NOIDA. On 24.03.2010, plaintiff filed an FIR and in 2009, plaintiff filed two civil suits. On 16.07.2011, plaintiff entered into MOUs with M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd. and M/s Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. and it was argued that after payment of settlement amount, these parties shall unconditionally withdraw and pray to the Ld. ADJ, NOIDA to dismiss their Application filed under Section 64 CPC challenging the purchase of the Property No. 31, Block E. Sector 8. NOIDA. U.P. purchased bv the plaintiff from defendant and attachment order will be lifted.
In view of the above, the objections of the defendant that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi cannot attach the property situated at NOIDA, are not tenable.
18. Thus, plaintiff has been able to prove following facts: "that he purchased the property from defendant vide sale deed dated 23.06.2005 Ex. P1. The defendant had business dealing with M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd. and M/s Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. with respect to financing of machinery on lease basis. Thereafter, these two entities filed separate suits against defendant and his proprietorship firm u/O 37 CPC and CS DJ NO. 187/2016 10119/16 Page No. 11 of 16 Digitally signed NALIN KHANNA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA PRABH Dated 18.09.2025 by PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP Date:
KAUR 2025.09.18 16:28:48 +0530 both suits were decreed against defendant and its proprietorship firm vide judgment and decree dated 29.08.2011 and 18.09.2001. Thereafter, these two entities filed execution petitions before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 08.01.2002 attached the suit property alongwith other properties. Meanwhile, on 23.06.2005 defendant sold the property to plaintiff. On 05.10.2005 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi transferred the execution petitions to the Court at NOIDA and in July 2006 plaintiff came to know about the attachment orders. Thereafter, plaintiff filed two civil suits against the defendant and other two entities in the year 2009 and also filed one FIR on 24.03.2010. Both the suits were disposed off as infructuous vide order dated 11.03.2014 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as during pendency of both the suits, plaintiff has entered into two separate MOUs with M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd. and M/s Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. and paid a sum of Rs. 40 lacs in total to both the entities".
Now the contentions of plaintiff is that defendant has not disclosed about the execution petitions and attachment orders to the plaintiff and plaintiff had to pay a sum of Rs. 40 lacs to save the property from being sold in pursuant to attachment orders and plaintiff also suffered physical and mental harassment. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 40 lacs from defendant and is also entitled for damages.
19. The defendant has denied about the knowledge of pendency of execution petitions and attachment orders. However, as noted above defendant admitted having dealing with two other entities i.e. M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd. and M/s Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. and it is matter of CS DJ NO. 187/2016 10119/16 Page No. 12 of 16 NALIN KHANNA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA Dated 18.09.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP KAUR DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.09.18 16:28:52 +0530 record that these two entities obtained decrees against the defendant herein. Admittedly, defendant has not challenged these decrees even after obtaining the knowledge about the same. Therefore, defendant cannot deny the legal consequences of a decree against the defendant i.e. the filing of execution petitions against defendant and attachment orders in pursuant to execution petitions.
20. Further, defendant has taken the plea that plaintiff had purchased the property at a throw away price and it was a distress sale made by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.
As far as this plea is concerned, defendant has not led any evidence to prove that the property was worth rupees crores in the year 2005 and plaintiff purchased the same for meager amount of Rs. 48.50 lacs. Further, defendant has not given any reason why he sold the property for meager amount and why he was compelled for distress sale of the property. This admission on part of defendant gives a presumption in favour of the plaintiff that defendant had knowledge about the huge charge on the property and he sold the property to the plaintiff withholding the material information from plaintiff.
21. Further, defendant has taken the plea that he has sold the property to the plaintiff for Rs. 48,50,000/- only. Now plaintiff is seeking recovery of Rs. 40 lacs from the defendant and thus, plaintiff wants to have the suit property virtually free of cost.
As far as this plea is concerned, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 40 lacs to M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd. and Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. towards the dues of the defendant. The plaintiff is not seeking recovery of the amount paid towards sale consideration. Rather if plaintiff is not allowed to recover the sum of Rs. 40 lacs from defendant, it would be CS DJ NO. 187/2016 10119/16 Page No. 13 of 16 NALIN KHANNA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA Dated 18.09.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.09.18 equivalent to unjust enrichment of the defendant as defendant sold the suit property to the plaintiff, received the sale consideration and also got rid of his dues payable to M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd. and M/s Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the arguments of defendant has no force.
22. Further, perusal of transfer deed cum sale deed Ex.P2 record following conditions:
"Clause no. 5: That the TRANSFEROR aforesaid has assured the TRANSFEREE that the said Industrial Plot is free from all sorts of encumbrances such as sale, gift, lien, mortgage, pledge, litigation, injunction, attachment and decree of any Court of Law, if proved otherwise the TRANSFEROR aforesaid shall be liable and responsible for the same and the TRANSFEREE shall have the rights to recover the entire amount with cost, interest and expenses from the other movable and immovable properties of the TRANSFEROR Clause no. 11.A: That the TRANSFEROR however agreed to keep the Transferee indemnified against all such claims for the period prior to the execution and registration of the Transfer deed cum sale deed and undertakes to pay the same when any demand may be raised by the said Authority. In the event of the Transferor sailing or refusing to pay the same the Transferee shall be entitled to recover the same alongwith interest at commercial rate upto the date of realization".
Thus, by way of above clauses in the sale deed defendant has actually agreed to indemnify the plaintiff for the lose caused due to acts of the defendant. Therefore, defendant is liable to indemnify the plaintiff for the amount which plaintiff had to pay towards dues of the defendant. Accordingly, defendant is liable to pay Rs 40 lacs to the plaintiff.
23. Further, admittedly plaintiff had to pursue the litigation and had to pay Rs. 40 lacs to clear encumbrances over the property and to get the attachment orders lifted. The plaintiff must have gone through mental trauma and must have incurred substantial legal expenses and therefore, defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff. Considering the nature of proceedings and the status of parties a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards damages for mental harassment of the plaintiff, CS DJ NO. 187/2016 10119/16 Page No. 14 of 16 NALIN KHANNA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA Dated 18.09.2025 Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP DEEP KAUR Date: 2025.09.18 KAUR 16:29:02 +0530 seems reasonable and justified.
24. Plaintiff has also sought pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The plaintiff has been deprived of its rightful amount and therefore, plaintiff is entitled for reasonable interest to compensate for the loss of money which plaintiff could have utilized for better prospective. Considering the nature of transactions between parties and facts and circumstances of the case, plaintiff is held entitled for the interest at the rate of 7% per annum from filing of the suit till its realization.
Accordingly, issue no. 2 and 3 are decided in favour of plaintiff against the defendant.
25. Issue no. 1 Issue no. 1. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of necessary or proper party, if so to what effect? OPD.
The onus to prove this issue is upon the defendant. The Suit is devoid of merit and the same is not maintainable for want of non joinder of necessary and proper parties, and mis-joinder of alleged causes of action. I say that earlier the Plaintiff filed two different Suits in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the Defendant, for the same alleged cause of action. The said two suits were registered as CS(OS) No. 1582/2009 and CS(OS) No. 1583/2009. Moreover, the Plaintiff also moved an application in the Hon'ble Delhi High for consolidation of the aforesaid two Suits, but the said Application was not allowed by the Hon'ble High of Delhi and both the aforesaid Suits were dismissed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 11.03.2014. Hence the present Suit is not maintainable.
On the other hand, plaintiff has denied the same.
CS DJ NO. 187/2016 10119/16 Page No. 15 of 16
NALIN KHANNA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA Dated 18.09.2025
PRABH Digitally signed by
PRABH DEEP KAUR
DEEP Date: 2025.09.18
KAUR 16:29:06 +0530
Arguments heard. Record perused.
It has already been observed during finding upon issue no. 2 and 3 that the previous suits have been disposed off as infructuous with liberty to the plaintiff to file fresh suit for monetary claim. The cause of action of previous suits is entirely different as the cause of action to file the present suit accrued in favour of plaintiff when plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 40 lacs to Dolf Leasing Ltd. and Rubicon Securities Pvt. Ltd. Further, defendant has not disclosed as to who are other necessary and proper parties who have not been impleaded in the present suit. In view thereof, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief.
26. As all the issues have been decided in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, the suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed in favour of plaintiff against defendant for the following reliefs:
(a). A sum of Rs. 40 lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the filing of the suit till its realization.
(b). A sum of Rs. 05 lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the filing of the suit till its realization.
(c). The cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
All the pending interim applications stand dismissed being not pressed upon. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PRABH PRABH DEEP
DEEP KAUR
Date: 2025.09.18
KAUR 16:29:11 +0530
Typed to the direct dictation and (Prabh Deep Kaur)
announced in the open court District Judge-05, South East
th
on this 29 August, 2025 Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS DJ NO. 187/2016 10119/16 Page No. 16 of 16
NALIN KHANNA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA Dated 18.09.2025