Delhi District Court
Rajinder Sharma vs Deepak Chaudhary on 16 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. GOMATI MANOCHA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 172/16
CNR No. DLNE01-000949-2016
In the matter of:
1. Rajinder Sharma
S/o Sh. K. C. Sharma
R/o H. No. 932, Gali Pattal Wali, Maliwara,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
2. Harish Sharma
S/o Sh. Ram Raj Sharma
R/o 4/27, 1st Floor, Roop Nagar,
Delhi-110007. .....Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Deepak Chaudhary
S/o Late Sh. Mahavir Singh
R/o House No. 165, Gali no. 1,
Gopal Pur Village, Delhi-110054.
2. Delhi Development Authority
Through its Chairman,
INA Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
3. Gunjan @ Kunja
W/o Sh. Dhir Singh
R/o V-273, Shiv Shankar Mohalla,
Ghonda, Delhi-110053. .....Defendants
Date of Institution : 18.05.2012
Date of Reserving Judgment : 16.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 16.02.2026
Final Decision : Decreed
CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 1 of 28
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking the relief of specific performance of contract and permanent injunction.
2. Plaint Brief facts, as stated in the plaint are that the the defendant no. 1 represented himself as the absolute owner and in possession of property bearing no. C-12/80, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053 constructed on the entire ground floor and first floor on a plot of an area of 70 sq. mtrs. (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) and approached the plaintiffs for the sale of the same. The defendant told the plaintiffs that the suit property was inherited by him from his father Late Sh. Mahavir Singh, being the only legal heir. The defendant also told the plaintiffs that his mother Smt. Maya Devi has also expired and hence, he is the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property. The defendant also informed the plaintiffs that after the death of his father and mother, the suit property was mutated by Delhi Development Authority (in short 'DDA') in his name as intimated by the DDA vide letter No. 17(2583)/76/LAB/®/DDA/14519 dated 25.07.2001. The defendant also stated to the plaintiffs that DDA has also approved the conversion of the property from lease hold to free hold vide it's letter No.17 (2503) 76/LAB (Res.)/12069 dated 04.10.2002. Since the plaintiffs were in the need of a house in the same locality, they finalized the deal to purchase the suit property with all the fittings and fixtures for a total sale consideration of Rs. 35 lakhs. At the time of finalizing the deal i.e. on 25.10.2008, the defendant handed over the copy of the mutation letter No. 17(2583)/76/LAB/®/DDA/14519 dated 25.07.2001 issued by DDA in his favour and also gave the copy of letter CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 2 of 28 No. 17 (2503) 76/LAB (Res.)/12069 dated 04.10.2002 of conversion of the property from lease hold to free hold. Accordingly, the plaintiffs gave an amount of earnest money of Rs. 5 lakhs through cheque bearing no. 763969 dated 25.10.2008 in favour of the defendant drawn on Federal Bank Limited, Fatehpuri, Delhi-110006. Thereafter, plaintiffs made the payment of entire sale consideration of Rs. 35 lakhs through cheques and cash on different dates as mentioned in the agreement to sell and purchase. The defendant executed agreement to sell, GPA and Will, all dated 11.05.2011 before the Sub Registrar-IV, Seelampur, Delhi in favour of the plaintiffs in the presence of two witnesses namely Sh. Ram Raj Sharma and Sh. Tanveer Alam. The agreement to sell dated 11.05.2011 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiffs with regard to the suit property was got registered in the office of Sub Registrar-IV, Seelampur, Delhi vide registration no. 954 in book no. 1, volume no. 4330, on page 161-165 dated 03.06.2011. The Will dated 11.05.2011, executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to the suit property was also got registered vide registration no. 497, in book no. 3, volume no. 3481, on page 102 dated 12.05.2011. A GPA was also got executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs with regard to the suit property and was registered vide registration no. 560, in book no. 4, volume no. 10779 on page 132 to 134 dated 12.05.2011. On 11.05.2011, the defendant also handed over the vacant and peaceful possession of the entire suit property to the plaintiffs and got a possession letter executed dated 11.05.2011. Since the plaintiffs paid the entire amount of sale consideration for purchase of the suit property, they requested the defendant to execute the sale deed. However, on the request of the defendant only the aforesaid documents were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and assured the plaintiffs that he would execute the sale deed subsequently. The plaintiffs requested the defendant a number of times to execute the CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 3 of 28 documents of transfer such as sale deed for transfer of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs which he is legally bound to do, but he avoided the same on one pretext or the other. The plaintiffs have already completed their part of the contract by making the payment of the entire sale consideration. However, the defendant is not coming forward to execute the necessary transfer documents which he is legally bound to do so.
On 27.04.2012, the plaintiffs came to know from one property dealer that the defendant is negotiating with some other persons to sell the suit property. On being questioned, the defendant started extending threats to the plaintiffs stating that he shall create third party interest in the suit property. In these circumstances, the present suit has been filed.
3. Written statement of defendant no. 1 Written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 in which apart from denying the allegations/contentions of the plaintiffs, it is stated that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit on the basis of false and fabricated documents and the defendant no. 1 has already initiated appropriate criminal proceedings against the plaintiffs and their relative Adv. Bhagat Raj Sharma. It is stated that the defendant no. 1 never entered into any talks regarding sale of the suit property to the plaintiffs. It is stated that the defendant no. 1 was having cordial relations with the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs are the relatives of Mr. Bhagat Raj Sharma, who has been a family lawyer of defendant no. 1 for a very long time. The plaintiffs have taken a loan of Rs. 40 lakhs from the defendant no. 1 and the same was repaid by them to the defendant no. 1 through cheques and cash. All the payments were made by the plaintiffs as against loan taken by the plaintiffs. It is stated that the defendant no. 1's father namely Mahavir Singh was the lawful owner of the suit property. The plaintiffs had been told mistakenly that the said property had been sold by the father of CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 4 of 28 defendant no. 1 to one Vinod Kumar. Further, Vinod Kumar had sold the suit property to Sh. Jagdish Singh. However, the suit property was not sold by the father of defendant no. 1 and all the time the mother of defendant no. 1 alongwith the defendant had been in the possession of suit property. The father of defendant no. 1 had died in 1995. After the death of father of defendant no. 1, the property was mutated by the DDA in the name of the defendant no. 1. However, the defendant no. 1 was under the wrongful impression that the property had been sold by his father to Vinod Kumar. Some anti-social elements moved applications in the DDA against the free hold proceedings of the suit property. The defendant no. 1 was under the bonafide impression that one Jagdish Singh had become the owner of the property, who had allowed the defendant no. 1 to reside in the suit property as licensee and directed the defendant no. 1 to file a suit in Tis Hazari Courts against those persons, who were moving applications before the DDA against free hold proceedings. Defendant no. 1 and his mother had engaged Mr. Bhagat Raj Sharma as their counsel in Tis Hazari Courts. In 2012, the defendant no. 1 was not inclined to spend much time in Court proceedings and he was in search of a Parokar. Sh. Bhagat Raj Sharma, who was the counsel of defendant no. 1 advised the defendant no. 1 to appoint Sh. Harish Sharma as Parokar. Sh. Bhagat Raj Sharma stated that Sh. Harish Sharma (i.e. plaintiff no. 2) is his nephew. The defendant no. 1 acting upon the advice of his counsel, reached the office of Sub-Registrar for the purpose of executing Special Power of Attorney in favour of Sh. Harish Sharma for the purpose of appointing him as his Parokar. Sh. Bhagat Raj Sharma was also present at the office of the Sub Registrar and under his instructions, the defendant no. 1 put his signatures on the documents with the intention to appoint Parokar. Subsequently, the defendant no. 1 came to know about the fraud committed by Sh. Bhagat Raj Sharma in collusion with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs with the help of CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 5 of 28 Sh. Bhagat Raj Sharma forged and fabricated documents regarding sale of the suit property. Hence, the defendant no. 1 filed a complaint case against the Bhagat Raj Sharma and the plaintiffs herein. Sh. Jagdish Singh clarified that the defendant no. 1 is the legal owner of the suit property as the suit property has been mutated in the name of defendant no. 1. Earlier, the defendant no. 1 was under a bonafide mistake regarding ownership of the suit property. Sh. Jagdish Singh had settled his interest with defendant no. 1 and he was paid his outstanding amount by defendant no. 1. After settlement with Jagdish Singh, the defendant no. 1 being lawful owner of the suit property sold the same to one Saddam Malik S/o Sh. Sher Khan Malik for a lawful consideration of Rs. 52 lakhs. The defendant no. 1 executed agreement to sell, dated 03.10.2013 and other necessary documents before Sub-Registrar in favour of Sh. Saddam Malik. The possession of the suit property was also handed over to Sh. Saddam Malik, who is now in settled possession of the same. Denying the rest of the contents of the plaint, the defendant no. 1 sought dismissal the suit of the plaintiffs.
Written statement of defendant no. 2/DDA Written statement has been filed by defendant no. 2 stating that no relief has been claimed against defendant no. 2 and therefore, he is neither a necessary nor property party. It is admitted that the plaintiff had enquired from defendant no. 2/DDA whether conveyance deed of Plot No. C-12/80 at Yamuna Vihar, Delhi had been executed in favour of Sh. Deepak Chaudhary, defendant no. 1. It was informed by defendant no. 2 i.e. DDA to the plaintiffs that substitution was allowed in favour of Sh. Deepak Chaudhary vide letter dated 25.07.2001. Further, the plaintiff was informed that the conveyance deed papers were issued to Sh. Deepak Chaudhary vide letter dated 04.10.2002. It is submitted that as per the record of DDA, the suit property was originally leased out in favour of Ms. Shamshad CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 6 of 28 Begum on 14.03.1977. The property was sold to Sh. Mahavir Singh on the basis of GPA and agreement to sell. Sh. Mahavir Singh had applied to DDA for conversion of the said property from lease hold to free hold. The case was processed and the conveyance deed was issued to him on 14.03.1977. However, before the conveyance papers could be returned to defendant no. 2/DDA by Sh. Mahavir Singh, the GPA holder expired. Thus, his son Sh. Deepak Chaudhary, defendant no. 1 applied for substitution as well as conversion of the abovesaid property to free hold property. The plaintiff moved an application for execution of conveyance deed of the suit property in his favour. The plaintiff was informed by defendant no. 2/DDA that the conversion application could not be proceeded with as the issue of title of plot was sub-judice. On 10.03.2005, defendant no. 1 made a representation to defendant no. 2 that some unscrupulous persons were trying to grab the suit property by way of conversion. The defendant no. 1 had requested to defendant no. 2/DDA not to accept such conversion papers as the matter was under litigation against Sh. Jai Pal Singh and his wife Smt. Lata. In reply to the application by the plaintiff, the defendant no. 2/DDA had duly informed the plaintiff that the conversion had been entered in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit property. Further, plaintiff was informed that the conveyance deed papers were issued to defendant no. 1 vide letter dated 04.10.2002. Further, as the issue of title of the suit property was sub-judice therefore, the application by the plaintiff for execution of conveyance deed in his favour could not be proceeded with.
Written statement of defendant no. 3 Written statement has also been filed by the defendant no. 3 in which she stated that she was made a party to the suit on 22.09.2020. She stated that she purchased the built up entire property bearing no. C-12/80 (plot no. 80, in Block No. C-12), measuring 70 sq. mtrs. i.e. 80 sq. yards CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 7 of 28 situated in layout plan of Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053 vide registered GPA, Will and agreement to sell, all dated 10.02.2011 supported by Special Power of Attorney, affidavit, undertaking, receipt and possession letter, all dated 10.02.2011 duly attested by Notary Public for a consideration amount of Rs. 34,75,000/- from Sh. Syed Afzal Hussain. It is stated that initially the suit property was allotted by the DDA in favour of Ms. Shamshad Begum vide perpetual lease deed dated 14.03.1977 who further sold it to Smt. Maya Devi, who further sold it to Sh. Harish Kumar S/o Late Sh. Raj Pal Singh, who further sold it to Sh. Salimuddin, who further sold it to Sh. Syed Afzal Hussain, who further sold it to the defendant no. 3 (present defendant no. 3) vide registered GPA registered as registration no. 154, in book no. 4, volume no. 10769, on page 175 to 178 on 10.02.2011, agreement to sell duly registered as registration no. 294 in book no. 1, volume no. 4308 on page 135 to 142, dated 10.02.2011 and Deed of Will duly registered as registration no. 164, in book no. 3, volume no. 3476, on page 62 to 64 on 12.02.2011 before the Sub Registrar-IV, Delhi. Further some other supporting documents like SPA, affidavit, undertaking, receipt and possession letter, all dated 10.02.2011 were also executed by the seller in favour of defendant no. 3. Also, possession letter was issued in favour of defendant no. 3. The defendant no. 3 intended to let out the said property on rent but the husband of the defendant no. 3 could not find a suitable tenant and the said property remained vacant. Due to certain health related issues, defendant no. 3 could not look after the property till the year 2017 and thereafter applied before DDA for conversion of lease hold to free hold of the suit property. The same is pending. On 21.02.2017 when the husband of defendant no. 3 visited the suit property, he came to know that certain persons had illegally occupied the same. On enquiry, the names of those persons were revealed as Saddam Malik and Sher Khan Malik (father and son). These persons CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 8 of 28 threatened the husband of the defendant no. 3, to leave the spot immediately. Finding no other way, the husband of defendant no. 3 made a PCR call to police at 6:17 pm of the same day. However, the police did not take any action. Thereafter, defendant no. 3 made a written complaint before Deputy Commissioner of Police, North East District vide complaint dated 04.03.2017 and also forwarded the copy of the same to SHO, PS Bhajanpura, Delhi vide DD No. 50B dated 04.03.2017. Defendant no. 3 also forwarded the copy of said complaint to Hon'ble LG of Delhi vide Diary No. 9499 dated 08.03.2017. In March 2019, the defendant no. 3 came to know from Sher Khan Malik that he alongwith his son Saddam Malik have become the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendant no. 3 sent a legal notice to Saddam Malik and Sher Khan Malik vide registered AD on 06.06.2019 which were duly received by them and subsequently a reply was received by defendant no. 3 on 07.07.2019. It is stated that the plaintiffs or defendant no. 1, have no right, title or interest in the suit property. It is stated that in the year 2009, defendant no. 1 had filed a suit before the Court of Ld. District Judge, North East against Sh. Harish Kumar and Anr. vide Civil Suit No. 429228/2009 for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction which was dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of defendant no. 1, on 15.09.2012. Defendant no. 1 had categorically admitted defendant no. 3, as true and lawful owner of the suit property. It is further stated that the agreement to sell and the documents purportedly executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs are on the basis of a substitution letter dated 25.07.2001 which clearly mentions the name of Late Mahavir Singh, the agreement to sell holder qua the suit property. It is stated that the DDA substitutes the name of subsequent purchaser on the basis of agreement to sell therefore, the appropriate remedy in the hands of the plaintiffs would have been to approach the DDA rather than approaching this Court for relief. It is submitted that the CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 9 of 28 defendant no. 1 submitted fake and fabricated documents before DDA to obtain conveyance deed in his favour. However, till date the property has not been converted into free hold property and is still a lease hold property. The letter of substitution and offer of conveyance letter issued by DDA are based on the documents submitted before the DDA by defendant no. 1. However, no background check of the documents has been done by DDA and the letter issued by the DDA clearly stipulates that in case the documents submitted by the applicant are found to be false or mis- statement, then it would be treated as a case of concealment of facts, fraud and substitution be treated as cancelled. It is stated that defendant no. 1 has no right, title or interest in the suit property since the Will of Late Sh. Mahavir Singh was not in favour of defendant no. 1, till his mother was alive. As a matter of fact, during the lifetime of Smt. Maya Devi, she had already sold the property to Sh. Harish Kumar son of Late Sh. Raj Pal Singh on 04.04.2001, who further sold it to Sh. Salimuddin, who further sold it to Sh. Sayad Afzal Hussain, who further sold it to defendant no. 3, vide agreement to sell, GPA, Deed of Will, etc. registered on 12.02.2011 before Sub Registrar-IV, Delhi. Also supporting documents like SPA, affidavit, undertaking, receipt and possession letter, all dated 10.02.2011 were also executed by the seller in favour of defendant no. 3. It is stated that the defendant no. 1 could not have executed any document in favour of the plaintiffs as no one can transfer a better title than he himself has. In these circumstances, defendant no. 3 has prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs.
4. Replication Despite opportunities given, replication was not filed.
5. Admission/denial of documents CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 10 of 28 The Ld. Counsel for the defendant has admitted five documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff as the same are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Rest of the documents are denied. Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 (signatures admitted and contents denied). Signatures admitted and contents denied on original Will marked as Ex.P5.
6. Issues On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance of contract in respect of suit property i.e. C-12/80, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053, along with its fittings and fixtures as per terms of the agreement to sell dated 11.05.2011? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling or creating any third party interest in the suit property? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiff has played any fraud upon the defendants with regard to the cause of action of the agreement? OPD
(iv) Relief.
7. Plaintiffs' evidence Plaintiffs led their piece of evidence.
PW1 Plaintiff no. 1 Sh. Rajinder Sharma appeared as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents i.e.
(i) Application in CS No. 228/09 which is Ex.P1.
(ii) Court order dated 18.09.2012 which is Ex.P2.
(iii) GPA, agreement to sell, Will with regard to the suit property are Ex.P3 to Ex.P5.
CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 11 of 28
(iv) Document of possession dated 11.05.2011 is Ex.PW1/1.
(v) Reply on behalf of DDA dated 03.05.2014 is Mark A.
(vi) Document dated 25.07.2001 issued by DDA in favour of Sh. Deepak Chaudhary with regard to mutation of his name in the suit property is Mark A.
(vii) Document dated 04.10.2001 issued by DDA in favour of Deepak Chaudhary regarding conversion from lease hold to free hold is Mark B.
(viii) Electricity bill in favour of Deepak Chaudhary is Mark C.
(ix) Letter from DDA regarding receipt of free hold conversion form (running into 2 pages) is Mark D.
(x) House tax receipt is Mark E.
(xi) Receipt of amount received by the defendant is Mark F. PW1 was cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination, he stated that he knows defendant no. 1, since 2008 through a broker Tanveer Ahmed. Tanveer Ahmed was the broker/mediator in this case and he had paid 2% commission to him but he had not issued any receipt for the same. He could not tell whether he is a registered broker or not. Commission was paid at different times and different amounts. Some part of the commission was paid before execution of the documents whereas the remaining amount was paid after their execution. Deal was finalized with defendant no. 1 at one time at his shop at Chandni Chowk but he did not remember the date. However, he stated that it was in the month of August 2008. Defendant no. 1 and Tanveer Ahmed were brought to his shop by one Deepak who used to live at Malivara, Chandni Chowk. He paid Rs. 5 lakhs through cheque to defendant no. 1 on the day when the deal was finalized. No bayana agreement was written on that day. He had seen the suit property twice before giving the aforesaid amount. However, he did not remember the date. The rate of suit property and other things were verified CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 12 of 28 through Sh. Jain who is living in Yamuna Vihar. Defendant no. 1 alongwith his mother were in the suit property when they went to see the suit property. He stated that he knows plaintiff no. 1 through his father prior to the deal of the suit property. Plaintiff no. 2 and he are equal partners in the suit property. However, no written partnership deed was executed between them. He does not know if plaintiff no. 2 is related to Bhagat Raj Sharma, Advocate. They have filed an application before DDA for executing conveyance deed in their favour. The same is pending. He admitted that the suit property is still in the name of defendant no. 1 and is free hold. He denied the suggestion that the amount given to defendant no. 1 for the sale of the suit property is repayment of a loan. He admitted that they have not lived in the suit property and does not know who currently lives in the suit property. He was not aware whether the suit property has been sold by defendant no. 1 to Saddam Malik who is in possession. Mark F was prepared alongwith transfer documents at Nand Nagri. He could not tell as to whose seal is on the document. He did not remember the day when the document was written and it was not registered. He denied the suggestion that document Mark F was never executed by the defendant. He denied the suggestion that during the relevant period, plaintiff no. 2 was working with Advocate Bhagat Raj Sharma who was the previous counsel for defendant and some blank papers were got signed by plaintiff no. 2 from defendant for the appointment of SPA to look after the litigation of defendant pending with the Advocate Bhagat Raj Sharma. He did not know if defendant no. 1 made any complaint against them. Police had enquired from them about the suit property. He was also not aware if the defendant filed complaint under section 156 Cr.PC against the plaintiffs.
PW2 Sh. Ram Karan, UPC, LAB Residential, DDA, INA, New Delhi CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 13 of 28 brought the summoned record of Plot No. 80, Block C-12, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi in File No. F-17 (2503), LAB Residential and proved letter dated 04.10.2002, regarding conversion of lease hold Plot No. 80, Block C-12, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi in favour of Deepak Chaudhary. The same is Ex.PW2/1 alongwith conveyance deed in favour of Deepak Choudhary which is Ex.PW2/2. Letter of substitution of aforesaid property dated 25.07.2001 in favour of Deepak Choudhary is Ex.PW2/3. Receipt of conversion form of suit property received from Rajinder Sharma and Harish Sharma is Ex.PW2/4.
PW3 Sh. Gopal Dutt, Baillif, Sub Registrar-IV, Seelampur, brought the summoned record i.e. agreement to sell Ex.P4, Will Ex.P5, GPA Ex.P3. He stated that all the above documents have been executed by Deepak Choudhary regarding property no. 80, Block C-12, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi in favour of Rajinder Sharma and Harish Sharma.
8. Defendant's evidence After closing of plaintiffs' evidence, defendants led their evidence. DW1 Defendant no. 1 appeared as DW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A and relied upon document i.e. Ex.DW1/1 (which is a photocopy).
DW1 was cross-examined at length. In his cross examination, he stated that he has studied upto 10th class. He can read English but cannot understand the same fully. He admitted his signatures on receipt dated 11.05.2011 which is Ex.DW1/P1. He voluntarily stated that the amount mentioned in the receipt was given on different dates and was pertaining to some earlier transactions. He admitted his signatures on affidavit dated CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 14 of 28 11.05.2011 which is Ex.DW1/P2 but denied the contents of para 4, 5 & 6 of the affidavit. He admitted the electricity bill Ex.DW1/P3 which is in his name. He denied the suggestion that he never engaged Sh. Bhagat Raj Sharma as his counsel in any case. He denied that he never appointed any Parokar or executed any document in the year 2012 as stated in para 11 of his affidavit. He denied that all the allegations levelled in para 11 against Sh. Bhagat Raj Sharma are false. He has not filed any document on record which was allegedly executed in the year 2012 by plaintiffs or SPA Sh. Harish Sharma. He voluntarily stated that those documents were executed in 2013 but again said, those documents are pertaining to the year 2011. He admitted the documents Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 were executed by him. However, he stated that he does not know it's contents. He stated that he did not read or understand the contents of these documents at the time of signing the same. He denied the suggestion that Sh. Bhagat Raj Sharma was not his family lawyer. He did not file any document on record to show that Sh. Bhagat Raj Sharma was engaged by him ever in any case or he had signed any vakalatnama in any case. He voluntarily stated that Sh. Bhagat Raj Sharma had signed in his previous case. He had not given any loan of Rs. 450 lacs as mentioned in para 9 of his affidavit. He voluntarily stated that the loan amount might be Rs. 45 lacs and there is a typographical mistake. He stated that he did not file any document of loan as it was given orally. He had not issued any notice to the plaintiff for recovery of such loan amount. He had not filed any case for recovery of loan amount. He got a receipt prepared of giving loan to the plaintiff but he has not filed the same on record. No loan agreement was executed with the plaintiff. He had not mentioned the fact of giving loan in his police complaint Ex.DW1/4. He admitted application Ex.P1 in case titled as Deepak Choudhary Vs. Harish Kumar. He denied the suggestion that he could not sell the property again in the year 2013 to Sh. Saddam Malik CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 15 of 28 vide agreement Ex.DW1/1 when he had sold the same to Smt. Kunjo Devi as stated in Ex.P1 because he had no right, title or interest in the property. He denied that the documents Ex.DW1/1 are forged and fabricated and prepared in collusion with Saddam Ali to deprive the plaintiff of his property. He denied that the complaint Ex.DW1/4 is a false complaint. He did not file any case for cancellation of documents Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. He voluntarily stated that he had filed only police complaint. He did not remember whether he had mentioned in police complaint that these documents are forged and fabricated and are required to be cancelled. He stated that he is not in possession of the suit property as on date.
DW2 ASI Bijender Singh, No. 585, North-East, PS Bhajanpura, Delhi stated that the record of complaint dated 03.05.2013 was summoned from PS Bhajanpura but the old record containing the complaint register upto 31.12.2013 has already been destroyed as per the order of DCP, North- East. The report of SHO PS Bhajanpura, dated 19.02.2018 is Ex.DW2/A. DW3 Sh. Gopal Dutt, Record Keeper, Office of Sub Registrar-IV, Seelampur, Delhi brought the summoned record of GPA already Ex.DW1/1 (colly). The same was registered at the office of Sub Registrar- IV, Seelampur on 05.10.2013 at registration no. 1190, book no. IV, volume no. 10900 at pages 152 to 157.
9. Arguments I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of parties and perused the case file carefully. Written submissions filed on behalf of the plaintiffs have also been perused very carefully.
CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 16 of 28 At the stage of final arguments, defendant no. 3 has made a statement before the Court that she has entered into a compromise with the plaintiffs. Now she does not claim any right, title or interest in the suit property and has prayed that the present case may be decided accordingly.
In view of the statement made by the defendant no. 3 in the Court which has been recorded separately, vide this judgment, the Court shall only decide the rights of the remaining parties.
10. Reasons and analysis/finding Issue no. 1 & 3:
Issue no. 1 is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance of contract in respect of suit property i.e. C-12/80, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053 Issue no. 3 is Whether the plaintiff has played any fraud upon the defendants with regard to the cause of action of the agreement?
The onus to prove issue no. 1 is on the plaintiff while the onus to prove issue no. 3 is on the defendant. Before discussing my findings on these issues, it is necessary to first understand the concept of burden of proof.
Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says "whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Section 102 provides upon whom burden of proof lies. It has been provided that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail, if no evidence at all were given on either side. Section 103 of the Act provides that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 17 of 28 law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person, and lastly Section 104 of the Act provides that the burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence. Therefore, the total effect of evidence is determined at the end of a proceeding not merely by considering the general duties imposed by Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act but also the special or particular ones imposed by other provisions such as Sections 103 and 106 of the Evidence Act. Reliance is placed upon A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136 and R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr, (2003) 8 SCC 752.
In this case, the plaintiff has alleged the execution of registered GPA, agreement to sell, Will, etc. in his favour by defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 has also not denied his signatures on the aforesaid documents. He has however, stated that these documents were executed by him under a misunderstanding and on the assurance given by Sh. Bhagat Raj Sharma, Advocate that he is executing the same for appointment of an SPA.
Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, embodies the "best evidence rule," stating that when terms of a contract, grant, or other disposition of property are reduced into writing, no evidence, except the document itself or secondary evidence where permissible, can be given to prove those terms. It mandates that written records are the sole proof for legal transactions, excluding contradicting oral testimony.
Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prohibits the admission of oral evidence to contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from the terms of a written contract, grant, or disposition of property. It applies once a document has been proved under Section 91, ensuring written agreements take precedence over oral claims between parties. However, CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 18 of 28 there are certain exceptions, one of which is contained in proviso 1 of section 92 of the Evidence Act. Section 92 Proviso (1) allows admission of oral evidence to prove facts that invalidate a written document or entitle a party to a decree, such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of capacity, failure of consideration or mistake.
However, the general rule is he who alleges fraud must prove it. Burden lies on the party alleging fraud to prove it. Fraud is not to be presumed, it must be proved. Reliance is placed upon A.V. Papayya Sastry Vs. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4SCC 221. When signature is admitted, presumption of valid execution of document arises. The burden becomes heavier on the person alleging fraud. Degree of proof required to be proved is higher and clear, cogent and convincing evidence is required to prove the allegations of fraud. Also, contemporaneous conduct is required to prove fraud. Self serving oral statement alone is not sufficient.
Thus, it is trite that once signature is admitted on a document the initial burden upon the person relying upon the same is discharged. Now, it is upon the opposite side to prove that any fraud was committed upon him. Admission of signature raises a presumption that the document was executed properly, unless rebutted by strong evidence. Strict proof of fraud etc. invalidating the document is required.
Coming to the facts of the case. In this case, the defendant has not led sufficient evidence to prove fraud as alleged. The defendant has also not been able to explain the execution of so many documents for the purpose of SPA. Defendant no. 1 has alleged that he had executed documents Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 for the appointment of an SPA or Parokar. He has not placed any document allegedly signed by the said Parokar in any case.
DW1 has admitted execution of the documents Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. However, he stated that he does not know it's contents. He stated CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 19 of 28 that he did not read or understand the contents of these documents at the time of signing the same. If a person signs a document voluntarily and he is literate and competent then, he is bound by it's contents. He cannot later on say that he did not read or understand it. This vague plea taken by defendant no. 1 has to be rejected.
Further, the conduct of defendant no. 1 in not seeking cancellation of documents later on, also fortifies that the plea taken by him is a sham. Defendant no. 1 also could not tell whether he had mentioned in police complaint that these documents are forged and fabricated and are required to be cancelled. Thus, the onus upon the defendant no. 1 to prove fraud is not discharged.
As per the agreement to sell executed between defendant no. 1 and the plaintiffs, various sums of money were received by defendant no. 1. The details of these payments have been mentioned in para 1 of the said agreement. DW1 has also admitted his signatures on receipt dated
11.05.2011 which is Ex.DW1/P1. As regards this, the defendant no. 1 has stated that he had advanced a loan to the plaintiff and the payment was made towards satisfaction of that loan. This is in contradistinction to what has been mentioned in receipt Ex.DW1/P1, as per which the said amount was full and final payment of consideration amount of the sale of property bearing Municipal No. C-12/80, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi, as mentioned in agreement to sell executed on 09.05.2011. This receipt has been notarized on 11.05.2011. However, to substantiate this plea, the defendant no. 1 has also not filed any document of loan. He has stated that it was given orally. He did not issue any notice to the plaintiff for recovery of such loan amount. He has stated that he had got a receipt prepared for giving loan to the plaintiff but he has not filed the same on record. He had also not mentioned the fact of giving loan in his police complaint Ex.DW1/4. Therefore, in the facts of the case, it is very difficult to accept the CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 20 of 28 contention that defendant no. 1 that amounts paid were in lieu of satisfaction of a loan.
Now, the question arises as to what rights accrue in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, Receipt etc. This position has been well explained in the judgment of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ld.Tr.Dir vs State Of Haryana & Anr decided on 11 October, 2011, AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 206, in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance.
Transactions of the nature of `GPA sales' or `SA/GPA/WILL transfers' do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of section 53A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales.
17. It has been submitted that making declaration that GPA sales and SA/GPA/WILL transfers are not legally valid modes of transfer is likely to create hardship to a large number of persons who have entered into such transactions and they should be given sufficient time to regularize the transactions by obtaining deeds of conveyance. It is also submitted that this decision should be made applicable prospectively to avoid hardship.
18. We have merely drawn attention to and reiterated the well-settled legal position that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are not `transfers' or `sales' and that such transactions CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 21 of 28 cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyances. They can continue to be treated as existing agreement of sale.
Nothing prevents affected parties from getting registered Deeds of Conveyance to complete their title. The said `SA/GPA/WILL transactions' may also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under section 53A of TP Act. If they are entered before this day, they may be relied upon to apply for regularization of allotments/leases by Development Authorities. We make it clear that if the documents relating to `SA/GPA/WILL transactions' has been accepted acted upon by DDA or other developmental authorities or by the Municipal or revenue authorities to effect mutation, they need not be disturbed, merely on account of this decision.
19. We make it clear that our observations are not intended to in any way affect the validity of sale agreements and powers of attorney executed in genuine transactions."
As regards transactions prior to judgment in Suraj Lamp's case i.e. 11.10.2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that GPA sales do not convey title but as the judgment operates prospectively, the same does not invalidate genuine transactions executed prior to the decision. Though only registered sale deed/conveyance deed confers title but registered GPA, Will, agreement to sell, etc. can be admitted as evidence of possession, evidence of part performance under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and the same can also form the basis for seeking the relief of specific performance.
In this case, the GPA, agreement to sell, Will, etc. are registered. The agreement to sell contains the details of payment. Also, receipt Ex.DW1/P1 contains details regarding various payments made by the plaintiff to defendant no. 1. The possession letter Ex.PW1/1 was also executed. These facts tilt the balance in favour of the plaintiff that these transactions are genuine and as the relief of specific performance is an CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 22 of 28 equitable relief, the same should be granted in favour of the person in whose favour equity lies. This is in conformity with Suraj Lamp's case as per which genuine transactions prior to the judgment are not disturbed.
For a suit for specific performance to succeed, certain conditions must be met. The plaintiff must prove a concluded contract, lawful consideration, certainty of terms as per section 29 of the Contract Act, lawful object, and competence of the parties. Also, identity of a property and sale consideration amount should be clear. Further, the plaintiff must also prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract from the date of the contract till the date of the decree. Readiness and willingness implies financial capacity to pay the balance sale consideration and the conduct consistent with the intention to perform the contract.
Conduct of the parties In the instant case, the plaintiff had paid the entire sale consideration. This itself shows the readiness or willingness of the plaintiff to perform the contract. Further, as per the plaint, the plaintiff kept on demanding performance of the contract from defendant no. 1, who refused to do so.
As per the testimony of PW2, Ex.PW2/1 is a letter dated 04.10.2002 regarding the conversion of lease hold property into free hold property. This letter has been issued by Deputy Director (LA) DDA in favour of defendant no. 1 and the conveyance deed executed by DDA in favour of defendant no. 1 is Ex.PW2/2. Letter of substitution of property Ex.PW2/3 is in favour of defendant no. 1.
Defendant no. 2/DDA in the written statement has stated that the plaintiff had enquired from defendant no. 2/DDA whether conveyance deed of Plot No. C-12/80 at Yamuna Vihar, Delhi had been executed in favour of Sh. Deepak Chaudhary, defendant no. 1. It was informed by CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 23 of 28 defendant no. 2 i.e. DDA to the plaintiffs that substitution was allowed in favour of Sh. Deepak Chaudhary vide letter dated 25.07.2001. Further, the plaintiffs were informed that the conveyance deed papers were issued to Sh. Deepak Chaudhary vide letter dated 04.10.2002. The existence of electricity bill as regards the suit property as well as mutation in favour of defendant no. 1 by DDA is strong indicator of the possession of the suit property by defendant no. 1. Further, as per affidavit Ex.DW1/P2 allegedly executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs, he has declared himself to be the absolute owner of the property. He has stated that on the death of his father and mother, he has been granted mutation by DDA in his name. He has stated that there is no dispute regarding the suit property.
After execution of the registered GPA, agreement to sell, Will, etc. the plaintiff applied for free hold conversion of the suit property. The receipt dated 10.09.2012, in this regard is Ex.PW2/4. Also, as per Mark E, the plaintiff on 06.09.2012 also paid the property tax of the suit property. These facts go on to show the bonafide intention of the plaintiffs regarding performance of the contract.
Now, the burden shifts upon the defendant to show as to why the contract was not performed and proper sale documents were not executed. This burden has not been discharged.
Subsequent transferee- Defendant no. 1 has stated in the written statement that he had sold the suit property to one Saddam Malik S/o Sh. Sher Khan Malik for a lawful consideration of Rs. 52 lakhs. The defendant no. 1 had executed agreement to sell, dated 03.10.2013 and other necessary documents before Sub-Registrar in favour of Sh. Saddam Malik. The possession of the suit property was also handed over to Sh. Saddam Malik, who is now in settled possession of the suit property.
Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides:-
Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, specific performance CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 24 of 28 of a contract may be enforced against-
(a) either party thereto;
(b) any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract.
The defendant no. 1 has placed on record Ex.DW1/1 (?) i.e. GPA, Deed of Will, affidavit, possession letter, payment receipt, agreement to sell dated 03.10.2013 executed by Deepak Chaudhary in favour of Saddam Malik. He has also stated in his written statement that he has sold the suit property to one Saddam Malik S/o Sh. Sher Khan Malik for a lawful consideration of Rs. 52 lakhs and executed agreement to sell, dated 03.10.2013 and other necessary documents before Sub-Registrar in favour of Sh. Saddam Malik. The possession of the suit property was also handed over to Sh. Saddam Malik, who is now in settled possession of the same.
Now, the question arises whether the right of the subsequent purchaser shall be protected under section 19 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. As per this provision, the rights of bonafide purchasers without the notice of original contract are protected. However, the subsequent purchasers have to prove that they entered into the sale agreement in good faith and without notice of the earlier agreements. Reliance is placed upon Maharaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Karan Singh (dead) thr. LRs & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6782/2013.
The registered GPA, agreement to sell, Will, receipt, etc. were executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of plaintiffs in May 2011 i.e. before the judgment in Suraj Lamp's case. Hence, this transaction is protected for the purpose of seeking the relief of a specific performance. As regards the subsequent registered GPA, agreement to sell, Will, receipt, etc. executed in favour of Saddam Malik in 2013, the legal position had changed significantly. Though GPA, agreement to sell are not valid instruments of CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 25 of 28 transfer. However, prior to Suraj Lamp's judgment, Delhi Courts and authorities were recognizing such transactions and treating purchasers as de facto owners. However, post Suraj Lamp's judgment, the authorities have stopped recognizing these GPA sales.
To determine whether the subsequent purchaser has paid money in good faith and without notice of original contract, it would be pertinent to mention that the documents between the defendant no. 1 and the plaintiffs were registered. As per section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act explanation 1, registration of a document operates as constructive notice to subsequent purchasers. Once a document is registered, any person who later deals with that property, is deemed to have notice of that registered document even, if he had no actual knowledge.
Further, the present suit has been filed on 18.05.2012. The doctrine of lis pendens, enshrined in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982, prohibits parties from transferring or dealing with immovable property involved in active litigation. It ensures that any transfer made during the suit is subject to the final Court decree, protecting the outcome of a case, from being undermined.
The present suit was filed on 18.05.2012 and the alleged transfer in favour of Saddam Malik was in the year 2013. Hence, the doctrine of lis pendens shall apply to the subsequent transfer. Further, free hold conversion form was filed by the plaintiffs before DDA on 10.09.2012 and as the documents in favour of plaintiffs are also registered therefore, the subsequent purchaser cannot be said to have entered into agreement in good faith and without notice of the agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1. They shall be considered to have deemed notice of the said transaction and the rights of the subsequent transferee shall be subject to the outcome of the case. In view of the above discussion, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. While, issue CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 26 of 28 no. 3 is decided against defendant no. 1 and in favour of the plaintiffs.
Issue no. 2 The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. The plaintiffs have sought the relief of restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest. However, as discussed above and as stated in the written statement of defendant no. 1, in the year 2013, the defendant no. 1 has already executed registered agreement to sell, GPA and Will, etc. in favour of one Saddam Malik. So, this relief claimed has already become infructuous. However, in view of the operation of the doctrine of lis pendens, the said transfer shall be subject to the outcome of this case. The transferee steps into the shoes of the defendant no. 1 and is bound by the decree ultimately passed.
11. Relief In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with cost. The plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of specific performance of contract in respect of suit property i.e. C-12/80, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053, along with its fittings and fixtures as per terms of the agreement to sell dated 11.05.2011. Since, the entire sale consideration amount has been paid by the plaintiffs therefore, the defendant no. 1 is directed to execute and register a proper conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiffs within three months from the date of the decree, as per the terms and conditions of DDA, defendant no. 2. The plaintiffs to bear the expenses for the same. In case, the defendant no. 1, fails to execute the conveyance deed within the stipulated time, the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the conveyance deed executed through the process of the court. It is ordered accordingly.
12. Decree sheet be prepared.
CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 27 of 28
13. File be consigned to the Record Room.
(Gomati Manocha) District Judge-02 (North East District) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Dictated and announced in open court today i.e. 16th February, 2026 CS No. 172/2016 Rajinder Sharma & Anr. Vs. Deepak Chaudhary & Ors. Page No. 28 of 28