Delhi District Court
M/S Farhanempexco Export And Import Co vs Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra And Anr on 4 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-06
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-012432-2024
CS (COMM) No.3897/2024
M/S Farhanempexco Export and Import Co.
Through its Proprietor:
Sh. Abdul Wahid
S/o Sh. Maqsood Ali
At: H. No. 108, Batla House,
Jamia Nagar,
New Delhi-110025.
... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra
S/o Sh. Bal Chand Chabra,
R/o H. No. A-144, Shivalik,
New Delhi-110017.
2. Sh. Sanjay Sejwal
S/o Sh. Preet Singh,
R/o H. No. F-10,
Lado Sarai,
New Delhi-110030.
....Defendants
Date of institution of the suit : 27.11.2024
Date on which judgment was reserved : 17.11.2025
Digitally
NEERA
signed by
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 04.12.2025
BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.12.04
15:48:39
+0530
CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 1 of 53
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the suit of the Plaintiff filed for recovery of Rs.1,50,000,00/- alongwith interest.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS SET UP IN THE PLAINT
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Plaintiff in the plaint are that:
a) Plaintiff M/s Farhanempexco Export and Import Co. and its Prop. Abdul Wahid S/o Maqsood Ali, is the same entity, actively engaged and fully responsible for all transactions and business conducted under above said firm.
b) Plaintiff was introduced to the Defendants through a mutual associate namely Mr. Maaz @ Egmaaz, who had been acquainted with both Defendants for several years. Defendants represented themselves as the absolute and rightful owners of property bearing No.134-A/1, measuring 240 sq. yards, comprising Khasra No.65 situated at Harizan Colony, Begumpur, Delhi-110017 (hereinafter referred as 'suit property').
c) Defendants induced the Plaintiff by representing that they are the rightful and absolute owners of the suit property. Defendants Digitally signed by NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.12.04 15:48:46 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 2 of 53 told the Plaintiff that the property was free from all encumbrances, and they had all rights and legal authority to sell it.
d) Based on these assurances, Plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property with the intention of constructing an office and the transaction was finalized through an Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022 at a consideration value of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.
e) As per the Agreement to Sell, Plaintiff provided five post- dated cheques to the Defendants as part payment details of which are as follows:-
Cheque No. Dated Amount in Rs. Drawn on
904251 03.06.2022 25 Lacs State Bank of India (Jawahar
Lal Chhabra)
904252 17.06.2022 25 Lacs State Bank of India (Sanjay
Sejwal)
904253 20.07.2022 25 Lacs State Bank of India (Sanjay
Sejwal)
904256 30.09.2022 25 Lacs State Bank of India (Sanjay
Sejwal)
904257 10.08.2022 25 Lacs State Bank of India (Sanjay
Sejwal)
f) Defendants encashed three cheques, amounting to
Rs.75,00,000/- i.e. cheque bearing No.904251 dated 03.06.2022 amounting Rs.25,000,00/- drawn on State Bank of India by Digitally signed by NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
Defendant No.1, cheques bearing No.904252 and 904253 dated 2025.12.04 15:48:50 +0530 17.06.2022 and 20.07.2022 respectively amounting to CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 3 of 53 Rs.25,000,00/- each both drawn on State Bank of India by the Defendant No.2, as part consideration with an understanding to execute the Sale Deed in favor of the Plaintiff on an agreed date before the Sub-Registrar.
g) Despite the Plaintiff purchasing stamp duty and making arrangements for registration, the Defendants failed to appear at the Registrar's Office to execute the Sale Deed. They offered various excuses and delayed the process.
h) Subsequently, Plaintiff discovered that the suit property was encumbered and embroiled in litigation with some other persons alongwith Maaz @ Egmaaz with multiple FIRs filed against the Defendants concerning the suit property. This was contrary to the Defendants' earlier assurance that the property was free from all disputes.
i) Defendants had concealed the true facts regarding the status of the suit property that it was under litigation and not free from encumbrance. Defendants included only their witnesses in the Agreement to Sell, despite the presence of the Plaintiff's associates at the time of signing and executing of Agreement to Sale.
j) Defendants' misrepresentation of ownership, failure to NEERA BHARIHOKE execute the Sale Deed and concealment of material facts alongwith Digitally signed by Maaz @ Egmaaz, constitute a breach of the Agreement to Sell dated NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:48:55 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 4 of 53 28.05.2022 as well as fraudulent inducement with intent to acquire/hatch up Plaintiffs hard-earned money.
k) Defendants did not fulfill their obligations for which the Plaintiff is entitled under the Agreement to sale to get double of the earnest money as mentioned in para-No.11 of Agreement to Sale dated 28.05.2022 that comes to Rs.1,50,00,000/- as compensation for their breach of condition of Agreement to Sale.
l) Plaintiff sent a legal demand notice dated 24.04.2024 and the same was delivered to the Defendants.
m) The Plaintiff preferred a Pre-litigation/Pre-Institution Mediation before the Competent Authority, i.e. SEDLSA, on 05.06.2024, however Defendant did not appear before the Competent Authority. Furthermore, the Non-Starter Report for the Pre-Institution Mediation was issued by the Competent Authority, SEDLSA, dated 27.08.2024.
3. Hence, the present suit was filed.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS AS SET UP IN THE WRITTEN NEERA BHARIHOKE STATEMENT Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:49:28 +0530
4. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Defendants in their Written Statement are that:
CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 5 of 53PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS/SUBMISSIONS :-
a) The present suit is not maintainable as the same is not signed and verified by the competent person.
b) The present suit is undervalued for the purpose of court fee and hence the present suit should be dismissed.
c) Brief facts of the case and preliminary objections as stated/taken by the Defendants in the Written Statement are that:
a) The Defendants are the joint owners of the property bearing no. 134-A/1 measuring 240 sq. yds., comprising Khasra No. 65 situated at Harizan Colony, Begumpur, Delhi-110017 which was purchased by them vide Registered Sale Deed bearing Registration No.7209 in Book No.1., Vol. No.4103 on Pages 121 to 132 Dated 22.09.2021.
b) Mr. Sudershan Kataria was owner of another property admeasuring 120 sq. yards adjacent to the suit property, which was having Municipal No.134-B, Khasra No.65, Village Begumpur, Delhi 110017. In the year 2021, when Mr. Sudershan Kataria was renovating his aforementioned Digitally signed by property, MCD took action against his property, however as NEERA BHARIHOKE the suit property and property of Mr. Sudarshan Kataria were NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.12.04 15:49:34 +0530 part of the same Khasra, the suit property was also partly CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 6 of 53 demolished by MCD. Defendants neither repaired the demolished property nor carried out any construction thereon.
c) Plaintiff approached the Defendants and offered to purchase the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/-
on as and where is basis. Plaintiff was aware about the demolition action taken by MCD and the same was also visible to anybody who visited the suit property. Plaintiff after examining the relevant documents, visited the suit property and satisfied himself as regards the title and status of the suit property, made the aforementioned offer which was accepted by the Defendants.
d) An agreement to sell was executed between the Plaintiff and Defendants pursuant to which the proprietor of the Plaintiff also conducted some ceremonies for further construction of the suit property, which was partly demolished by the MCD in 2021. Plaintiff even entered into a partnership with one Egmaaz and Pankaj Kumar Tanwar for construction of the suit property and subsequent partition thereof.
e) As per the terms and conditions of the Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022, Plaintiff agreed to make the payment of the full consideration amount on or before 30.09.2022 and Digitally signed by NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
Plaintiff had also issued five PDCs in favour of the 2025.12.04 Defendants having following details:
15:49:38 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 7 of 53 S. Cheque No. Dated Amount in Drawn On No. Rs.
1 904251 03.06.2022 25 Lacs State Bank of India (in favour of Defendant No.1) 2 904252 17.06.2022 25 Lacs State Bank of India (in favour of Defendant No.2) 3 904253 20.07.2022 25 Lacs State Bank of India (in favour of Defendant No.2) 4 904256 30.09.2022 50 Lacs State Bank of India (in favour of Defendant No.1) 5 904257 10.08.2022 25 Lacs State Bank of India (in favour of Defendant No.2)
f) As per the clause 11 of the Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022, it had been agreed between the parties that if the second party (Plaintiff herein) failed to make payment of entire consideration amount within stipulated time, then all the advance payment would be forfeited. The time was the essence of contract.
g) Cheque bearing No.904251 dated 03.06.2022 issued in favour Digitally of Defendant No.1 and cheque bearing No.904252 dated signed by NEERA 17.06.2022, cheque bearing No.904253 dated 20.06.2022 NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.12.04 15:49:43 +0530 issued in favour of Defendant No.2 were honored by the CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 8 of 53 banker of the Plaintiff. Defendants received a part payment of Rs.75,00,000/- from the Plaintiff. However, cheque bearing No.904257 was dishonored on its presentation. Defendant No.1 presented the cheque bearing No.904256 dated 30.09.2022 after duly informing the Plaintiff. The said cheque was dishonored on its presentation and returned unpaid with reasons "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT" alongwith return memo dated 16.11.2022.
h) As the Plaintiff failed to make the balance payment in terms of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022 within stipulated time i.e. on or before 30.09.2022, the amount of Rs.75,00,000/- paid by the Plaintiff was accordingly forfeited.
REPLY ON MERITS:
i) The contents of the plaint were denied by the Defendants.
The Plaintiff had not submitted any document to show that Sh. Abdul Wahid S/o Maqsood Ali is the proprietor of M/s Farhan Empexco Export and Import Co.
NEERA BHARIHOKE
j) Plaintiff had duly examined the title documents of the suit Digitally signed property and proceeded with the deal only after verifying the by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 authenticity thereof.
15:49:48 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 9 of 53
k) Defendants are the absolute owners of the suit property by virtue of Sale Deed registered vide Registration No.7209 in Book No.1, Vol. No.4103 on pages 121 to 132 dated 22.09.2021. In view of the aforementioned documents which were examined and verified by the Plaintiff, there was no question of any inducement or false representation by the Defendants. Though the Defendants had all rights and legal authority to sell the suit property, the demolition taken by the MCD on the said property was duly disclosed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.
l) Plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property not on the basis of assurances by the Defendants but after examining and getting the title documents of the suit property verified at his end coupled with physical inspection of the suit property.
m) The cheque No.904256 dated 30.09.2025, drawn on State Bank of India, Zakir Nagar Branch amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- was issued by the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant No.1 and not in the favour of Defendant No.2.
n) The contents of Para no. 6 have not been denied to the extent that the Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- against the total consideration amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. As per the Digitally signed by NEERA terms and conditions of the Agreement to Sale, the NEERA BHARIHOKE Defendants had agreed to execute the title documents in BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.12.04 15:49:52 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 10 of 53 favour of Plaintiff only if the total sale consideration was paid on or before 30.09.2022.
o) It was denied that the Defendants failed to appear at the Registrar's Office to execute the Sale Deed or offered excuses or delayed the process as alleged.
p) The Plaintiff neither paid the balance consideration nor ever informed the Defendants of his readiness and willingness to perform his part of agreement. On the contrary, the cheque issued towards the payment of consideration were dishonored which showed that the Plaintiff never had sufficient funds to make the balance consideration in terms of Agreement to Sell.
q) It was denied that the suit property was encumbered and embroiled in litigation with some other person along with Maaz@ Egmaaz or multiple FIRs filed against the Defendants concerning the suit property as alleged. It was denied that anything was contrary to assurance of Plaintiff that the suit property was free from any dispute.
r) The order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition bearing No.15166 of 2021 titled as 'Egmaaz vs. Deputy NEERA BHARIHOKE Commissioner, SDMC & Ors.', was filed in respect of the Digitally signed adjoining property admeasuring 70 sq. yards and not in by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:49:57 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 11 of 53 respect of the suit property. The FIRs which had been mentioned in the order dated 02.08.2022 in the aforementioned Writ Petition were also not in respect of the suit property. Said FIRs were regarding tampering of seal and not related to any dispute with regard to title of the property.
If, at all, the Plaintiff had any doubts regarding the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi or the FIRs mentioned therein, he could have sought clarification regarding the same from the Defendants. The Plaintiff first failed to honor the terms and conditions of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022 and then tried to take benefit of the orders passed in respect of adjoining property.
s) It was denied that the Defendants had concealed the true facts regarding the status of the suit property or that it is under litigation or not free from encumbrance as alleged. It was denied that the Defendants included only their witnesses in the Agreement to Sale, despite the presence of the associate of Plaintiff at the time of signing and executing the Agreement to Sale. No litigation was pending against the Defendants in respect of the suit property at the time of execution of Agreement to Sell.
NEERA BHARIHOKE
t) No associate of Plaintiff offered to be a witness to the Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE agreement to sell and hence they were not included as Date: 2025.12.04 15:50:01 +0530 witness.
CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 12 of 53u) It was denied that the Defendants ever misrepresented the ownership of the suit property or failure to execute the sale deed or concealed any material facts. It was denied that any act or omission of the Defendants constituted the breach of Agreement to Sale dated 28.05.2022 or anything was done by the Defendants by fraudulent inducement or with intent to illegally acquire/hatch up Plaintiff's hard-earned money.
v) Plaintiff entered into Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022 after examining the title documents, getting the same verified and physically inspecting the suit property.
w) It was denied that the Defendants did not fulfill their obligations towards the Plaintiff. It was denied that the Plaintiff is entitled to get the double of the earnest money. It was the Plaintiff who backed out from the Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022 and as such in terms of Para No. 11 of the Agreement to Sell, the amount paid by the Plaintiff was forfeited.
x) It was denied that the Plaintiff sent a legal notice dated NEERA 24.04.2024 or the same was delivered to the Defendants BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:50:05 +0530 5. Relying on the said averments, the Defendants have submitted that there is no merit in the present suit, and it deserves to be dismissed.
CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 13 of 53REPLICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF
6. Replication has been filed by the Plaintiff, wherein the Plaintiff has denied the contents of the Written Statement and reiterated the contents of the plaint.
ADMISSION / DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
7. Defendant No.1 and 2 admitted copy of the Agreement to Sell dated 26.05.22 and Non-Starter Report. The same were exhibited as Ex. P-1 and P-2 respectively. Defendant No.1 and 2 also admitted the order dated 02.08.2022 passed in WPC 15166/2021 and WPC 174/2022. The same was exhibited as Ex. P-3 in light of these submissions. Plaintiff admitted two documents of Defendant i.e. cheque of Rs.50 Lakhs dated 30.09.22 and the return memo of the said cheque dated 16.11.22. The same were exhibited as Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-2 respectively.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
8. Vide order dated 02.05.2024, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount? If NEERA BHARIHOKE yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:50:10 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 14 of 53 (3) Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts? OPD.
(4) Cost.
(5) Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
9. On 02.06.2025, Plaintiff examined PW-1 Mr. Abdul Wahid. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-1/A. He reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents: -
i. Agreement to sell dated 28.05.2025 as Ex. P-1.
ii. Non-starter report dt. 27.08.2024 as Ex. P-2.
iii. Order of Hon'ble High Court dated 02.08.2022 in W.P.(C) 15166/2021 CM APPL. 47785/2021 and W.P.(C) 174/2022, CM APPL. 466/2022 as Ex. P-3.
iv. Legal notice dt. 24.04.2024 as Ex. P-4 and Postal receipts as Ex.
P-5.
v. Bank Statement of Plaintiff's account maintained with State Bank of India as Ex. P-6.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA
10. PW-1 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Defendant on BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:50:14 +0530 02.06.2025 and 03.06.2025 and on 03.06.2025, PW-1 was discharged.CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 15 of 53
11. On 05.06.2025, Plaintiff also examined Shri Bilal Saif as PW-2. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-2/A. PW-2 was cross-examined by learned Counsel for Defendant on 05.06.2025 and on the same day, PW-2 was discharged. Plaintiff's Evidence was closed on 05.06.2025 on the statement of Shri Abdul Wahid, Proprietor of the Plaintiff.
DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE
12. Defendants examined Shri Jawahar Lal Chhabra as DW-1 on 08.07.2025. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. DW- 1/A. He reiterated the contents of the Written Statement and relied upon the following document: -
(1) Colored printout of screen shot of ceremonies conducted at suit property as Ex. DW-1/1.
(2) Photocopy of partnership deed between plaintiff and Egmaaz & Pankaj Kumar Tanwar as Mark A. (3) Photocopy of cheque bearing no. 904256, already exhibited as Ex.
D1 (mentioned as Mark B in affidavit Ex. DW-1/A).
(4) Photocopy of return memo dt. 16.11.2022 already exhibited as Ex.
D-2 (mentioned as Mark C in affidavit Ex. DW-I/A).
13. Ex. DW-1/1 was de-exhibited since Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act had not been filed in support of the same and it was NEERA BHARIHOKE observed that it would be continued to be read as Mark PW-1/DX2.
Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 16 of 53 15:50:19 +053014. DW-1 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Plaintiff on 08.07.2025 and 11.07.2025 and he was discharged on 11.07.2025.
15. Defendants also examined Shri Sanjay Sejwal as DW-2. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. DW-2/A and he relied upon the documents as tendered by DW-1.
16. DW-2 was cross examined by learned Counsel for Plaintiff on 08.07.2025 and 11.07.2025 and he was discharged on 11.07.2025.
17. Both DW-1 and DW-2 were witnesses to the same facts and were therefore examined and cross-examined with respect to their respective depositions on the same facts on the same dates.
18. On 31.07.2025, certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 22.09.2021 executed between the Defendants and the erstwhile owner was brought by witness from office of Sub-Registrar-VA Hauz Khas Mehrauli. The same was taken on record and was exhibited as Ex. DW-3/1. Defendants' Evidence was closed, and the matter was adjourned for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
19. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff submitted that there is no dispute NEERA BHARIHOKE about the execution of the agreement to sell dated 26.05.2022 between the Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE parties nor about the handing over 5 cheques totaling to Rs.1.50 Crores, Date: 2025.12.04 15:50:23 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 17 of 53 the total agreed sale consideration of the suit Property by the Plaintiff to the Defendants on the same date except one disputed fact about one of those five cheques i.e. one cheque which the Plaintiff had issued for Rs.50,00,000/- in favour of Defendant No.1 but was presented by Defendant No.2 by filling his name in place of name of Defendant No.1. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff argued that out of the five cheques, three cheques of Rs.25,00,000/- were presented by respective Defendant in whosoever's name the same were issued and were encashed on presentation. He argued that the Defendant had assured the Plaintiff to get the Sale Deed executed in favor of Plaintiff by appearing before the office of Sub Registrar. However, on the date fixed to appear before the office of Sub Registrar, the Defendants did not appear and therefore in terms of clause 11 of the agreement to sell dated 26.05.2022, the Plaintiff is entitled to double the amount paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. It was also argued on behalf of Plaintiff that the Defendants had violated Clause 2 of the agreement to sell executed between the parties wherein the Defendants had warranted that the suit property is free from encumbrances and that there was no litigation pending against the same whereas the suit property was under litigation in view of pendency of W.P.(C). 15166/2021 titled Egmaaz vs. Dy. Commissioner SDMC and others where Defendant No.2 was also a respondent (Delete this) but was not disclosed to the Plaintiff by the Defendants. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff argued that thus due to the said concealment on part of Defendants, the contract between the parties was voidable and the Defendants had thus committed breach of contract, NEERA entitling the Plaintiff to claim damages from Defendants. BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:50:28 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 18 of 53
20. Per contra, learned counsel for Defendants argued that Plaintiff was aware about the demolition action taken by MCD and the same was also visible to anybody who visited the suit property. Plaintiff after examining the relevant documents, visited the suit property and satisfied himself as regards the title and status of the suit property and thereafter executed agreement to sell in respect of the suit property. It was also argued on behalf of Defendants that time was the essence of the agreement between the parties and agreement to sell stipulated that the Plaintiff was required to make the complete payment of Rs.1.5 Crores by 31.09.2022 which he failed to make and in fact the Plaintiff did not have the remaining amount of Rs.75,00,000/- to be paid and therefore, the Defendants are entitled to forfeit the amount of Rs.75,00,000/- paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants by way of three cheques of Rs.25,00,000/- each out of the total 5 cheques issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendants on the date of execution of agreement to sell. Learned Counsel for Defendants also argued that the Plaintiff had executed a partnership deed with Egmaaz in respect of the property in question who would have financed the payment of the remaining amount of Rs.75,00,000/- for the Plaintiff. However, the same did not materialize and therefore, the Plaintiff was not in a position to make arrangement of remaining amount of Rs.75,00,000/- which was remaining to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants. Learned Counsel for Defendants also denied about Plaintiff having gone to the office of Sub Registrar for getting the execution and registration of the sale deed in his favour as alleged by the Plaintiff. He denied that Plaintiff had informed the NEERA Defendants about any date to appear before the Sub Registrar. It was BHARIHOKE argued on behalf of Defendants that had it been true, the Plaintiff would Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:50:32 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 19 of 53 have brought something on record to show that he had given written notice to the Defendants to appear before the office of Sub Registrar for the said purpose as required under the agreement to sell executed between the parties. Learned Counsel for Defendants argued that in absence of the Plaintiff having paid the remaining consideration amount of Rs.75,00,000/- to the Defendants and also in view of the Plaintiff not having the same, the suit of the Plaintiff deserves to be dismissed.
21. Rival submissions of the parties have been taken into consideration and record perused carefully.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by FINDINGS NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.12.04 15:50:40 +0530
22. My issue-wise findings are given as under:-
Issue No.1 and 3 are connected issues and are therefore being decided together.
Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount? The onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff.
Issue No.3 : Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts? The onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Defendants.
23. The suit amount claimed in the present suit arises from Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022, Ex. P-1, executed between the Plaintiff, being the second party/ purchaser and the Defendants being the first party/sellers in CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 20 of 53 respect of property bearing No.134-A/1, admeasuring 240 sq. yds., Khasra No. 65, Village Begumpur, now known as Harijan Colony, New Delhi-17 i.e. suit property.
24. The Plaintiff has prayed for recovery of Rs.1,50,00,000/- from the Defendants by submitting that since the Defendants failed to appear before the Sub-Registrar for execution of Sale Deed in his favor in respect of the Suit Property, he is entitled to double the part sale consideration amount of Rs.75,00,000/- paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants by relying on Clause 11 of the Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022 executed between the parties i.e. Ex. P-1.
25. The facts admitted by both parties are :-
Execution of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022 between the parties in respect of the suit property bearing No.134-A/1, measuring 240 sq. yards, comprising Khasra No.65 situated at Harijan Colony, Begumpur, Delhi-110017. Total sale consideration was Rs.1,50,00,000/- out of which part sale consideration amount of Rs.75,00,000/- was paid to the Defendants through three cheques issued by the Plaintiff. As per Clause 5 of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022, Ex. P-1, the balance amount of Rs.75,00,000/- was to be paid by the Plaintiff to NEERA BHARIHOKE the Defendants on or before 30.09.2022.
Under Clause 2 of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022, Ex. P-1, the Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Defendants expressly warranted that the property was free from Date:
2025.12.04 15:50:46 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 21 of 53 prior sale mortgage, lease, attachment, notification or any other encumbrance, and that they had full rights to sell the Suit Property. Under Clause 11 of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022, Ex. P-1, the parties agreed that:
If the purchaser failed to make the balance payment, the advance amount may be forfeited:
But if the seller failed to appear before the Sub-Registrar for execution, the purchaser is entitled to damages or double the part sale consideration amount.
26. Execution of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022, Ex. P-1, is admitted by both sides. During his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that the plot bearing no.134, Khasra no. 65 admeasured 370 sq. yds. in total and that he had entered into Agreement to Sell for 240 sq. yds. out of the said area. The Plaintiff has submitted that the Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022, Ex. P-1, was prepared by the Defendants whereas the Defendants have submitted that the same was prepared by Plaintiff. The Proprietor of Plaintiff as well as the Defendants were cross-examined by opposite counsels on this aspect. Further, Plaintiff has contended that no associate of Plaintiff was allowed to be the witness to the Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022 and the Defendant has stated that no associate of Plaintiff was offered to be a witness to the agreement to sell. However, the issue of who got the Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022 prepared or who was the witness to the Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022 or who the witness was loses its significance after the parties had put their signatures NEERA BHARIHOKE on the Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022 leading to its due execution and Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 22 of 53 15:50:51 +0530 none disputing contents thereof. Rather the Plaintiff has filed the present suit for claiming reliefs which are based on the same Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022. The only content which has been disputed is that in the Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022, Ex. P-1, out of the five cheques issued by the Plaintiff in favor of the Defendants, the cheque bearing no. 904256 dated 30.09.2022, issued by the Plaintiff for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- is mentioned against the name of Mr. Sanjay Sejwal, Defendant No.2. However, the same was presented to the bank of Plaintiff bearing name of Mr. Jawahar Lal Chhabra, Defendant No.1 which at best establishes that the cheques were given by the Plaintiff to the Defendants by filling up the amount of each cheque without mentioning name of beneficiary of the respective cheque and the cheque which was to be credited in account of Mr. Sanjay Sejwal, Defendant No.2 was presented to the bank of Plaintiff in name of Mr. Jawahar Lal Chhabra, Defendant No.1 as beneficiary. Further, the Plaintiff in his affidavit of evidence which has been tendered by him in his examination in chief has himself mentioned that cheque of Rs.50,00,000/- was issued in name of Jawahar Lal Chhabra, i.e. Defendant No.2 which rather substantiates the explanation of DW-2, which he made during his cross-examination, that it was a typing mistake in Agreement to Sell that name of Mr. Sanjay Sejwal was written as regards cheque of Rs.50,00,000/- and the cheque of Rs.50,00,000/- was in fact agreed to be issued in favour of Defendant NEERA BHARIHOKE No.1. The total sale consideration amount which was to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants remained the same.
Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:50:56 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 23 of 5327. The said cheque issued by the Plaintiff for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- towards sale consideration was dishonoured on presentation and returned unpaid with reasons "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT"
alongwith return memo dated 16.11.2022. Defendants have submitted that as per Clause 11 of the Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022, Ex. P-1, it had been agreed between the parties that if the second party (Plaintiff herein) failed to make payment of entire consideration within stipulated time, then all the advance payment would be forfeited. The time was the essence of contract. The Defendants have further submitted that as the Plaintiff failed to make the balance payment in terms of Agreement to Sell dated
28.05.2022 within stipulated time i.e. on or before 30.09.2022, the amount of Rs.75,00,000/- paid by the Plaintiff was accordingly forfeited.
28. Defendants have submitted that Plaintiff even entered into a partnership deed, Mark A, with Mr. Egmaaz@Maaz and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tanwar for construction of the suit property and subsequent partition thereof and that Mr. Egmaaz@Maaz and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tanwar had agreed to finance the purchase of suit property and because of relationship becoming sour between the Plaintiff and Mr. Egmaaz@Maaz and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tanwar, the Plaintiff did not have funds to make the remaining payment of sale consideration which shows that the Plaintiff did not have the readiness and willingness to perform the terms and conditions of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022. The Plaintiff denied NEERA BHARIHOKE about execution of any such partnership.
Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:51:00 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 24 of 5329. Partnership Deed dated 31.05.2022 was marked as Mark A. During his cross-examination as PW-1, Plaintiff stated that he knew Mr. Maaz for 4 to 5 years prior to execution of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022. He further submitted that there was no transaction or dealing between him and Mr. Maaz prior to agreement to sell dt. 28.05.2022 and that availability of the suit property was informed to him by Mr. Maaz. Plaintiff admitted that Mr. Maaz had told him that he should buy the suit property, and Mr. Maaz would support him in future. However, PW-1/Proprietor of Plaintiff denied that there was any assurance given by Mr. Maaz to support him financially. PW-1/Proprietor of Plaintiff was shown MOU/Partnership deed dated 31.05.2022 and asked if the same bore his signatures at Point A on all the pages. PW-1/Proprietor of Plaintiff denied the same. The thumb impression under Point A was also denied by PW-1 to be his thumb impression. However, PW-1/Plaintiff volunteered that his signatures and thumb impressions were taken on blank papers at Mehrauli on the date of execution of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022. He also submitted that he had not signed and put his thumb impressions on any register while signing the blank sheets.
30. There is clear contradiction in the statements/testimony of PW-1/Plaintiff. On one hand, he denied signatures and thumb impressions on MOU/Partnership deed dated 31.05.2022 to be not his signatures and in the same breath, he voluntarily stated that his signatures and thumb impressions were taken on blank papers at Mehrauli on the date of NEERA BHARIHOKE execution of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022. Had the signatures and thumb impressions on MOU/Partnership deed dt. 31.05.2022 not been of Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:51:04 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 25 of 53 PW-1/Plaintiff, the PW-1/Plaintiff would not have made the volunteered statement. Thus, the Defendants proved by preponderance of probability that signatures and thumb impressions on MOU/Partnership deed dt. 31.05.2022 were of PW-1/ AR of Plaintiff.
31. During his further cross-examination, PW-1/Plaintiff denied the suggestion that Mr. Maaz had proposed to him that he alongwith PW-1/Plaintiff could jointly purchase and develop the suit property. PW- 1/Plaintiff volunteered that there were no talks regarding money to be paid towards consideration. Thereby, Plaintiff admitted Mr. Maaz had proposed to PW-1/Plaintiff that he alongwith PW-1/Plaintiff could jointly develop the suit property. PW-1/Plaintiff denied the suggestion that he never had the financial capacity to purchase the suit property, and he had entered into the agreement to sell only on assurance of financial support by Mr. Maaz. PW-1/Plaintiff also denied the suggestion that he had issued post-dated cheques only on assurance of Mr. Maaz. He also denied the suggestion that he never had sufficient funds in his bank account. PW-1/Plaintiff volunteered that he had stopped the payment because of the demolition having been ordered. The said volunteered part is incorrect as it is neither the case of Plaintiff nor of Defendants that any order of demolition was passed/issued after execution of Agreement to Sell between the parties. The demolition took place prior to execution of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022. From these observations, the Defendants have proved the NEERA execution of Partnership Deed between the Plaintiff on one hand and Mr. BHARIHOKE Digitally signed Egmaaz@Maaz and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tanwar on the other hand.
by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:51:09 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 26 of 5332. On the same day during his cross-examination, PW-1 was again put questions about execution of partnership deed with Mr. Maaz. The same is reproduced hereinbelow which is self-speaking:
"I do not remember at this moment if after execution of Ex. P-1 with the Defendants I entered into an agreement with Mr. Maaz wherein we both agreed to contribute a sum of Rs. 1 crore each to develop the property jointly and share the property.
At this stage, witness is shown partnership deed dt. 31.05.2022 and asked if this is the same agreement which was entered between you and Mr. Maaz.
Court Observation: The witness has already stated that he cannot read Hindi and English.
It is correct that it was agreed between me and Mr. Maaz that the plot adjoining to the suit property shall go to Mr. Maaz. (vol. At that point of time many commitments were being made to me and I was agreeing to them like he will support me in all respects.)"
33. This part of cross-examination of PW-1 proves that partnership deed. Mark A, was in fact executed between Plaintiff on one hand and Mr. Egmaaz@Maaz and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tanwar, on the other hand.
34. Plaintiff had also produced one Shri Bilal Saif as PW-2. The Plaintiff also examined one Sh. Bilal Saif as PW-2 who deposed that Plaintiff was introduced to both the Defendants through a mutual associate NEERA BHARIHOKE namely Mr. Maaz @ Egmaaz who was well acquainted with both parties Digitally signed for several years. He also deposed in line with submissions made by by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:51:13 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 27 of 53 Plaintiff in the plaint in respect of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022 and issuance of five cheques by the Plaintiff as well as about encashment of three of these cheques on presentation as part consideration amount with an understanding to execute the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff on or before an agreed date before the Sub Registrar. He also deposed that PW-1 took him to be witness to the paperwork for which they visited Mehrauli Tehsil. PW-2 stated that he did not know the nature of the document which was executed and volunteered that he had gone only as a witness. He admitted that he had not signed any transaction related document at Mehrauli Tehsil. PW-2 did not state in his affidavit of evidence or his cross-examination about Plaintiff/PW-1 being made to put his signatures and thumb impressions on blank papers as alleged by PW-1. Mark A runs into 4 pages and could not have been missed by PW-2 had the Plaintiff put his signatures and thumb impressions on 4 blank papers.
35. Therefore, by cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2, it stands proved that Partnership Deed dated 31.05.2022, marked as Mark A on 08.07.2025, was entered between Plaintiff and Mr. Egmaaz@Maaz and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tanwar and that Plaintiff had agreed for execution of the same since Mr. Maaz had agreed to support Plaintiff in all respects.
36. The said Partnership Deed records name of Plaintiff as First Party and Mr. Egmaaz and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tanwar as Second Party/Partners and it specifically states that the First Party has issued Rs.1,50,00,000/- NEERA (One Crore Fifty Lakh Rupees PDC cheque to Mr. Jawahar Lal Chhabra BHARIHOKE (Defendant no.1) and Mr. Sanjay Sejwal (Defendant no.2), in which the Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:51:18 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 28 of 53 second party i.e. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tanwar had agreed to give Rs.75,00,000/- Seventy-Five Lakhs to Mr. Abdul Wahid. (PW-1/AR of Plaintiff). The purpose of entering into Partnership Deed dated 31.05.2022 is stated as:
"Whereas the first party has approached to the second party to invest in the said property up to 70% of the construction amount and the second party has agreed to it and both the parties have entered into this MOU/ Partnership Deed and have agreed with each other the following terms and conditions as mentioned hereinbelow;
Second term and condition is:
"Second party i.e. Egmaaz will be partner of 40% only and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Tanwar will be partner of 30% share only."
Third term and condition is:
"First party will be partner of 30% share only.".
37. PW-1 has admitted during his cross-examination that his relationship with Mr. Egmaaz @ Maaz became sour. Thus, one of the sources who had agreed to give funds/money to the Plaintiff i.e. Mr. Egmaaz @ Maaz, did not provide funds to the Plaintiff.
38. During his cross-examination, PW-1/Plaintiff denied the suggestion that he had arranged money from other persons and volunteered that he had arranged money from his own sources like selling of jewellery, his NEERA BHARIHOKE savings, his earning from business. He stated that he had also taken money Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:51:22 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 29 of 53 from his relatives. However, mere denial is inconsequential. No document has been filed by Plaintiff in respect of these submissions. It was in knowledge of Plaintiff that Defendants have alleged that he did not have funds/money to pay the remaining sale consideration of the suit property to Defendants but still the Plaintiff did not file any supporting documents to show that he had the funds available or could have arranged for the funds to the extent of remaining sale consideration of Rs. 75,00,000/- to pay to the Defendants.
39. The only document which can prove that Plaintiff had the funds to pay the sale consideration of Rs.1.5 Crores to the Defendants is the bank statement of the Plaintiff maintained with SBI, Branch Zakir Nagar, banker of the Plaintiff since the Plaintiff had issued all 5 cheques from the said bank account which was produced by witness of the bank to the Court on 05.06.2025. On perusal of the bank statement, it is noticed that Cheque bearing No.904251 dated 03.06.2022 issued in favour of Defendant No.1 and cheque bearing No.904252 dated 17.06.2022, cheque bearing No.904253 dated 20.06.2022 issued in favour of Defendant No.2 were honored by the banker of the Plaintiff. Thus, Defendants received part sale consideration by payment of Rs.75,00,000/- from the Plaintiff.
40. However, admittedly cheque bearing No.904257 was dishonored on its presentation. Defendant No.1 presented the cheque bearing No.904256 dated 30.09.2022. The said cheque was dishonored on its presentation and NEERA returned unpaid with reasons "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT" alongwith return BHARIHOKE memo dated 16.11.2022.
Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:51:27 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 30 of 5341. It is noticed that first cheque which was encashed on presentation on 06.06.2022 was for Rs.25,00,000/- bearing no. 904252 in the name of Defendant No.2, Sh. Sanjay Sejwal, second cheque which was encashed on presentation on 18.06.2022 was for Rs. 25,00,000/- bearing no. 904251 in the name of Defendant No.1, Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra and third cheque which was encashed on presentation on 04.08.2022 was for Rs.25,00,000/- bearing no. 904253 in the name of Defendant No.2, Sh. Sanjay Sejwal. Clause 11 of Agreement to Sell, Ex. P-1, reads as follows:
"That both the parties have agreed that the balance amount will be paid by the Second party (Plaintiff herein) to the First Party (Defendants herein) within the stipulated period. If the Second Party (Plaintiff herein) fails to make the above said amount to the First Party (Defendants herein), then all the advance payment will be forfeited hereby and the Second Party (Plaintiff herein) is ever taken away or goes out from the possession of the Second Party (Plaintiffs herein). And if the First Party (Defendants herein) does not appear before the concerned Sub-Registrar for the sale deed, then the Second Party (Plaintiff herein) can claim damages or double amount from the First Party. (Defendants herein)"
42. Whereas the Plaintiff has claimed that the Defendants did not appear before Sub-Registrar for the sale deed on the date fixed, therefore the Plaintiff is entitled to claim damages or double amount from the Defendants, the Defendants have denied to have been called by the Plaintiff to the concerned Sub Registrar and the Defendants have further contended that they were required to appear before Sub-Registrar for the sale deed, if only the Plaintiff would have made the payment to them in NEERA BHARIHOKE terms of Clause 5 of Agreement to Sell, Ex. P-1, which reads as follows:
Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:51:31 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 31 of 53"That the First Party (Defendants herein) assures the Second Party (Plaintiff herein) to get Sale Deed registered in favor of Second Party (Plaintiff herein) after clearance of cheques from the date of this agreement to sell i.e. on or before 30.09.2022 as per the availability of the First Party (Defendants herein). Time is the essence of this agreement."
43. The Defendants have submitted that since Plaintiff failed to make payment of entire consideration amount within stipulated time i.e. till 30.09.2022, the advance payment/part payment of Rs.75,00,000/- was accordingly forfeited. Defendants have also contended that time was the essence of contract and since the Defendant did not receive remaining amount of Rs.75,00,000/- from the Plaintiff on or before 30.09.2022, Defendants took back possession of suit property from the Plaintiff.
44. In the list of Dates and Events, the Plaintiff has submitted that the Plaintiff purchased E stamp fees from SHCIL on 09.11.2022 and 10.11.2022 worth Rs.7,01,500 /- collectively. In the plaint, the Plaintiff has submitted that despite Plaintiff purchasing stamp paper (without specifying any amount) and despite the Plaintiff making arrangements for registration, the Defendants willfully failed to appear before the Sub- Registrar to execute the sale deed. In the replication, the Plaintiff has submitted that the Plaintiff purchased E stamp fees from SHCIL on 09.11.2022 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and 10.11.2022 for a sum of Rs.51,200/- and Rs.50,000/- worth Rs.1,01,200/- collectively. The Plaintiff NEERA BHARIHOKE also did not specify about the amount for which stamp duty was purchased Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:51:36 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 32 of 53 in the Legal Demand Notice dated 24.04.2024 sent by the Plaintiff to Defendant.
45. It is further noticed that the Plaintiff has filed copies of 2 affidavits of PW-1 i.e. proprietor of Plaintiff on record which are undated, one about purchasing e-stamp certificate worth Rs.6,00,000/- and other about purchasing e-stamp certificate worth Rs.51,200/- and Rs.50,000/- from SHCIL for registration of Sale Deed. In the affidavits, PW-1 i.e. proprietor of Plaintiff, deposed about these stamp papers having been purchased by Mr. Nilay Kumar Mittal and that PW-1 i.e. Proprietor of Plaintiff had no objection if e-registration amount be refunded in account of Mr. Nilay Kumar Mittal. The Plaintiff has nowhere mentioned the name of Mr. Nilay Kumar Mittal in its pleadings and as to how and why he purchased stamp papers. The affidavits are accompanied by stamp papers of Rs.10/- each, dated 19.01.2023 and the reason for refund is stated to be deal cancellation and does not contain any details about property for which they were purchased. Even otherwise, both these affidavits of Proprietor of Plaintiff have not been tendered as Exhibit by the Plaintiff and thus cannot be taken into consideration.
46. During his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he had not stated in the plaint about the fact that he had purchased stamp papers for registration of the suit property.
47. The Plaintiff has not stated in the plaint or replication or in the legal NEERA notice dated 24.04.2024 as to on which date the Plaintiff had called the BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:51:40 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 33 of 53 Defendants to appear before the Sub Registrar office. Even in the list of dates and events, the Plaintiff has not mentioned the said date. In the plaint, the Plaintiff stated that despite the Plaintiff purchasing stamp duty and making arrangements for registration, the Defendants willfully failed to appear at the Registrar's office to execute the sale deed. In the replication, the Plaintiff stated that it had purchased the stamp papers, but the Defendants did not turn up for execution of sale did deliberately. The Defendants have denied the submission of the Plaintiff of the Defendants having been called by the Plaintiff to appear before Sub Registrar for registration of sale deed. The Defendants have relied on Clause 9 of the agreement to sell dated 28.05.2022. This stipulates that the Second Party (i.e. Plaintiff herein) shall give notice to the first party (i.e. Defendants herein) and intimate the date and time on which the sale deed of the said property shall be executed in the office of the concerned Sub Registrar. It is an admitted fact that no such notice was given by the Plaintiff to the defendant. On being put a question in his cross examination in this regard, the Plaintiff replied that he did not remember the date or month when he visited the office of Sub Registrar seeking execution of the sale deed of the property and volunteered that he had gone after encashment of three cheques given to defendant. He admitted that he had not informed the Defendants in writing about his going to the office of Sub Registrar and volunteered that he had himself gone to their office and informed them. On being asked as to where the office of defendant was, he stated that the office of Defendant No.2 is at Malviya Nagar and he did not know the exact address. PW-1 denied the suggestion that defendant Mr. Sanjay NEERA BHARIHOKE Sejwal did not have any office at Malviya Nagar.
Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:51:44 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 34 of 5348. PW-1 also stated that besides that he had also informed the same to Mr. Maaz. However, Mr. Maaz has not been summoned or brought as a witness by the Plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that he had never gone to the office of Sub Registrar nor informed about the same to any of the Defendants by any mode. PW-1 stated that he had sent a legal notice dated 24.04.2024 to the Defendants after they did not come to office of sub- Registrar. However, the legal notice was sent after more than one year from 10th and 11th November 2022 after PW-1 agreed for refund of stamp papers allegedly purchased for execution of Sale Deed. No explanation has been given for this delay of more and one and a half years in giving the legal notice when in the affidavits, PW-1 had stated that he had no objection to refund of amount of stamp paper because of cancellation of deal.
49. In view of these observations, the Plaintiff has failed miserably to prove that he had given any notice, written or verbal, to the Defendants intimating the date and time on which the sale deed of the suit property was to be executed in the office of Sub Registrar. The Plaintiff has also failed to prove that he had gone to the office of Sub Registrar for the said purpose much less the date of said alleged visit. Plaintiff has failed to prove that he purchased stamp papers for execution of Sale Deed. Therefore, the Plaintiff has been unable to prove that the seller/Defendants failed to appear before the Sub-Registrar for execution, and that therefore NEERA BHARIHOKE purchaser/Plaintiff is entitled to damages or double the part sale Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 consideration amount.
15:51:49 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 35 of 5350. The Defendants have contended that they were entitled to forfeit, and they have forfeited the advance payment made by the Plaintiff since the Plaintiff failed to pay balance sum of Rs.75,00,000/- out of agreed amount of Rs.1.5 Crores before the stipulated date. The cheque of Rs.50,00,000/- given by the Plaintiff to the defendant got dishonoured on presentation with remark of 'insufficient fund' on a date after 30.09.2022. However, the Plaintiff could not have anticipated that the remaining 2 cheques will not be presented by the Defendants for encashment before the stipulated date of 30.09.2022. The cheques which were not presented for encashment by the Defendants were dated 30.09.2022 and 10.08.2022 and the same was in active knowledge of both sides. It was incumbent upon the Plaintiff to ensure that he maintains sufficient balance in his bank account out of which he issued the cheques in question till the date of their validity i.e. till 30.12 .2022. However, the bank statement of the Plaintiff of the bank account from which he issued the cheques was produced and taken on record vide order dated 05.06.2025. The perusal of the same shows that third cheque of Rs.25,00,000/- was encashed by Defendants on 04.08.2022 and thereafter even till 12.03.2023, the Plaintiff never maintained balance even above Rs.10,00,000/-. That is the reason that cheque of Rs.50,00,000/- got dishonoured on presentation by Defendants vide return memo dated 16.11.2022.
51. Therefore, the Defendants have proved that the Plaintiff did not NEERA BHARIHOKE have funds in his bank account so as to honour the remaining two cheques Digitally signed issued towards remaining sale consideration i.e. payment of Rs.75,00,000/-
by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:51:53 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 36 of 53nor had he the readiness and willingness to perform his part of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022 and in terms of Clause 11 of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022, the Defendants have rightly forfeited the advance amount of Rs.75,00,000/- paid by the Plaintiff towards part sale consideration.
52. The Plaintiff has also claimed damages by submitting that Defendants induced the Plaintiff by representing that they are the rightful and absolute owners of the suit property. The Plaintiff has submitted that Defendants had told the Plaintiff that the property was free from all encumbrances, and they had all rights and legal authority to sell it and based on these assurances, Plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit property with the intention of constructing an office and the transaction was finalized through an Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022 at a consideration value of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.
53. Plaintiff has raised another ground of being misled by the Defendants about the status of the suit property and submitted that subsequently, Plaintiff discovered that the suit property was encumbered and embroiled in litigation with some other persons alongwith Maaz @ Egmaaz with multiple FIRs filed against the Defendants concerning the suit property. Plaintiff has submitted that this was contrary to the Defendants' earlier assurance that the property was free from all disputes. Plaintiff has submitted that Defendants had concealed the true facts NEERA BHARIHOKE regarding the status of the suit property that it was under litigation and not Digitally signed by NEERA free from encumbrance.
BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:51:57 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 37 of 5354. Plaintiff has submitted that Defendants' misrepresentation of ownership, failure to execute the Sale Deed and concealment of material facts alongwith Maaz @ Egmaaz, constitute a breach of the Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022 as well as fraudulent inducement with intent to acquire/hatch up Plaintiffs hard-earned money. However, in para 3 of the replication on merits, the Plaintiff has not disputed the ownership of Defendants. The Defendants have also produced on record the copy of registered sale deed of the suit property in their favor and the summoned witness from office of Sub Registrar Mehrauli also produced the certified copy of the same which was the same as the copy placed on record by the Defendants.
55. Defendants have submitted that pursuant to execution of Agreement to Sell, Ex. P-1, the Proprietor of the Plaintiff conducted some ceremonies for further construction of the suit property, which was partly demolished by the MCD in 2021. Defendants produced some photographs of some ceremonies being performed in a property which they confronted to PW-1 during his cross-examination and the same were denied by PW-1. The same were denied by him and were marked as Mark PW1/DX2 (Colly). The same were tendered by DW-1 in his examination in chief as Ex. DW- 1/1 but were de-exhibited in absence of certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act and continued to be marked as Mark PW1/DX2 (Colly). DW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that photographs do not mention NEERA BHARIHOKE the date on which the same were taken. DW-1 also admitted that it was not Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: mentioned in his affidavit of evidence as to who took those photographs 2025.12.04 15:52:02 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 38 of 53 and stated that said photographs were provided to him by a third person namely Mr. Sikram. He admitted that the said fact was not mentioned in his affidavit of evidence. DW-1 volunteered that the photographs were clicked on the site. However, he admitted that the address of the property where the photographs were clicked is not visible in the photographs.
56. Defendants failed to prove that ceremonies on the suit property as shown in Mark PW-1/DX-2 were performed by Plaintiff or were performed at suit property.
57. It is noticed that Plaintiff has not specified the time period during which Plaintiff discovered about suit property being encumbered and embroiled in litigation with some other persons alongwith Maaz @ Egmaaz and how he came to know about it. Further, the Plaintiff has not produced or summoned copy of any FIR against the Defendants.
58. The Plaintiff has relied on common order of Hon'ble High Court dated 02.08.2022 in W.P.(C) 15166/2021 titled Egmaaz vs. Dy. Commissioner SDMC and others, CM APPL. 47785/2021 and W.P.(C) 174/2022, CM APPL. 466/2022. Defendant No.1 and 2 also admitted the order dated 02.08.2022 passed in WPC 15166/2021 and WPC 174/2022, printout of which was filed by the Plaintiff in support of its submission that there was a dispute in respect of the suit property and the same was pending before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which has been decided vide NEERA BHARIHOKE this order. Therefore, same was exhibited as Ex. P-3. Defendant no. 2 was Digitally signed by NEERA Respondent No.7 in W.P.(C) 15166/2021. There were 7 Respondents in BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:52:07 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 39 of 53 the said writ petition and Defendant No.2 i.e. Sh. Sanjay Sejwal was impleaded as 7th Respondent.
59. On perusal of the order dated 02.08.2022, it is noticed that in the said matter the petitioners claimed themselves to be owners of property bearing No.134-A, Khasra No. 64, Begumpur Park, Harijan Colony, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017 and had sought directions to respondent No. 1 i.e. SDMC to initiate action with respect to unauthorised construction as well as encroachment stated to be carried out at property bearing No. 134A, land measuring 70 sq. yards (total land measuring 370 sq. yards) out of Khasra No. 64, Begumpur Park, Harijan Colony, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi -110017 (referred to as subject property in the order). However, the address of suit property is plot bearing No.134-A/1, measuring 240 sq. yards, comprising Khasra No.65, situated at Harizan Colony, Begumpur, Delhi-110017 which is evident even from the Sale Deed of the suit property in favour of Defendants.
60. Defendants were not the owner of subject property in WP(C) No. 15166/2021. The writ petition has also been perused. The petitioner had submitted that he was owner of approximately 82.22 square yards of plot bearing no. 134-A, falling under khasra no. 64, Harijan Colny, Begumpur Park, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and in first week of November 2021, Respondent no. 7 Mr. Sanjay Sejwal along with his associates and were carrying out illegal and unauthorized construction on the said plot. The NEERA petitioner had further submitted that respondent no. 7, in absence of the BHARIHOKE petitioner, illegally removed the temporary jhuggi (hut) constructed by the Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:52:11 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 40 of 53 petitioner on his plot and started carrying out illegal and unauthorized construction without any sanctioned plans from the concerned departments/authorities on an area of 370 sq. yds. including the plot of petitioner measuring up to 88.22 sq. yds. approximately and had also encroached the public road by two feet on both sides thereby creating civic problems including huge traffic and disturbance for the entire neighborhood and did not relent despite repeated requests. The petitioner had filed complaint to respondent no. 1 to 6 that respondent no. 7 along with his associates were trying to take illegal possession over the property approximately 82.22 square yards of plot bearing no. 134-A, falling under khasra no. 64, Harijan Colny, Begumpur Park, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and to stop the illegal construction and take necessary action in order to save the property and prevent illegal possession of land by landgrabbers but no action was taken by respondent no. 1 to 6. In the prayer clause, the Petitioner Egmaaz had not only prayed for restraining Respondent no. 7 from taking possession of his property but also of issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing respondent no.1-6 to take action on the complaint of the petitioner against the unlawful activities of Respondent No.7.
61. Thus the W.P. (C) No. 15166/2021 was not a litigation in respect of suit property but in respect of subject property which is different from suit property and was against Defendant No.2 in respect of illegal and unauthorized construction being carried out by Defendant No.2 and his associates (who were not impleaded in the writ) without any sanctioned plans from the concerned departments/authorities on an area of 370 sq. NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:52:16 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 41 of 53 yds. including the plot of petitioner measuring up to 88.22 sq. yds. approximately. Another writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 174/2022 titled Noor Jahan vs. SDMC & Ors. was also filed in respect of the same property with same submissions and the same status report alongwith Annexures by MCD before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the said writ petition.
62. The order dated 02.08.2022 also records that Status Report by way of an affidavit was placed on record by SDMC. As per the Status Report, an inspection was carried out and unauthorised construction in the shape of raising of column and laying of shuttering was booked on 28.10.2021, whereafter further unauthorised construction in the shape of ground floor was booked on 29.11.2021. As per the Status Report, demolition orders were also passed on 05.11.2021 and 08.12.2021 respectively. It further stated that requisite intimation for disconnection of electricity/water supply was sent to the concerned authorities as well as to the concerned Sub- Registrar vide letters dated 09.12.2021. Besides above, prosecution under Section 466-A of the DMC Act was also initiated against the owner/occupier of the subject property.
63. As per the Status Report, subsequent thereto, demolition action was taken on 24.11.2021 and 29.12.2021, wherein nine panels had been demolished and four points had been sealed (two points sealed at two staircase leading to basement, one point sealed at entrance from front side and one point sealed at entrance from left hand side of under construction NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE building) respectively. It is further stated that during routine inspection on Date: 2025.12.04 15:52:20 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 42 of 53 10.01.2022, seal affixed on 29.12.2021 was found to be tampered and a complaint dated 25.01.2022 for lodging of a FIR under Sections 448/188 IPC read with Section 461 of the DMC Act had been forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Again on 09.02.2022, demolition action was taken wherein five RCC roof panels of ground floor and its partition/brick wall have been demolished and thereafter subject property was sealed at seven points (three points of front side, one at backside lane and three points at staircase) on the ground floor.
64. As per Status Report filed by SDMC, the application under Saral Scheme for sanction of building plans was submitted by Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra and Sh. Sanjay Sejwal (Defendants no.1 and 2 respectively in the present suit) and sanctioned building plans were revoked in respect of plot bearing no. 134-A/1, falling under khasra no. 65, Harijan Colny, Begumpur Park, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi vide letter dated 04.04.2022. The said revocation letter was denied by DW-1 during his cross- examination conducted on 11.07.2025 and was therefore marked as Mark DW-1/PX-2.
65. In view of the Status Report filed by SDMC, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi disposed of the petition by observing that no further orders were required to be passed in these petitions and the same were disposed of accordingly with direction to respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 in W.P.(C) NEERA 15166/2021 to ensure that no further construction, unless in accordance BHARIHOKE Digitally signed with law, is carried out at the subject property. DW-1 as well as DW-2 by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:52:25 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 43 of 53 have therefore rightly stated in their cross examination that there was no litigation pending in respect of the suit property on the day on which agreement to sell was executed between the parties as Status report is dated 04.04.2022 and the Agreement to Sell was executed on 28.05.2022. The unauthorized construction raised by the Defendants had already been demolished by SDMC much prior to the date of execution of agreement to Sell, Ex. P-1.
66. The revocation of sanctioned building plan does not put any embargo on re-applying for obtaining fresh sanctioned building plan as per Clause 2.14.4 of Building Bye laws in respect of construction to be raised as per law. (W.P.(C) 6606/2025, Smt. Savita Jain & Ors. Versus MCD & Ors. and W.P.(C) 8458/2025, Sh. Gaurav Jain & Ors. Versus MCD & Ors., Date of Decision: 29.08.2025).
67. There was only one embargo put by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 02.08.2022 that also was with respect to subject property and as observed earlier, the subject property is different from the suit property. Further the embargo is limited to the extent that no further construction is to be carried out at the subject property unless in accordance with law. Therefore, there was no restriction or observation in NEERA respect of title of the subject property much less the suit property. The BHARIHOKE construction on the subject property was also allowed but in accordance Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 with law which is even otherwise the law of the land.
15:52:29 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 44 of 5368. In the Status Report, there is also reference to letter dated 11.11.2021 written to the Sub Registrar, Mehrauli to not to register the property 134 A, Begum Pur, New Delhi-110017 under the Indian Registration Act and the copy of said letter was also filed with Status Report.
69. Letter dated 09.12.2021 sent to the Sub Registrar by Asstt Engr. (B)- I/SZ with the request to not to register subject property under Indian Registration Act was shown to DW-1 during his cross examination conducted on 11.07.2025. He denied having knowledge of the same and it was marked as Mark DW-1/PX-3.
70. It was issued in respect of suit property and the same was issued as a part of action against unauthorized construction as per the provisions of DMC Act in view of initiation of action under Section 343 and 344 of DMC Act, 1957. When a stop-registration order is issued in view of non- compliance with MCD regulations, after rectifying the violation, one can obtain a clear status certificate from the MCD and present it to Registrar for registration under Indian Registration Act. If the Sub-Registrar still refuses to register the property after one has the MCD clearance, a person can prefer to appeal to the District Registrar, who has supervisory authority. Legal recourse of filing a Writ is available to the owner. NEERA BHARIHOKE Therefore, the letter dated 11.11. 2021 also had no prohibition or clout Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE over the title or right of the Defendants over the suit property in view of Date: the same.
2025.12.04 15:52:33 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 45 of 53
71. Therefore, DW-1 and DW-2 rightly stated during their cross- examination that there was no litigation pending against the suit property as already observed that W.P.(C) 15166/2021, titled Egmaaz versus Dy. Commissioner, SDMC & Ors. and W.P.(C) 174/2022 titled Noor Jahan versus SDMC & Ors. were filed in respect of subject property bearing No. 134A, land measuring 70 sq. yards (total land measuring 370 sq. yards) out of Khasra No. 64, Begumpur Park, Harijan Colony, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi -110017 (referred to as subject property in the order) and not suit property i.e. plot bearing No.134-A/1, measuring 240 sq. yards, comprising Khasra No.65, situated at Harizan Colony, Begumpur, Delhi- 110017 and the same is evident from common order dated 02.08.2022 passed in respect of these two writs.
72. Defendants have submitted that they did not mislead the Plaintiff and Plaintiff was aware of the demolition action taken by MCD and the same was also visible to anybody who visited the suit property. Defendants have also submitted that Plaintiff, after examining the relevant documents, visited the suit property and satisfied himself as regards the title and status of the suit property, made the offer to buy the suit property which was accepted by the Defendants and an agreement to sell was executed between the Plaintiff and Defendants.
73. These submissions have been denied by the Plaintiff. In para no. 4 of replication to reply on merits, the Plaintiff has admitted to the NEERA BHARIHOKE verification of suit property documents but denied that the same was Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE coupled with physical inspection of the suit property. In his cross-
Date: 2025.12.04 15:52:37 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 46 of 53examination, PW-1 stated that he had not visited the suit property prior to execution of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.202 nor had he seen the chain of documents prior to entering into agreement to sell. PW-1/Proprietor of Plaintiff also said that he visited the suit property for the first time in the year 2022 and he did not remember the date and month. He also stated that he did not remember if he had visited the suit property prior to making part payment of the consideration amount or after that. However, in the later part of his cross-examination conducted on the same day, PW-1 stated that he came to know about the dispute when he visited the suit property and obtained documents of the same and he came to know that the property had been demolished because of some dispute. PW-1 also stated that he did not know what type of dispute there was in respect of the suit property.
74. There is a contradiction in testimony of PW-1 that on one hand he admitted that the Plaintiff had done verification of suit property documents but submitted that he did not inspect the suit property but on other hand he submitted that he came to know about the dispute when he visited the suit property and obtained documents of the same. This implies that PW-1 obtained the documents and inspected the suit property on the same day as he could not have verified the documents unless he had obtained the same from the Defendants. Therefore, the factum of demolition of the suit property and factum of there is a dispute in respect of the same were in NEERA BHARIHOKE knowledge of PW-1 as submitted by Defendants prior to execution of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022.
Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:52:41 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 47 of 5375. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff argued that suit property was not physically inspected by PW-1, Proprietor of Plaintiff and that the possession of the suit property was not handed over to PW-1, Proprietor of Plaintiff at the time of execution of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022. Learned Counsel for Plaintiff had put suggestion to both the witnesses of the defendant, i.e. DW-1 and DW-2 that the physical possession of the suit property was not handed over to PW-1 and only symbolic possession of the suit property was handed over to PW-1 which was denied by both of them and they submitted that physical possession of the suit property was handed over to PW-1, AR of Plaintiff. However, in his cross-examination, PW-1 categorically admitted that after execution of Agreement to Sell, Ex. P-1, the possession of suit property was given to him. Therefore, even if submission of PW-1 alone is taken into consideration, PW-1 was handed over possession of suit property on 28.05.2022 and thus he had the chance and choice to inspect the suit property at least on 28.05.2022 and the first cheque issued by PW-1, Proprietor of Plaintiff towards sale consideration was dated 03.06.2022 and was encashed by the Defendant no. 2(Since it was in his name) on 06.06.2022.
76. During his cross-examination, question was put to PW-1 that MCD had already taken demolition action in respect of property ad-measuring 70 sq. yd. which was adjoining to the suit property prior to Plaintiff entering the agreement to sell in respect of suit property. PW-1 gave evasive reply that demolition happened to the whole property of 370 sq. yd. and he did NEERA BHARIHOKE not know if demolition took place prior to or after execution of agreement Digitally signed by NEERA to sell. PW-1 stated that he came to know about the dispute when he BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:52:45 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 48 of 53 visited the suit property and obtained documents of the same. PW-1 further stated that he came to know that the property had been demolished because of some dispute but did not know what type of dispute was there in respect of the suit property.
77. The Plaintiff has filed the copy of writ petition as well as status report of SDMC alongwith the documents filed by SDMC with its report and photographs of demolition undertaken by SDMC which show massive demolition of unauthorized construction in the subject property and its adjacent property which has been claimed by Plaintiff to be suit property. Same is also detailed in common order of Hon'ble High Court dated 02.08.2022 in W.P.(C) 15166/2021 titled Egmaaz vs. Dy. Commissioner SDMC and others, CM APPL. 47785/2021 and W.P.(C) 174/2022, CM APPL. 466/2022 i.e. demolition action was taken on 24.11.2021 and 29.12.2021, wherein nine panels had been demolished and four points had been sealed (two points sealed at two staircase leading to basement, one point sealed at entrance from front side and one point sealed at entrance from left hand side of under construction building) respectively. Again on 09.02.2022, demolition action was taken wherein five RCC roof panels of ground floor and its partition/brick wall have been demolished and thereafter subject property was sealed at seven points (three points of front side, one at backside lane and three points at staircase) on the ground floor. The photographs filed with Status Report of SDMC in the said matter show the condition of suit property after demolition and the extent of demolition. The version of Proprietor of Plaintiff of him being unaware of any pending dispute at time of execution of Agreement to Sell dated NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:52:50 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 49 of 53 28.05.2022 does not inspire confidence and is only a façade to create a cause of action for breach of contract by submitting that the Defendants did not tell him about the demolition carried out in the suit property.
78. The order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition bearing No.15166 of 2021 titled as 'Egmaaz vs. Deputy Commissioner, SDMC & Ors.', was filed in respect of the adjoining property admeasuring 88.22 sq. yards and not in respect of the suit property. The FIRs for which request was sent by SDMC officers to SHO of Malviya Nagar which had been mentioned in the order dated 02.08.2022 in the aforementioned Writ Petition were regarding tampering of seal and not related to any dispute with regard to title of the property. Plaintiff has not produced any FIR to show if the same were registered at all and if yes, against whom. If, at all, the Plaintiff had any doubts regarding the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi or the FIRs mentioned therein, he could have sought clarification regarding the same from the Defendants. The Plaintiff first failed to honor the terms and conditions of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022 and then tried to take benefit of the orders passed in respect of adjoining property/subject property of petitioner.
79. Plaintiff has failed to prove that the Defendants had concealed the true facts regarding the status of the suit property or that it was under
litigation or not free from encumbrance at the time of execution of Agreement to Sell. Demolition of suit property does not amount to NEERA encumbrance on suit property, nor does it affect the title of the suit BHARIHOKE property as observed above. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while disposing Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:52:54 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 50 of 53 W.P.(C) 15166/2021 titled Egmaaz vs. Dy. Commissioner SDMC and others, CM APPL. 47785/2021 and W.P.(C) 174/2022, CM APPL. 466/2022 observed that the Respondent authorities shall ensure that no further construction is to be carried out at the subject property unless in accordance with law. Therefore, there was no restriction or observation in respect of title of the subject property much less the suit property. The construction on the subject property was also allowed but in accordance with law which is even otherwise the law of the land.
80. Plaintiff had knowledge about the unauthorized construction of the suit property having been demolished and sealed by SDMC even on date of execution of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2022. Further, whenever a person buys any property, it is his duty to find out about the title of the property as well as charges thereon. If a person buys a property without inspecting the same or without verifying the title, right and interests in the said property or any encumbrance thereon which one can find by exercising due diligence, the same amounts to constructive notice under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. Such extensive demolition and sealing of suit property could not have gone unnoticed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff could have recalled the Agreement to Sell dated 22.05.2022 and could have issued stop payment instructions to his banker in respect of the cheques issued by him towards sale consideration once he took possession of suit property. Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to prove that on the date of executing the Agreement to Sell dated 22.05.2022, the Plaintiff was not in knowledge of the suit property being in dispute with MCD and therefore NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 the Plaintiff has failed to prove fraud having been allegedly played on the 15:52:59 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 51 of 53 Plaintiff and therefore, neither the Agreement to sell is void nor has the Plaintiff been able to prove about the breach of the same having been committed by Defendants. On the other hand, the Defendant has been able to prove that Plaintiff was aware of the demolition action taken by MCD and that the same was also visible to Plaintiff and Plaintiff, after examining the relevant documents, inspected the suit property and Agreement to Sell date 28.05.2022 was executed between the Plaintiff and Defendants.
81. In view of these observations, Issue No.3 is decided in favour of Defendants and against the Plaintiff and it is held that Plaintiff has concealed material facts and Issue No.1 is decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendants and it is held that the Plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of suit amount.
Issue No.2 :Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the suit amount? If yes, at what rate and for which period?
The onus to prove this Issue was placed on the Plaintiff.
82. In view of deciding Issue No.1 and 3 against the Plaintiff and in NEERA BHARIHOKE favour of the Defendants, Issue No.2 is decided against the Plaintiff and in Digitally signed by NEERA favour of the Defendants.
BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.12.04 15:53:03 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 52 of 53RELIEF
83. In view of my findings given on Issue No.1 and 3, the suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 04.12.2025 (Dr. Neera Bharihoke) Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE District Judge (Commercial Court)-06 South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.12.04 15:53:07 +0530 04.12.2025 Certified that this judgment contains 53 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Dr. Neera Bharihoke) District Judge (Commercial Court)-06 NEERA South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi BHARIHOKE 04.12.2025 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.12.04 15:53:11 +0530 CS(COMM) No. 3897/2024 M/s Farhanempexco Export Vs. Sh. Jawahar Lal Chhabra Page 53 of 53