Delhi District Court
Vinod Kumar Goyal vs Pushpa Kumari on 20 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL BENIWAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE-06
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS DJ No.22/2024
CNR No.DLST01-000301-2024
Mr. Vinod Kumar Goyal
S/o Shri Suraj Bhan,
R/o B-2/15, Madangir,
New Delhi 110062.
Mob. No.9350333303 .....Plaintiff
VERSUS
1) Smt. Pushpa Kumari
W/o Shri Jor Singh
R/o J-64, Gali No.3, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi 110080
Mob. No.965471644
Email: [email protected]
2)M/s Rajput Jewellers
through its proprietor Mr.Jor Singh
Shop No.1, Property No.A-7,
Jawahar Park, Devli Road, Khanpur,
New Delhi 110080.
Mob. No.9313577152
Email: [email protected] .....Defendants
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 1 of 44
Date of Institution : 11.01.2024
Date of arguments : 29.04.2025
Date of Judgment : 20.05.2025
Suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rents, mesne profits and
permanent injunction
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS:
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking the reliefs of possession, recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits & permanent injunction against the defendants herein.
2. The plaintiff has prayed for the following reliefs namely:
a. A decree for Possession thereby directing the defendant no.2 to handover the peaceful vacant possession of the "suit property" i.e. "Shop bearing No.1 at Ground Floor, Built-up Property bearing MCD No.A-7, measuring 234 Sq. Ft., (Size 9'x26'), comprising in Khasra No.484, situated at A-Block, Jawahar Park, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi-110080" to the plaintiff, b. A decree of Recovery of arrears of rent thereby directing the defendant no.2 to pay the arrears of rent from October 2023 to December 2023 @ Rs.50,000/- per month which is totaling to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) and mesne profits from January 2024 to till the date of handing over the peaceful, vacant and physical possession of the "suit CS DJ No.22/2024 page 2 of 44 property" i.e. "Shop bearing No. I at Ground Floor, Built-up Property bearing MCD No.A-7, measuring 234 Sq. Ft., (Size 9'x26'), comprising in Khasra No.484, situated at A-Block, Jawahar Park, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi-110080" to the plaintiff.
c. Orders seeking to restrain the defendants, their agents, legal heirs, associates, representatives, servants, from sub-letting, transferring the possession, creating any third party interest over the "suit property" i.e. "Shop bearing No.l at Ground Floor, Built-up Property bearing MCD No.A-7, measuring 234 Sq. Ft., (Size 9'x26'), comprising in Khasra No.484, situated at A-Block, Jawahar Park, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi-110080".
d. Costs of the suit and litigation cost.
3. It has been submitted by the plaintiff that he had purchased the Shop No. 1, Ground Floor, MCD No. A-7, measuring 234 Sq.
ft, situated at A-Block, Jawahar Park, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi-110080, (suit property), from Defendant No. 1 Smt. Pushpa Kumari, by virtue of a sale deed dated 09.05.2022, duly registered on 10.05.2022 (Ex.PW 1/2 OSR). It has also been submitted by the plaintiff that he was handed over the original chain documents of the suit property (Ex.PW 1/3 OSR).
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 3 of 44
4. Further, as averred, in the month of May 2022, the plaintiff entered into a Lease Agreement with defendant no. 2, the husband of defendant no. 1, for a period of 11 months for a monthly rent of Rs.50,000/-. The lease was extended for another 11 months on 09.05.2023, with the understanding that defendant No.2 would vacate the suit property by 31.12.2023. The lease agreement is exhibited as Ex.PW 1/4 OSR.
5. It has also been averred in the plaint that defendant no. 2 initially paid the rent in cash until July 2023. However, from August 2023 onwards, defendant no. 2 started defaulting on rent payments, citing financial difficulties. Further, despite the repeated requests, and a grace period provided by the plaintiff, defendant no. 2 failed to clear the arrears of rent. It has also been averred that on 30.11.2023, defendant no. 2 paid Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash with an undertaking to clear the arrears, and to vacate the suit property by 31.12.2023.
6. It has been stated by the plaintiff that despite the undertaking given by the defendant no.2, the defendants failed to vacate the suit property and clear the arrears of rent by 31.12.2023. Further, as averred, instead defendant no. 2 claimed that the lease agreement would expire on 19.04.2024. Furthermore, as averred, on 10.01.2024, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants were attempting to create third-party interest in the suit property by projecting themselves as the owners.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 4 of 44
7. When the plaintiff confronted the defendants on 10.01.2024, they reacted aggressively and threatened to implicate him in false cases. Accordingly, the plaintiff has was left with no other efficacious remedy but to seek the intervention of this Court.
THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS:
8. The defendants no.1 & 2 filed a joint written statement opposing the case of the plaintiff wherein the defendants have denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff, and have asserted that the suit is baseless, motivated by an intention to harass and malign the defendants.
9. It has been submitted by the defendants that the suit property was mortgaged to the plaintiff in exchange for a loan, and was not sold. Further, as submitted, the plaintiff has refused to acknowledge the repayment attempts, indicating a scheme to unjustly retain the property.
10. It has also been pleaded by the defendants that they have been consistent in their efforts to repay the loan and have been met with evasion and unreasonable demands from the plaintiff, suggesting an ulterior motive to seize the property.
11. It has also been submitted by the defendants that involvement of a third party one Ajay Prasad Singhal, as alleged by the defendants, indicates a complex conspiracy to defraud the CS DJ No.22/2024 page 5 of 44 defendants of their property, further complicating the plaintiff's claims.
12. The defendants have asserted their rightful ownership over the suit property, and have accused the plaintiff of attempting to exploit the legal system to unjustly enrich himself at their expense.
13. It has further been submitted by the defendants that they have suffered financial and reputational damage due to the plaintiff's actions, warranting dismissal of the suit and appropriate relief qua the defendants.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS:
14. It has been submitted on behalf of the defendants that they were approached by one Ajay Prasad Singhal (not impleaded as a party), who had allegedly misled the defendants into believing that he could secure a loan for them at a lower interest rate, as the defendants had taken a loan of Rs.37 Lac from Ujjivan Bank @1.5% per month.
15. Further, as submitted, allegedly, on 24.03.2022, a meeting was held between the plaintiff, Ajay Prasad Singhal, and the defendants, during which it was agreed that a loan of Rs.39 Lac would be provided to the defendants at 1 % interest per month, to be repaid within three years.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 6 of 44
16. Further, as a condition for the loan, the Plaintiff insisted that the registry/ title of the suit property be temporarily transferred in his name as security. Further, the plaintiff had allegedly assured the defendants that the suit property would be transferred back to defendant no.1 upon a full and final repayment of the loan and the possession of the suit property in question shall be given to the defendants.
17. As averred, the plaintiff and one Ajay Prasad Singhal avoided executing any formal written agreement to the same effect.
18. It has also been submitted by the defendants that they were diligently re-paying the loan with interest, and on 28.10.2022, Rs.15 Lac were allegedly paid to the plaintiff in cash.
19. As averred when the defendants approached the plaintiff in November 2023 to repay the remaining loan amount, the plaintiff refused to accept the payment, using various excuses, clearly indicating his malafide intention to retain the property unlawfully.
20. It has been submitted by the defendants that the plaintiff, in collusion with Ajay Prasad Singhal hatched a conspiracy to usurp the suit property from the defendants.
21. It has also been submitted strongly by the defendants that the rent agreement presented by the plaintiff is forged, and the plaintiff obtained the signature and thump impression of defendant no. 2 on this false rent agreement through deceitful CS DJ No.22/2024 page 7 of 44 means. It has been submitted further that the defendants never agreed to any rental arrangement as falsely claimed by the plaintiff, which being used to support their baseless claim of tenancy.
22. It has also been submitted that the defendants have always been the rightful owners of the suit property and remain in possession of the same. The property was never intended to be sold to the plaintiff, but was only temporarily transferred as collateral for the loan, which the defendants were ready and willing to repay.
23. It has also been averred that on 29.03.2024 at about 9 am, and on 30/31.03.2024, defendant no. 2 visited the shop of Ajay Prasad Singhal. During the said visit, Ajay Prasad Singhal ie witness on registered sale deed admitted that the suit property was mortgaged by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff as security for the loan.
24. As averred, he further acknowledged that the defendants took the loan with a repayment period of three years, after which the property/title would be returned to defendant no. 1. Further, as averred, the plaintiff was also available on the phone's speaker of Ajay Prasad Singhal, and was involved in the entire conversation.
25. It has been submitted by the defendants that the said conversation was recorded by defendant no. 2, which is already CS DJ No.22/2024 page 8 of 44 on the record of the Ld. Court ie Ex.DW1/1 (Colly), along with transcripts to establish the true facts of the case.
26. It has also been submitted that due to the plaintiffs fraudulent actions and breach of trust, the defendants filed a police complaint against the plaintiff on 16.04.2024 at P.S. Neb Sarai, which is currently under investigation. It has also been submitted that the defendants have also marked their complaint to higher authorities, including the Commissioner of Police and DCP's office.
EVIDENCE PROCEEDINGS
27. The defendants, including themselves, have examined four witnesses as per the list of witnesses at serial numbers 1 to 4 to support their version.
28. It has been submitted by the defendants that the defendant no.
1, namely Pushpa Kumari/DW-1, has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit to support her version, and has relied upon the documents Ex DW-1/1 to Ex. DW-l/6 (Colly).
29. Further, defendant no 2, namely Jor Singh/DW-2, has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit to support the version of DW-1.
30. The defendants have also examined the witnesses DW/3 and DW/4, who tendered their evidence by way of affidavit to support the version of the defendants.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 9 of 44
31. It has been submitted on behalf of the defendants that there exist glaring contradictions in the statements of the plaintiff and his witnesses, which cast serious doubt on the case of the plaintiff.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF:
32. In response, the plaintiff has categorically denied the assertions of the defendants that the suit property was mortgaged in exchange for a loan.
33. The plaintiff has reiterated the contents of his suit, and has vehemently submitted that that the suit property was purchased from defendant no. 1, Pushpa Kumari, by virtue of a sale deed dated 09.05.2022, duly registered on 10.05.2022, and the original chain documents of the suit property were handed over to the plaintiff (Ex.PW 1/2 OSR and Ex.PW 1/3 OSR).
34. It has also been submitted by the plaintiff that the lease agreement entered into with defendant no. 2 further substantiates the plaintiff's ownership and the defendants' acknowledgment thereof, which have not been disproved by the plaintiff.
35. It has also been submitted by the plaintiff that the defendants' claim of consistent efforts to repay a non-existent loan is contradicted by their default in rent payments from August 2023 onwards. As averred, despite the plaintiff's CS DJ No.22/2024 page 10 of 44 accommodation of defendant no.2's financial difficulties by extending a grace period, the defendants failed to clear the arrears of rent, evidencing their disregard for contractual obligations.
36. It has also been submitted that the defendants attempt to project themselves as the owners of the suit property, and their efforts to create third-party interests in the suit property are deliberate acts of deceit and misrepresentation, aimed at undermining the lawful ownership and possession of the plaintiff qua the suit property. The defendants' claim of the lease agreement expiring on 19.04.2024 is a blatant falsehood intended to justify their unlawful possession. Evidently, the lease agreement Ex. PW-1/4 OSR mentions the tenure of the lease as 11 months.
37. It has also been submitted that the aggressive and threatening response of the defendants, vis-à-vis the plaintiff's legitimate demands for vacating the suit property and clearing rental arrears further demonstrates their malafide intentions and disregard for the rule of law.
38. It has also been submitted by the plaintiff that the defendants' narrative of a complex conspiracy involving one Ajay Prasad Singhal is a baseless and desperate attempt to divert attention from their wrongful acts.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 11 of 44
39. The plaintiff has asserted that there is no substance to these allegations and that they are a mere fabrication to complicate and obfuscate the real issues at hand.
40. Further, the defendants' claim of suffering financial and reputational damage due to the plaintiff's actions is unfounded and ironic, considering their own default in rent payments and unlawful attempts to create third-party interests in the suit property.
41. It has been re-iterated by the plaintiff that he has acted within his legal rights and in accordance with the law at all times.
42. Heard and perused.
OBSERVATIONS AND REASONING:
43. The Ld. Counsels for the parties have presented their arguments at length, and have also filed their written submissions in support of their contentions.
44. This Court would have appreciated the efforts of the Ld. Counsels for the parties if certain judgments, and/or precedents would have been filed by them along with the written submissions.
45. After the completion of the pleadings, this Court vide its order dated 16.10.2024 framed the following issues:
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 12 of 44 (1)Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession in respect of suit property, as prayed for in prayer clause (a) of the plaint? OPP (2)Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of arrears of rent from defendant no.2, as prayed for in prayer clause (b) of the plaint? OPP (3)Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of restrain against defendants, as prayed for in prayer clause (c) of the plaint? OPP (4)Whether defendants had mortgaged the suit property with the plaintiff and defendants had already repaid Rs.15 lakh to the plaintiff in cash on 28.10.2022 and were ready to repay the remaining amount but plaintiff did not agree to the same? OPD (5)Relief EVIDENCE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLAINTIFF PW-1
46. PW-1 sought to place reliance on four documents which were duly tendered as EX.PW-1/1 TO EX.PW-1/4(OSR):
(1)EX.PW-1/1: The aadhar card of the plaintiff;
(2)EX.PW-1/2(OSR): The registered sale deed dated 09.05.2022, registered on 10.05.2022 which was executed between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 qua the suit property.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 13 of 44 (3)EX.PW-1/3 (OSR): The Registered sale deed dated 21.03.2016 which was executed between defendant no.1 and the erstwhile owner of the suit property Sh. Gaurav Kumar Vohra;
(4)EX.PW-1/4(OSR): THE NOTARIZED LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 09.05.2023 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT NO.2
47. During the cross examination, the defendants have tried to challenge the authenticity and veracity of the said documents. It is also observed that the defendants even sought to produce an alleged voice/phone recording, which allegedly transpired between the parties herein. Evidently, the defendants did not seek the leave of the Court to seek the voice samples in order to get the same authenticated by FSL. As such, the transcripts have not been proved.
48. It is pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of the cross examination of PW-1 dated 19.12.2024:
"It is incorrect to suggest that I am deliberately not recognizing the voice/ persons in the said recording, as the truth will come out in which will be against me.
It is further incorrect to suggest that the said recording contains my voice and the voice of Ajay Prasad.
It is incorrect to suggest I am admitting in the said recording that the suit property was mortgaged by the defendant no.2 in favor of the plaintiff, and the time period for returning the loan amount was only three years. It is further incorrect to suggest CS DJ No.22/2024 page 14 of 44 that, after receiving the complete loan amount, I was required to transfer the suit property in favor of defendant no.2."
49. On 10.01.2025, Ajay Prasad Singhal common acquaintance of the parties herein was duly examined by the plaintiff as PW-2, and was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants.
50. The relevant portion of the cross examination is being reproduced herein under:
"I know Jor Singh as he stays in the common market. I know him for the last 10-12 years. I know the plaintiff since he is a common friend, and we live nearby in the same vicinity. I wasn't aware that Jor Singh owed any money to the plaintiff prior to execution of the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff."
"I say that the document ie EX-PW-1/4(OSR) was executed on 09.05.2022 close to the suit property which falls in Deoli, Khanpur.
It is correct that the concerned parties signed in the register of the notary. I identify my signature at point A in EX PW-1/4(OSR).
It is incorrect to suggest that the said document Ex PW-1/4(OSR). was never executed before the notary."
51. At this juncture, it is pertinent to observe that the defendants never sought the impleadment of PW-2 Ajay Prasad Singhal either as proper, and/or a necessary party.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 15 of 44 EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANTS:
52. DW-1 Smt. Pushpa Kumari entered the witness box on 18.01.2025, and tendered her evidence on affidavit, and was duly cross examined.
53. The witness placed reliance of documents EX.DW-1/1 TO EX.DW-1/6 (COLLY):
(1)EX.DW-1/1(COLLY.): Audio recording in the CD, along with the transcripts and S.65B Electronic Evidence Certificate;
(2)EX.DW-1/2 OSR (Colly.): Complaints along with the postal receipts made against the plaintiff and Ajay Prasad Singhal;
(3)EX.DW-1/3(OSR): Bank statements of the witness;
(4)EX.DW-1/4 OSR (Colly.): Settlement of Loan and NOC;
(5)EX.DW-1/6 OSR (Colly.): Mortgage deed.
54. The relevant portion of the cross examination of Smt. Pushpa Kumari is reproduced as follows:
"Q. Who all had gone with you for the purpose of the registration of the sale deed EX-PW-1/2(OSR). A. Me, my husband and the plaintiff. Vol: me and my husband went together, whilst the plaintiff came there separately. "Q. You have stated in your affidavit that you speak to Ajay Prasad Singhal regarding your bank loan. Why did you speak to Ajay Prasad Singhal about your bank loan?
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 16 of 44 A. The talks came out in the routine course, during my interaction with him, as he used to visit my shop. We have familial relations with Ajay Prasad Singhal, hence I told him about my bank loan.
Q. At what rate of interest did you take the loan amount from the said bank?
A. I had taken an amount of Rs 37 Lac at 1.5% per month ie 18% per annum from Ujjivan bank.
It is correct to suggest that I have not annexed any document on the record of the Ld. Court depicting my meeting with Ajay Prasad Singhal on 19.03.2022.
Q. Which document did you execute (corrected) with the Bank while taking the loan. Was it the sale deed or Mortgage deed? A. I had executed a mortgage deed with the bank EX DW-1/6 (Colly.) OSR.
Q. Did you make any reference to the mortgage deed EX DW-1/6 (Colly.) OSR while executing the sale deed with the plaintiff?
A. It is correct that the contents of the sale deed EX PW-1/2(OSR), there is no mentioning of the mortgage deed. Q. EX DW-1/2 shown to the witness: Who drafted this complaint, who typed it, and where was it typed/ written? A. I had got the said complaint dated 16.04.2024 written by the SHO. I don't remember the details of the concerned SHO who had written the said complaint.
Q. When did you get the said complaint written, and where? A. I got the said complaint written in 2022, at the concerned police station.
Q. EX-DW-1/3 (Colly.) shown to the witness: The document shows an inward credit of Rs 15 Lac dated 09.05.2022 at Point A, by the plaintiff. Is this the same entry which has been referred to in the sale deed?
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 17 of 44 A. It is correct since it's a matter of record. Q. I put it to you that you have lied in your affidavit wherein you have stated that you recorded the conversation with Ajay Prasad Singhal?
A. It is correct that I did not record the said conversation. The conversation was recorded by my husband, Q. EX PW-1/4 (OSR) shown to the witness. Does the document contain the photo and/or signatures of defendant no.2 ie husband of the witness.
A. Yes the document contains the photo, signatures of my husband. The same have been identified at points A to A-5. Q. Can you please tell us the amount of the alleged loan taken by the plaintiff?
A. I had taken Rs 24 Lac from Baby Goyal and Rs 15 Lac from the plaintiff.
Q. DW-1/6(Colly) OSR shown to the witness: I put it to you that the said mortgage deed doesn't mention any rate of interest fixed by the bank, and neither does it mention that the documents of your property have been given to the said bank. Is it correct?
A. It is correct that the said document doesn't mention handing over of any papers/ collateral to the mortgagee bank. It is also correct that the said document also doesn't mention any ROI. Q. I put it to you that you have not placed any document on the record of the Court to show any receipt/ document for the payment of the alleged interest as paid to the plaintiff. A. It is correct.
Q. What line of your work are you engaged in ? A. I am running a jewellery showroom at Deoli Road. I been operating the showroom for the last 30 years.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 18 of 44 Q. Is it correct to say that you are involved in the day to day to affairs of the said shop, and are also involved in record keeping?
A. My husband maintains the record. I sit at the said shop. I assist my husband in maintaining the sale purchase records. Q. Is it correct to say that you had handed over the original title documents of the suit property to the plaintiff after the registration of the sale deed.
A. It is correct.
It is correct that I didn't send any legal notice to the plaintiff pertaining to the said registration of the suit property/ mortgage deed etc. Q Is it correct to say that you didn't file any complaints against the plaintiff pertaining to the registration of the sale deed instead of the mortgage deed, prior to filing of the present case. A. It is correct."
55. DW-2 Sh. Jor Singh h/o of Smt. Pushpa Kumari entered the witness box on 23.01.2025, and was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. The relevant portion has been stated below:
"Q. Who all had gone with you for the purpose of the registration of the sale deed EX-PW-1/2(OSR), and where? A. Me, my wife went for the registration of the sale deed, to Mehrauli.
Q. How much loan amount did you take from the plaintiff? A. Rs 39 Lac.
Q. How much amount has been repaid by you to the plaintiff?
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 19 of 44 A. Rs 15 Lac. I paid the said amount on and around October 2022.
Q. When and how did you return the alleged loan amount of Rs 15 Lac to the plaintiff?
A. I paid the part principal amount of Rs 15 Lac in cash. Out of Rs 15 Lac, I managed Rs 10 Lac from my business, and rest from some private parties.
Q. Is it correct to say that you must have shown in your books/ balance sheet that you had cash in hand of Rs 10 Lac at the said time?
A. I have not shown the alleged payment of Rs 10 Lacs in my books.
Q. What was the ROI of the alleged loan taken from the plaintiff?
A. 1% per month. I used to make advance monthly payments qua the interest, to the plaintiff.
It is correct to say that I have not placed any document on the record of the Court to show the payment of interest to the plaintiff.
It is also correct that I have not placed any document to show the taking of the loan amount from the plaintiff. Further, when I used to go to pay the amount of interest to the plaintiff, he used to say that I should go and deposit the interest with Ajay Prasad Singhal.
Q. Can you please tell us the amount given by A. Initially up to Oct 2022, I paid an amount of Rs 39,000/- to the plaintiff for the first 6 months. After that since I had returned Rs 15 Lac, hence I used to pay an amount of Rs 24,000/- to the plaintiff.
I have paid interest upto November 2023 to the plaintiff. After that I have not paid any interest to the plaintiff on the alleged loan.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 20 of 44 At this stage witness is shown DW-1/6 (Colly) OSR, wherein he has indentified his signatures at point A. Q. Did you mention regarding any mortgage in the sale deed EX PW-1/2(OSR) ?
A. It is correct that I have not mentioned regarding the mortgage of the said suit property in the sale deed. Q. EX DW-1/2 shown to the witness. Who drafted the said complaint, where was it drafted, and by whom was it written ? A. I got the said complaint typed by the typist at the Lawyers Block, Sake Court. It was drafted and typed on my instructions. I had prepared a handwritten rough complaint. Q. Is it correct to say that the said complaint was drafted and filed after filing and registration, and receipt of the notice of the present case?
A. It is correct.
I say that during the said meetings dated 29.03.2024, 30.03.2024, 31.03.2024, only I went to the shop of Ajay Prasad Singhal.
I went to the meet the plaintiff to return the alleged loan amount of Rs 24 Lacs in the year 2023. I don't remember the exact date.
Q. Through what medium did you intend to return the balance loan amount of Rs 24 Lac ?
A. I wanted to return the said amount through bank. It is correct to say that I didn't have Rs 24 Lacs ready in my bank account.
It is correct that I don't have any receipt pertaining to the alleged return of Rs 15 Lacs to the plaintiff. It is correct that I didn't initiate any legal action against the plaintiff when the plaintiff refused to take back the balance loan amount of Rs 15 Lac.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 21 of 44 It is correct that I have never served any legal notice, and/or initiated any legal action prior to filing of the present suit against the plaintiff pertaining to execution of the sale deed instead of the mortgage deed.
It is incorrect to suggest that after coming to know about the filing of the present suit, I have prepared the false defense about taking the alleged loan from the plaintiff. It is incorrect to suggest that I have executed the registered sale deed in favor of the plaintiff after receiving the entire consideration amount.
It is incorrect to suggest that after having sold the suit property to the plaintiff, I continued to be in possession of the suit property on monthly rent in terms of the EX PW-1/4."
56. DW-3 Yogesh Shakya s/o of the defendants no.1 and 2 entered the witness box on 03.04.2025 and was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. The relevant portion states as follows:
"It is wrong to suggest that no such meeting was held on 24.03.2022 between the plaintiffs, Ajay Prasad Singhal and the defendants, in my presence, during which it was agreed that a loan of 39 Lac would be provided to the defendants at 1% interest which was to be repaid within 3 years, as DW-1 herself has admitted that no such meeting took place. I was a part of the negotiations of the alleged loan which were finalized between the defendants and Ajay Prasad Singhal. I am aware of the fact that the defendants have already taken some loan prior to the alleged loan transaction. I am aware regarding the formalities involved in securing a loan. As we had done previously with the bank while securing the loan, accordingly the same process and formalities were CS DJ No.22/2024 page 22 of 44 followed while taking the loan from the plaintiff and Ajay Prasad Singhal.
I am not aware whether the defendant no.1 has executed the sale deed qua the suit property in favor of the plaintiff. We have paid the interest up to the month of November 2023. We had returned part payment of the principal loan amount somewhere in the month of October 2022. The part payment as returned to the plaintiffs was taken by my father from a third person.
We did not execute any written loan agreement with the third party which we had taken to return the part payment to the plaintiffs in October 2022.
It is wrong to suggest that we don't have any receipts regarding the interest payments and the alleged part payment made to the plaintiff since there was no loan transaction between the parties. It is only the sale of the suit properties for which a consideration amount was paid to defendant no.1 It is correct that I have not annexed any documentary evidence to prove the alleged meeting which took place between me, my parents and Ajay Prasad Singhal. It is also correct that I have not filed any document to show that part payment of the loan amount was returned to the plaintiff.
A meeting took place on 29, 30/31 March 2022 between the parties herein. Again said, the meeting took place in the year 2024 and 2022.
It is correct to state that the meeting referred as referred by me in para 8 of the affidavit, took place after filing of the present suit and after service of summons.
I was not a part of the said meeting 29-30/31 of March 2024. The said loan was taken by both of my parents ie D1 and D2. Out of the alleged loan, principal amount of Rs 24 Lac is yet to be paid to the plaintiffs. It is correct that we have not been paying interest since November 2023.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 23 of 44 It is correct that plaintiff was not physically present for any meeting. I also say that the plaintiff was present over a call on 29-30/21 March 2024, when a meeting took place at the shop of Ajay Prasad Singhal.
57. On the same day DW-4 Mukesh Shakla entered the witness box and was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. The relevant portion states as follows:
"I contacted couple of my associates, and informed D2 that I have arranged Rs 15 Lac for the said purpose of repayment.
It is correct to say that prior to October 2022, I was not aware of any transaction that transpired between the parties herein. It is correct that I was not part of any meeting that took place between the parties.
It is correct that I have knowledge that DW-1 has transferred the suit property by way of a registered sale deed in favor of the plaintiff. I just came to know about the above said fact last month ie March 2025.
It is correct that whatever I am deposing today, is as per the information provided to me by DW-2.
I took Rs 5 Lac from Rakesh and Vipin. 5 Lac I took from a committee. The balance 5 Lac I took from my uncle Sh Manohar Lal.
I have not demanded the return of the said amount till date. After loaning the said amount to Jor Singh, no meeting ever took place between me and the plaintiff/ other concerned parties regarding the return of the loan. I along with both the defendants and DW-3 had gone together to return the part payment of Rs 15 Lac to the plaintiff and Sh. Ajay Prasad Singhal.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 24 of 44 After loaning the said amount to Jor Singh, no meeting ever took place between me and the plaintiff/ other concerned parties regarding the return of the loan."
58. The witnesses as examined by the defendants have made several contradictory statements on oath. The defendants have admitted the execution of the registered sale deed in favor of the plaintiff.
59. It is also evident that the defendants have not initiated any appropriate action qua the cancellation of the registered sale deed, and/or the lease agreement.
60. The defendants no.1 & 2 have also identified and admitted their signatures on the exhibited documents.
61. The only valid defence as taken by the defendants is that the said transfer of the suit property/ selling of the suit property in favor of the plaintiff was temporary, in lieu of an alleged loan.
62. The defendants have neither annexed any documents in support of the said contentions, nor have they placed any documents on the record of this Court to show the repayment of the alleged Rs. 15 Lac, along with the monthly interest amount.
63. It is also to be observed that the defendants are running and operating a jewellery shop, hence, it cannot be said that the concept of taking receivings/ receipts is alien to the defendants. No valid reason and/or explanation has been advanced by the defendants for not taking the receivings qua the repayment of CS DJ No.22/2024 page 25 of 44 Rs 15 lac in cash, and/or the payment of the alleged 1% monthly interest amount.
64. At this juncture, it is imperative to go back the basic tenets of the law.
65. Essentials of pleadings A pleading should
(a) state material facts and not the evidence on which the party seeks to rely on, (b) state such facts in a concise form, and (c) provide all particulars where they are required.
66. These conditions are contained in Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC, and the requirement to state all material facts has time and again been emphasized by the Supreme Court. For instance, in Udhav Singh v Madhav Rao Scindia AIR 1976 SC 744, wherein it was clarified that all the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are material facts.
67. The failure to disclose material facts can even attract the grave consequence of the suit being dismissed in its entirety, making the observations of the Supreme Court in Virender Nath v. Satpal Singh 2007 (3) SCC 617 pivotal:
"...it is however absolutely essential that all basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish CS DJ No.22/2024 page 26 of 44 existence of a cause of action or defence are material facts and must be stated in the pleadings by the party."
68. UDHAV SINGH V. MADHAV RAO SCINDIA AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 744:
"28. All the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are "material facts". In the context of a charge of corrupt practice, "material facts" would mean all the basic facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged, which the petitioner is bound to substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. Whether in an election-petition, a particular fact is material or not, and as such required to be pleaded is a question which depends on the nature of the charge leveled, the ground relied upon and the special circumstances of the case. In short, all those facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action, are "material facts" which must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of sec. 83(1)(a). "Particulars", on the other hand, are "the details of the case set up by the party". "Material particulars" within the contemplation of clause (b) of s. 83(i) would therefore mean all the details which are necessary to amplify, refine and embellish the material facts already pleaded in the petition in compliance with the requirements of clause (a). Particulars serve the purpose of finishing touches to the basic contours of a picture CS DJ No.22/2024 page 27 of 44 already drawn, to make it full, more detailed and more informative.
29. The distinction between material facts and material particulars" was pointed out by this Court in several cases, three of which have been cited at the bar. It is not necessary to refer to all of them. It will be sufficient to close the discussion by extracting what A. N. Ray J. (as he then was) said on this point in Hardwari Lals case (supra):
"It is therefore vital that the corrupt practice charged against the respondent should be a full and complete statement of material facts to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action and to give an equal and full opportunity to the respondent to meet the case and to de fend the charges. Merely, alleging that the respondent obtained or procured or attempted to obtain or procure assistance are extracting words from the statute which will have no meaning unless and until facts are stated to show what that assistance is and how the prospect of election is furthered by such assistance. In the present case, it was not even alleged that the assistance obtained or procured was other than the giving of vote. It was said by counsel for the respondent that because the statute did not render the giving of vote a corrupt practice the words "any assistance" were full statement of material fact. The submission is fallacious for the simple reason that the manner of assistance, the measure of assistance are all various aspects of fact to clothe the petition CS DJ No.22/2024 page 28 of 44 with a cause of action which will call for an answer. Material facts are facts which if established would give the petitioner the relief asked for. If the respondent had not appeared, could the court have given a verdict in favour of the election petitioner. The answer is in the negative because the allegations in the petition did not disclose any cause of action."
69. This Court seeks to mention the essentials of a Contract/ Agreement enforceable by the law:
70. The Indian Contract Act of 1872 governs contracts in India and outlines the basic elements and general rules of a contract. A contract is legally binding if it meets the following essentials:
Offer and acceptance: One party makes an offer, and the other party accepts it. Acceptance can be express or implied.
Consideration: There must be something of value in return, or "quid pro quo". The consideration must be lawful, and not illegal, immoral, or against public policy.
Capacity: The parties must be legally competent to enter into the contract. This means they must be of the age of majority, have a sound mind, and not be disqualified by law.
Intention to create legal relations: The parties must intend for the agreement to be legally binding and create legal obligations.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 29 of 44 Certainty of meaning: All parties must agree on the same thing in the same sense.
Lawful object: The contract must have a lawful object.
Possibility of performance: The contract must be possible to perform.
Legal formalities: The contract can be entered into in writing or orally
71. The term "Sale" is defined under the law as follows:
Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
54. "Sale" defined.--"Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-
promised. Sale how made.--Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument . In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale.--A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 30 of 44
72. The Indian Registration Act, 1908 "17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.
(1)The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely, ....
[(1-A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53-A.] [Inserted by Act 48 of 2001, Section 3 (w.e.f. 24.9.2001).]
73. Elements of a valid transfer of immoveable property:
Delivery of Possession: The Act requires that property transfer include possession delivery. It means the transferor must give the transferee physical possession of the property. This requirement is essential for the validity of the transfer and must be met for the transfer to be legally recognized.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 31 of 44 Capacity to Transfer: The Act specifies that only those who can lawfully transfer property can do so. Those who have attained legal adulthood, possess full mental capacity, and are not legally prohibited from transferring property are considered "competent, competent, and eligible individuals"
under the law.
Mode of Transfer: The Act also specifies which modes of transfer are valid and which are not. The modes of transfer recognized by the Act include sale, gift, mortgage, and lease. Any other form of transfer is not legally recognized.
Registration of Document: The Act requires that the transfer of property must be documented and registered with the appropriate authorities. It ensures that the transfer is legally binding and that the rights of both parties are protected.
Performance of Contract: Under the Act, the transferor is legally obligated to meet all sales agreement terms. It includes passing over custody of the items, paying any payments due, and providing any required paperwork. A breach of contract will result in possible legal action if this is not done. When agreeing to the terms of a contract, it is crucial that both parties fully grasp them and then adhere to CS DJ No.22/2024 page 32 of 44 them. The contract terms must be met by both parties to prevent legal action.
In essence, an immoveable property can be sold/ transferred from one person to another in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and The Registration Act, 1908.
Any other mode shall be deemed to be ultra vires the law.
74. Facta probanda or the facts required to be proved, are the foundational elements of any legal claim or defense. These are the material facts upon which a party bases their case. In simple terms, these are the "what" of the case ie the core allegations or assertions that a party needs to establish to succeed.
75. For example, based on the facts of the present case, in a breach of contract claim, the facta probanda might include:
*The existence of a contract.
*The obligations stipulated by the contract.
*The breach of those obligations by the opposing party.
*The resultant damages incurred due to the breach.
76. The facts are to be proved in accordance with the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act , which have been reproduced herein:
77. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (BSA 2023 as amended upto date) CS DJ No.22/2024 page 33 of 44 Relevant Provisions:
101. Burden of proof.
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.
Illustrations
(a)A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.
(b)A desires a Court to give judgement that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B, by reason of facts which he asserts and which B denies, to be true. A must prove the existence of those facts.
102. On whom burden of proof lies.
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.
Illustrations
(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B's father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession. Therefore the burden of proof is on A. CS DJ No.22/2024 page 34 of 44
103. Burden of proof as to any particular fact.
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 law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
104. Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible.
The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence.
Illustrations
(a)A wishes to prove a dying declaration by B. A must prove B's death.
(b)A wishes to prove, by secondary evidence, the contents of a lost document. A must prove that the document has been lost.
106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustrations
(a)When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 35 of 44
(b)A is charged with travelling in a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
109. Burden of proof as to relationship in the cases of partners, landlord and tenant, principal and agent.
When the question is whether persons are partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, and it has been shown that they have been acting as such, the burden of proving that they do not stand, or have ceased to stand, to each other in those relationships respectively, is on the person who affirms it.
110. Burden of proof as to ownership.
When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.
111. Proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation of active confidence.
Where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 36 of 44
78. It is also observed that the entire transaction with respect to the execution of the sale deed qua the suit property does not suffer from any defects/ issues.
79. Based on the aforementioned facts, circumstances, ratios and statutes, this Court is inclined to observe that the plaintiff has proved his case in accordance with the law, and has discharged his onus of proof.
80. The plaintiff has lead material evidence to show that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants qua the nature of transaction pertaining to the suit property. It has nowhere been proven that the said amounts, alleged to be transferred, were for the purpose(s) of any loan transaction/ mortgage etc.
81. The defendants have failed to substantiate their assertive rights in respect of the suit property. Further, apart from the averments as mentioned in the written statement and the evidence affidavits, the defendants have not exhibited any favourable document which shows any legal, possessory, derivative and/or substantive right qua the suit property.
82. The defendants also went to state in their evidence that they had mortgaged the suit property to the plaintiff in lieu of an alleged loan. Once again, the defendants have not led any evidence to substantiate their claims.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 37 of 44
83. On the contrary, the plaintiff has exhibited the registered sale deed, which was executed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant no.1 in accordance with the provisions of relevant statutes.
84. Further, it is unfathomable to even imagine that a person who is mortgaging a certain immoveable property, let alone a shop in South Delhi, wouldn't even bother to execute a loan agreement/ mortgage deed qua the said property, especially when a loan had been taken by the said parties from a bank, wherein the necessary documentation was executed at the said time.
85. The defendants are operating a jewellery shop, and are assisted by their son, who is well qualified, and as such, are expected to be aware of their rights and the law. The defendants cannot plead ignorance, and be allowed to take the benefit of their inactions.
86. Irrespective of what may have transpired between the parties herein, the transaction pertaining to the purchase of the suit property is a perfectly valid transaction in the eyes of law. The plaintiff has purchased the suit property in accordance with the law of the land, and the same cannot be overlooked. Rather, the necessary importance is to be extended to registered documents, including the notarized rent agreement, which remains unchallenged to this day.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 38 of 44
DECISION:
87. It is also pertinent to observe that this Court, vide its order dated 07.02.2025 had allowed the application of the plaintiff filed u/or XV-A, CPC. The relevant portion is reproduced herein under:
"29. Accordingly, the order dated 16.10.2024 is reviewed and accordingly modified with the directions to the defendant no.2 to deposit arrears of rent for the period of October 2023 till July 2024 amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-. The defendant no.2 is extended with the liberty of depositing the amount by way of an interest earning Fixed Deposit, which shall stand attached by this Court till the final outcome of the present suit.
30. The defendant no.2 is also directed to deposit mesne profits for the period commencing from August 2024 @ Rs.50,000/- till the disposal of the present suit. The mesne profits are directed to be deposited into a separate account which shall be attached by this Court till the final disposal of this suit. The defendant is directed to deposit mesne profits on or before the 10th calendar day of every succeeding month in to said account.
31. A period of four weeks is granted to the defendant no.2 in order to comply with directions passed herein above."
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 39 of 44 Put up for Compliance as per law, along with main suit i.e. CS DJ -22/2024 on 05.03.2025."
88. It is also observed by this Court that a petition seeking execution of the said order dated 07.02.2025 was also filed on behalf of the plaintiff-DH. The said execution petition was registered before this Court as EX. No.59/2025 Vinod Kumar Goyal Vs M/s Rajput Jewellers (through its proprietor Mr. Jor Singh).
89. This Court has been apprised on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendants/JD's preferred to impugn the order dated 07.02.2025 vide an appeal FAO 114/2025 before The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, which stand dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2025.
90. In light of the above mentioned observations and reasoning, the issues are answered accordingly as follows:
Issue No.(1)Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession in respect of suit property, as prayed for in prayer clause (a) of the plaint? OPP
91. Issue no.1 is answered in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff has discharged his onus satisfactorily. Further, the defendants have not led any relevant evidence to discredit the claims of the plaintiff.
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 40 of 44 Issue No.(2)Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of arrears of rent from defendant no.2, as prayed for in prayer clause (b) of the plaint? OPP
92. Issue no.2 is decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff is evidently the legal owner of the suit property, and the defendants are presently in possession and in enjoyment of the same. The right of the defendants qua the enjoyment of the suit property stems from EX.PW-1/4(OSR) ie lease agreement dated 09.05.2023. As such, the defendants cannot be permitted to enjoy the property of another person without paying the requisite user charges. Accordingly, the defendants no.1 & 2 are directed to pay the rental arrears/ charges to the plaintiff @ Rs.50,000/- per month commencing from October, 2023 to December 2023, as prayed, along with mesne profits at Rs.50,000/- per month from January 2024 till the time of the actual physical handover of the suit property to the plaintiff.
Issue No.(3)Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of restrain against defendants, as prayed for in prayer clause (c) of the plaint? OPP
93. Since issues no.1 & 2 are answered in favor of the plaintiff, and against the defendants no. 1 & 2, accordingly the defendants, their agents, legal heirs, associates, representatives, servants, as the case maybe, are restrained from parting possession with the CS DJ No.22/2024 page 41 of 44 suit property, and/or creating any third party interests qua the suit property;
Issue No.(4)Whether defendants had mortgaged the suit property with the plaintiff and defendants had already repaid Rs.15 lakh to the plaintiff in cash on 28.10.2022 and were ready to repay the remaining amount but plaintiff did not agree to the same? OPD
94. Issue no.4 is answered against the defendants and in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants have not led any satisfactory evidence in accordance with the law of the land to substantiate their claims, and/or discharge their onus. Further, the witnesses as examined by defendants no. 1 & 2 do not inspire the faith of the Court, as the witnesses evidently lack credit worthiness.
(5)Relief
95. In view of above, suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
96. Issues no. 1-3 are decided in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
97. Issue no.4 is answered against the defendants no. 1 & 2 and in favor of the plaintiff.
98. As held by HMJ Vikramjit Sen in Ved Prakash v. M/s Murudhar Services Ltd; 2000(54) DRJ 654:
CS DJ No.22/2024 page 42 of 44 " 7......Failure to plead facts which constitute a valid defence, must be read as admissions made as contemplated by Rule VI of Order 12. To hold otherwise would-be an emasculation of judicial powers to dispense complete justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.."
99. Accordingly, the defendants are hereby injuncted, and are directed to remove themselves, along with their family members, relatives, agents, assignees from the suit property bearing address and description as Shop bearing No. I at Ground Floor, Built-up Property bearing MCD No.A-7, measuring 234 Sq. Ft., (Size 9' x 26'), comprising in Khasra No.484, situated at A-Block, Jawahar Park, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi- 110080 i.e. the suit property and handover the peaceful vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff.
100. The defendants, and their family, are granted a period of one month to vacate and handover the suit property to the plaintiff, commencing from the date of the order.
101. If the defendants fail to comply with the directions of this Court within a period of one month, the plaintiff will be at liberty to take the recourse as per law.
102. Further, the defendants no.1 & 2 are directed to pay the rental arrears/ charges to the plaintiff @ Rs.50,000/- per month commencing from October 2023 to December 2023, as prayed, CS DJ No.22/2024 page 43 of 44 along with mesne profits at Rs.50,000/- per month from January 2024 till the time of the actual physical handover of the suit property to the plaintiff.
103. Further the defendants, their agents, legal heirs, associates, representatives, servants, as the case may be, are restrained from parting possession with the suit property, and/or creating any third party interests qua the suit property.
104. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly, upon payment of deficit court fees, if any.
105. No order as to costs.
106. File be consigned to record room.
107. Copy of the Judgment be given Dasti.
Announced in the open Court on 20.05.2025.
Digitally signedby Sunil (Sunil Beniwal) Sunil District Judge-06(South), beniwal beniwal Date:
2025.05.21 12:29:41 +0530 Saket Courts, New Delhi CS DJ No.22/2024 page 44 of 44