Delhi District Court
Rajiv Ranjan vs Krishan on 6 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA
DISTRICT JUDGE-05, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS DJ 6389/16
RAJIV RANJAN Vs. KRISHAN
CNR No. DLST01-000114-2009
Sh. Rajiv Ranjan
S/o Sh. N.P. Singh
House NO. 27, 2nd Avenue,
Bandh Road, Chandan Hoola,
New Delhi-110074
............ PLAINTIFF
Vs.
Sh. Krishan
S/o Sh. Richh Pal
House No. 143-A, Sahapur Jat
New Delhi-110049
.......... DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 23.07.2009
Argument concluded on : 23.01.2025
Date of judgment : 06.02.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance, permanent and mandatory injunction, damages and for consequential reliefs against the defendant.
2. The brief facts, as culled out from the plaint, are as follows:
1. That in January 2007, defendant was CS DJ 6389/16 Page 1 of 19 in need of financial help / money in order to make the payment for purchase of land, purchase of stamp duty and for some other personal expenses. That the defendant requested the plaintiff for financial help.
2. That the defendant represented and assured the plaintiff that he had land measuring 900 sq. yards bearing khasra no.
298/14/2 at Ghitorni, New Delhi hereinafter called and referred as "suit property". That in respect of the suit property a Civil Suit for Declaration / Specific Performance and Permanent Injunction bearing no. 58/05/00, was pending in the court of Sh. Paramjeet Singh, ADJ, Delhi, which was filed by the defendant claiming the reliefs of declaration / specific performance and permanent injunction and during that period that suit was pending disposal. That the defendant had represented that he will give 50% share in the said land to the plaintiff after getting the final order from the court in lieu of financial assistance.
3. That when the defendant agreed to give it in writing the proposal for giving 50% share in the suit property, the plaintiff agreed to provide financial help to defendant. That the defendant further assured that he will give half of the share in the suit property and/or give the 50% share in the sale proceeds if the suit property was sold by the defendant without getting it transferred in the name of plaintiff. It is submitted that above said conditions were the essence and essential conditions of the contract between the plaintiff and defendant.
4. Accordingly, the defendant prepared and executed agreement dated 25th January 2007.
CS DJ 6389/16 Page 2 of 195. That pursuant to the said representations / assurances made by the defendant and further on the basis of written agreement executed by the defendant, the plaintiff provided financial help to the defendant for a total sum of Rs. 3,30,000/- (Three Lac Thirty Thousand Only) on different dates as desired and required by the defendant and the details are as follows:
January 25, 2007 80,000/-
January 29, 2007 30,000/-
February 12, 2007 35,000/-
February 20, 2007 50,000/-
February 26, 2007 25,000/-
March 1, 2007 40,000/-
March 6, 2007 70,000/-
It is submitted that as stated above the plaintiff has performed his part of the contract thereby providing the financial help to the defendant.
6. That the defendant had while executing the written agreement, agreed to hand over the original Sale Deed of the suit property, but the defendant only handed over a photocopy. It is submitted that as and when the plaintiff used to ask for the original sale of the suit property the defendant avoided on each and every time to handover the original sale deed. It is further claimed that it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant that after getting the decree from the court in the suit bearing no. 58/05/00, both parties will liquidate the suit property and the total sell consideration shall be equally divided between the plaintiff and defendant or in case property does not sell, in that situation the defendant will executed the Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff for the 50% share of the suit property.
CS DJ 6389/16 Page 3 of 197. Thereafter, the court of Shri Paramjit Singh, ADJ, Delhi vide its Judgment and decree dated 27-02-2007 decreed the suit filed by the defendant and accordingly, the suit property was registered in the name of the defendant vide registered Sale Deed dated 9-03-2007. It is submitted that the defendant after getting the abovesaid decree had again approached the plaintiff and requested for money. That the defendant told that the plaintiff that he got the decree in his favour and he wanted some money for purchase of stamp paper and for the payment of the seller as well. It is submitted that the plaintiff had given amount to the defendant for getting the Sale Deed registered in his name in terms of the judgment and decree dated 27-02-07. It is submitted that on 09-03- 07 the defendant has got the Sale Deed registered in his favor in respect of the suit property. After registration of the Sale Deed in the name of defendant, plaintiff has requested/ asked the defendant to transfer half share of the suit property in the name of the plaintiff or sell the above said suit property so that the sale consideration can be divided equally between them. But due to his malafide intentions the defendant has tried to avoid the issue on one pretext or the other.
8. That now the defendant along with some local anti social elements/land grabber is trying to liquidate / sell off the property by keeping the plaintiff in dark in order to avoid the payment of 50% in the total sale proceeds to the plaintiff.
9. On 17 July, 2009, when the plaintiff visited the suit land, some unscrupulous persons/ land grabber were discussing about the land and when plaintiff asked about their identity, they started abusing the plaintiff with the words "yahan se chala ja nahin to CS DJ 6389/16 Page 4 of 19 tere hath per tod denge". Further they told to plaintiff that they have paid advance to Krishan of Sahapur Jat i.e. Defendant and he will sell the suit property to them very soon.
10. That the plaintiff is having very good prima facie case in his favour and against the defendant. It is submitted that as stated above the plaintiff has performed his part of the contract thereby providing the financial help to the defendant and now the defendant is trying to wriggle out of the contract and does not want to perform his part of the contract. It is submitted that in view of the above said facts and as per the written agreement dated 25th January 2007 signed and executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, the rights of the plaintiff are enforceable under the law more specifically under the Specific Relief Act, and the plaintiff is having all the legal rights to claim the half of the share in the suit property and / or to claim the declaration / direction against the defendant to share 50% of the sale proceeds in case the suit property will be sold off by the defendant. It is submitted that the defendant is under an obligation and duty bound under the law to transfer the half of the share in the suit property in favor of the plaintiff.
11. That the plaintiff time and again requested the Defendant several times to transfer the half share of the property and or otherwise hand over the 50% of the sale proceeds in case the property is sold off by the defendant, however the Defendant not cooperating to the Plaintiff for the reasons best known to him.
12. That the Defendant has failed and neglected to fulfill his commitment / part of the contract towards the plaintiff. The Defendant has failed to fulfill his assurances CS DJ 6389/16 Page 5 of 19 and commitment to the Plaintiff despite of repeated demands, the Plaintiff is thus entitled for the relief of Specific Performance and Injunction from this Hon'ble court and for the other relief mentioned in the prayer clause. It is submitted that the agreement is legal, binding and conclusive contract between the parties which is legally enforceable under the Specific Relief Act and thus the plaintiff is entitled for the Specific Performance.
13. That the cause of action for filing the present suit arose firstly in the year 2007 when the defendant had approached to plaintiff for financial assistance, it further arose when the Plaintiff has provided financial help, it further arose when the defendant had signed and executed the agreement. The cause of action again arose when the Defendant had failed to fulfill his commitments and/or part of his contract to the plaintiff. The cause of action is still subsisting and continuing as the Defendant had failed to fulfill his commitment towards plaintiff and without performing his part the defendant is trying to sell the suit property and the present suit is being filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The present suit is being filed as a last resort.
14. That the suit for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction is valued at Rs. 3,30,000/- (Rupees Three Lac and thirty thousand Only) and for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction for the relief Specific Performance is valued at Rs. 3,30,000/- (Rupees Three Lac and thirty thousand Only) and for the reliefs of Mandatory and Permanent Injunction the same is valued for Rs. 200/- each upon which prescribed court fees of Rs. 5725/- has paid and affixed with the plaint.
CS DJ 6389/16 Page 6 of 1915. It is prayed that this Court may be pleased to:
(i) A decree for Specific Performance in favor of the Plaintiff thereby directing the defendant to execute the Sale Deed for the half share in the suit property i.e. plot measuring 900 sq. yards bearing khasra no.
298/14/2 situated at extended Lal Dora of village Ghitorni, New Delhi and/ or is entitled to the 50% share in the total sell proceeds if the defendant sell the suit property
(ii) ii) a decree of Mandatory Injunction thereby directing the defendant to tender the 50% share of the sale proceeds to the Plaintiff as and when the defendant will sell the suit property to any other person;
(iii) a decree of Permanent Injunction thereby restraining the defendant, his agents, attorneys, successors, assignees or any other person/ concerns/entity/ company acting through him from selling, alienating or creating any kind of third party interest in the suit property i.e plot measuring 900 sq yards bearing khasra no 298/14/2 situated at extended Lal Dora of village Ghitorni, New Delhi during / after and and till the final disposal of the present suit;
iv) a decree for damages to the extent of amount as this hon'ble court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case
v) Grant cost of the proceedings in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant; and
vi) to pass such other or further orders in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants as this Hon'ble court may deem CS DJ 6389/16 Page 7 of 19 fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of case.
3. Summons were served on defendant. Defendant has filed Written Statement vide order dated 14.09.2009. The defence taken by defendant in the Written Statement culled out are as under:
1. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the plaintiff has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
2. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eyes of law because the alleged agreement which is relied upon by the plaintiff is not signed by plaintiff and also by Sh. Baldev Rathi and Shri Sukhdev Rathi, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eyes of law because the said alleged agreement is not made by the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff.
4. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eyes of law because the plaintiff is well qualified and he did not take a single receipt from the defendant at the time of making payment and the alleged receipt are forged one.
5. That the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eyes of law because the alleged agreement is a partnership agreement and there is not a single word regarding the name and purpose of partnership and as the said partnership is not registered, the plaintiff has no right to sue the defendant without getting first the partnership registered hence, the suit is not liable to be dismissed.CS DJ 6389/16 Page 8 of 19
6. It is submitted that the defendant was never in need of money/ financial help in order to make the payment to the seller of suit land or to purchase of stamp duty or for any personal expenses. The defendant has a good reputation in so society as well as good financial status.
7. It is submitted that the defendant had never requested to plaintiff to help him financially and he has in difficulty to arrange the amount. Neither the defendant had met with the plaintiff nor had entered into any agreement.
8. That the defendant never approached the plaintiff in the month of January 2007 and requested him for financial assistance. It is denied that the defendant ever requested or assured the plaintiff, he will give 50% share in the land bearing khasra no. 298/14/2 at Gitorni, New Delhi after getting. It is submitted that a civil suit for declaration / specific performance (Suit No. 58105/00) was pending before the court of Parmjeet Singh, ADJ, Delhi, filed by defendant, now the suit is subjudice before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as a appeal has been filed by the other party against the order passed by Ld. ADJ, Delhi.
9. It is specifically denied that on the representation/assurances made and on the basis of written agreement, the plaintiff has provided financial help to the defendant for a total sum of Rs. 3,30,000/-. It is submitted that the defendant had never taken a single rupee from the plaintiff though the plaintiff claims that the plaintiff had given money to the defendant in seven times but he failed to file any single receipt of payments from 25.1.2007 to 6.3.2007 as alleged by him. It is CS DJ 6389/16 Page 9 of 19 submitted that the alleged receipt is forged one.
10. It is submitted that in the alleged agreement as relied upon by the plaintiff. It is no where written that the suit property is of value of Rs. 3,30,000/- or it is agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the plaintiff shall give Rs. 3,30,000/- as the total sale consideration or the rate of the 50% of the land is Rs. 3,30,000/-. The plaintiff grossly and intentionally and willfully under valued the suit property as relied upon him, hence the value of the suit is more than Rs. 1.00 Crore as fixed by the defendant hence he suit under valued and is liable to be dismissed.
4. Vide order dated 15.11.20210, the present suit was dismissed in default for non-prosecution. Vide order dated 18.02.2011, the present suit was restored on the application filed on behalf of plaintiff.
Issues:
5. On the pleadings of the parties, my Ld. Predecessor framed the issues in the present matter vide order dated 01.04.2010, which are as follows:
1. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction in respect of the suit premises?
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance as prayed for?CS DJ 6389/16 Page 10 of 19
4. Relief.
Evidence:
6. The plaintiff examined only himself as PW-1 on 06.01.2012 and relied upon the following documents:
(i) The agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant as Ex.PW1/1
(ii) The composite receipt executed by defendant as Ex.PW1/2
7. Thereafter, plaintiff was duly cross-examined and discharged.
8. In defence, the Defendant examined himself as DW-1. DW-1 relied upon only the Photocopy of the sale deed as Ex.DW1/A. DW-1 was duly cross-examined and discharged.
9. My issue-wise findings are as follows:
Issue no.3 i.e. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance as prayed for?
10. That the entire case of the plaintiff rests on the alleged receipt Ex.PW1/1 drawn on Stamp Paper dated 25.01.2007. The document records that the plaintiff alongwith Baldev Rathi and Sukhdev Rathi were having share in Khasra no.
298/14/2, 900 Sq. Yards, Ghitorni and an litigation for mutation was pending before Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari. That three persons were entering into a partnership with Dr. Rajiv Ranjan S/o Sh. M.P. Singh. That after winning the case, their share will become half and after the decision, the property will be sold and share will be given. The said agreement is only allegedly signed by the said CS DJ 6389/16 Page 11 of 19 Krishan Kumar. On the reverse, is a receipt, giving description of various payments, totaling Rs.3,30,000/-, which is Ex.PW1/2. The said agreement being the crux of the matter, following two aspects arise for consideration:
Firstly, whether the execution of the agreement has been proved in accordance with law by the plaintiff; and Secondly, is the agreement a binding contract and of what nature i.e. is it an agreement to sell, a partnership agreement or an agreement of maintenance and champerty? If so, is it specifically enforceable in the facts and circumstances of the case?
11. I will deal with the first aspect regarding the execution of the document being proved. The following points arise for consideration:
A. It is pertinent to note that the said agreement is not signed by the plaintiff, nor by the two other co-owners of the property, namely, Baldev Rathi and Sukhdev Rathi;
B. No consideration amount has been mentioned in the said agreement i.e., how much money was to be paid or was assistance or contribution was to be made by the plaintiff;
C. The receipt does not indicate who was making the payment and who was receiving the same, only some calculation has been mentioned, totaling to Rs.3,30,000/-. It does not indicate whether the payment was being made in cash or otherwise; D. The defendant has denied his signatures on the said document and also pleaded that he never met the CS DJ 6389/16 Page 12 of 19 plaintiff herein and therefore, the question of entering into an agreement or receiving any amount did not arise.
E. When the plaintiff was cross examined on the said agreement, he gave the following replies: Cross-examination of PW1 Sh. Rajiv Ranjan dated 06.01.2012:
...I do not remember the date of the agreement Ex. PW1/1 but same was signed in the month of December, 2007 at the house of S.P. Singh in the area of Mehrauli. I do not know by whom the agreement was written but it was given to me by Sh. S.P. Singh after 2/3 days of our meeting. I was not knowing the defendant prior to meeting him at the house of S.P. Singh. It is incorrect to suggest that defendant was not known to me prior to filing of the present suit and it is also incorrect to state that I had not met the defendant prior to filing of the suit. I cannot tell about the over writings in the agreement which I have received in the condition as it is. The defendant had offered to give 50 % of the land to me in exchange for bearing the litigation expenses which was under
litigation at that time. Defendant Sh. Kishan had asked me for the expenses on litigation. I do not know who wrote the receipt Ex.PW1/2. Receipt Ex.PW1/2 was handed over to me by Sh. S.P. Singh and Sh.
Sukhdev Rathi. The name of the person with whom the defendant was in litigation was not mentioned in the agreement Ex.PW1/1. I was given the documents relating to the litigation by the defendant and those documents are available with me.
......
No separate partnership was entered into with the defendant and others except the agreement Ex.PW1/1. Agreement Ex.PW1/1 CS DJ 6389/16 Page 13 of 19 was not signed by S.P. Singh, Baldev Rathi and Sukhdev Rathi. It is incorrect to suggest that EX.PW1/1 is a forged document. Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2 were not signed by the defendant in my presence but were handed over to me later on. It is correct that EX.PW1/1 does not bear my signatures. It is incorrect to suggest that I had not given money to the defendant myself. I had kept a record of the pay nts made by me to the defendant. I had given the record to my advocate. It is correct that the total amount to be given by me to the defendant was not settled. No legal notice was issued to the defendant by me before filing the present suit. I have not placed on record the copy of the sale deed which was given to me by the defendant at the time of giving agreement Ex.PW1/1.
......
I was placed under suspension in year, 2005. I was reinstated in October, 2009. I was threatened when I had gone to the land in village Ghitorni on 17th July, 2009. 3-4 persons were present at the place at that time. I did not lodge any report to the police regarding the incident. It is incorrect to suggest that I did not lodge the report to the police for the reason that no such incident had taken place on 17th July, 2009. I am not aware of the value of the land relating to which the suit has been filed. I have not filed any suit against Baldev Rathi and S.P. Singh nor I had given any notice to them before filing the present suit.
(emphasis supplied)
12. Therefore, clearly, the plaintiff had never seen the defendant append his signatures on the said documents and as per him Baldev Rathi and Sukhdev Rathi had handed over the CS DJ 6389/16 Page 14 of 19 document to him after 2-3 days of its execution. The said Baldev Rathi and Sukhdev Rathi were never produced as witnesses by the plaintiff to prove the execution of the receipt.
13. On the other hand, is the consistent unshaken testimony of the defendant, who denies not only his signatures on the document, but also that he never met the plaintiff.
14. Unfortunately, the receipt was being sent to the FSL for comparing the signatures, but the same was lost in transit and a detailed order, in this regard, was passed, after several years of the loss by the undersigned after being transferred to this court.
The order dated 01.03.2024, was passed in this regard and the undersigned had made a complaint in this regard to the concerned Magistrate. Since the document was lost, secondary evidence regarding the document in the form of photocopy is admissible, however, I am of the view that the execution of the document has not been proved by the plaintiff. The suit must fail on this count itself. The first aspect is answered accordingly.
15. Even if it was assumed that the said document had been signed by the defendant, I am of the view that the same does not constitute a valid contract for the reason that the document is neither signed by the other two sharers i.e., Baldev Rathi and Sukhdev Rathi, as well as, the plaintiff. Secondly, as the plaintiff himself admits in cross examination, the total amount to be given by the plaintiff to the defendant, was not settled. An agreement without consideration or whose terms cannot be ascertained, cannot constitute a valid contract.
16. Further, a perusal of the agreement reveals that it is either a partnership agreement or an agreement of maintenance or champerty. The latter is more near the nature of the contract CS DJ 6389/16 Page 15 of 19 considering the admissions made by the plaintiff during cross examination i.e.,The defendant had offered to give 50 % of the land to me in exchange for bearing the litigation expenses which was under litigation at that time.
17. If it was a partnership contract, the partnership being unregistered and there being no pleadings that the partnership was dissolved and plaintiff was seeking to recover property of the dissolved partnership, the suit would be hit by Section 69 of Partnership Act.
18. If treated as an agreement of maintenance and champerty, the agreement under the Indian Law, cannot be held to be per se void or illegal. What would be the fate of such agreement?
19. In the case of Ram Coomar Coondoo and Anr. v. Chunder Canto Mookerjee, [1876] 2 Cal. 233, it was observed that the approach of the English Courts cannot simply be grafted onto the Indian Courts, due to the diversity in not just of opinion but also particular demographic customs, practices etc. It was also observed that "a fair agreement to supply funds to carry on a suit in consideration of having a share of the property, if recovered, ought not to be regarded as being, per se, opposed to public policy".
20. In another case before the High Court of Madras, Valluri Ramanamma v. Marina Viranna, (1931) 33 BOMLR 960, it was held as follows;
"It has long been held that in India agreements to finance litigation in consideration of having a share of the property if recovered are not per se opposed to public policy. They may be so if the object CS DJ 6389/16 Page 16 of 19 of the agreement is an improper one, such as abetting or encouraging unrighteous suits, or gambling in litigation; or their enforcement against a party may be contrary to the principles of equity and good conscience, as unconscionable and extortionate bargains."
21. The Supreme Court in the case of In Re: 'G', A Senior Advocate of The Supreme Court, 1955 1 SCR 490 accepted champertous contracts as being legal in India, unless inequitable, unconscionable or extortionate.
22. The Courts have also imparted clarity to the question of what would constitute an extortionate, inequitable or unconscionable champertous agreement, by undertaking a closer examination of the attending facts and circumstances particularly those relating to how the financer in a champertous arrangement stands to benefit.
23. This exercise was first undertaken by the Privy Council, in the Lahore High Court, in the case of Ram Sarup v. The Court of Wards, (1940) 42 BOMLR 307, which highlighted three points, (i) that one should merely not look at the value of the property claimed but at the commercial value of the claim as well; (ii) that the proportion of benefit to the claimant and financer should be taken into account before declaring an agreement as unfair; and (iii) that if the financier must risk losing his money he may well be allowed some chance of exceptional advantage.
24. What ensued as a result of the above was that courts would scrutinize the provisions of financing agreements, particularly those that deal with the consideration to be given to the financier out of the proceeds of a litigation. The proportion to CS DJ 6389/16 Page 17 of 19 be retained by a claimant became an important matter to be considered when judging the fairness of a bargain made.
25. In Harilal Nathalal Talati vs Bhailal Pranlal Shah, ILR 1940 Bom. 143, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that an agreement, were a person agreed to give half share of the property to the financier, "was extortionate and unconscionable and opposed to public policy."
26. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nuthaki Venkataswami vs Kalia Nagi Reddy, in AIR 1962 AP 457 and the Allahabad High Court in Babu Ram vs. Ram Charan Lal & Ors., AIR 1934 All 1023, have taken a similar view considering that the financier was claiming half or more than half of the share.
27. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Khaja Moiunuddin Khan & Others vs S. P. Ranga Rao and Others, AIR 2000 AP 344, refused to honour an agreement which provided for the payment of 40% of the proceeds of sale in addition to the money agreed to be advanced under the agreement as an unconscionable bargain and being extortionate in nature.
28. Considering that the present agreement made the plaintiff entitled to 50% share in land or the sale proceeds thereof, for financing a mere Rs.3,30,000/- (if believed, although, I have no reason to believe the agreement or the payment), in 900 Sq. Yards of land in Delhi, the agreement has to be held to be an unconscionable bargain and being extortionate in nature.
29. Therefore, the agreement is incapable of being specifically performed and issue no.3 is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue no.1 i.e.Whether Plaintiff is entitled to CS DJ 6389/16 Page 18 of 19 permanent injunction in respect of the suit premises? and issue no.2 i.e. Whether plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for ?
30. As far as issue no. 1 and 2 are concerned, the same seek prayer of mandatory and permanent injunction vis-a-vis the suit property and being equitable relief, cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiff in view of the findings of facts and law hereinabove recorded.
31. The issues are accordingly decided against the plaintiff. The suit is liable to be dismissed with costs in favour of the defendant.
32. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
33. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedHarjyot by Harjyot Singh Bhalla Singh Date:
2025.02.06 Bhalla 16:53:35 +0530 Pronounced in the open court HARJYOT SINGH BHALLA on 06.02.2025 DJ-05, SOUTH SAKET COURTS NEW DELHI CS DJ 6389/16 Page 19 of 19