Delhi District Court
Jaspal Singh vs Rajender Paul Varmain Anr on 23 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKBAR SIDDIQUE
DISTRICT JUDGE-04, NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CS No.58265/2016 CNR No.DLNT01-000617-2012
In the matter of :-
JASPAL SINGH,
S/o Late Sh. Tejinder Singh,
R/o DA-196, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi-110088.
.....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1.Rajender Paul Varmain, S/o Lachman Dass, BFH-130, West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
2. Sandeep Varmani, S/o Rajender Paul Varmain, BFH-130, West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. .....DEFENDANTS Date of Institution 01.03.2012 Date of Arguments 17.02.2026 Date of Decision 23.02.2026 Relief SUIT DECREED IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF JUDGMENT/23.02.2026 By way of present judgment, I shall adjudicate upon Suit for Specific performance of Contract i.e. Collaboration agreement dated 24.11.2010, damages, compensation to the extent of ₹10,00,000/- and litigation cost of ₹50,000/-. The plaintiff inter- CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 1 of 39 alia prays for the following relief:
1. Directing the defendants to specifically perform the Collaboration Agreement dated 24.11.2010 and execute a sale deed for the second floor of property No. BFH-82 in his favour;
2. Awarding 10,00,000/- as damages and compensation for delaying the execution of Sale Deed;
3. Awarding litigation costs of ₹50,000/-; and
4. Granting any other relief deemed just and proper, including injunction.
1. CASE OF PLAINTIFF AS PER PLAINT 1.1. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that Defendant 1 is the absolute owner of a freehold property bearing No. BFH-82, West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110089, admeasuring 80 sq. yds., bounded on the East by Plot No. 81, on the West by Plot No. 83, on the North by a service lane, and on the South by a park.
1.2. It is stated that Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2, who are father and son, desired to get demolish the existing structure on the said plot and reconstruct a four-storied building, and in consonance of that approached the plaintiff with a proposal for collaboration.
1.3. Pursuant thereto, the parties executed a Collaboration Agreement dated 24.11.2010, and Defendant No. 1 also executed a Special Power of Attorney of the same date in favour of the plaintiff to CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 2 of 39 enable him to undertake and complete the project.
Defendant No. 2 signed the agreement as a witness. The originals of both documents are stated to have been filed along with the plaint. Under the Collaboration Agreement, both parties agreed that the existing structure would be demolished and a four-storey building comprising the Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor would be raised in accordance with sanctioned drawings. Defendant No. 1 undertook to hand over vacant possession of the old structure to the plaintiff for the purposes of demolition, reconstruction and development. Defendant No. I also assured that the property was free from all encumbrance including sale, mortgage, lien, litigation, injunctions, attachments, agreements, family disputes, notifications or any other legal impediments. 1.4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants agreed that he would construct the entire four-storied structure at his own cost, and in return, upon completion of the third floor, the defendants would hand over physical possession of the second floor (without roof rights) to the plaintiff and execute sale documents, including a registered sale deed, in his favour.
1.5. The plaintiff further avers in the plaint that it was mutually agreed that the agreement would remain binding even in the event of death or disability of either party, and their respective legal heirs would be bound by its terms. The defendants also reaffirmed CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 3 of 39 that the title of the property was marketable and free from defects, and in the event of any defect, they alone would be responsible.
1.6. Under the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff was required to complete the project within 13 months, calculated from the date on which defendants were to provide all necessary legal documents and NOCs from the concerned authorities. The plaintiff further agreed to pay a total num of 10,00,000/- the price of the second floor ₹500.000/- at the time of execution of the agreement and the remaining 5,00,000/- at the time of execution of the sale deed. According to the plaintiff, he handed over Cheque No. 009903 dated 24.11.2010 for 5,00,000/- to the defendant at the time of execution of the agreement 1.7. The plaintiff states that although the defendants were themselves responsible only for expenses relating to the land those tax, ground rent, peripheral charges etc.), he nevertheless deposited 1,60,000/- in the account of Defendant No. 1 to facilitate obtaining a sanctioned building plan from the MCD. After the necessary approvals were provided, the plaintiff claims to have commenced construction diligently and in full compliance with the terms of the agreement 1.8. The plaintiff asserts that the parties had specifically agreed that once the agreement was executed and specifications of construction were finalized, the defendants would not interfere in the construction process until completion of the project. However, CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 4 of 39 contrary to this understanding, both defendants repeatedly visited the site, interfered with laborers, and raised frivolous objections regarding the quality of construction, despite the plaintiff using the best materials available in the market.
1.9. The plaintiff claims that upon completion of the third floor, he requested the defendants to hand over possession of the second floor and execute the sale deed. The defendants, however, refused and insisted that he must first "furnish" the third floor for them. The plaintiff alleges he complied with this additional request as well, but the defendants continued to avoid execution of the sale deed and further created obstructions in the progress of the work. 1.10. The plaintiff alleges that by August 2011, when he again sought performance from the defendants after completing the third floor, they took a new stand that documents would only be executed after completion of the entire building. The plaintiff continued construction for another two months, but in October 2011, the defendants allegedly came behind his back, misbehaved with his laborers, forced them to leave the site and effectively halted all construction work. 1.11. It is stated that despite the defendants' conduct, the plaintiff continued working until December 2011, when defendants became more aggressive and did not even allow him entry to the site. The plaintiff then issued a legal notice, calling upon the defendants not to obstruct the construction and to execute the documents for the second floor. The defendants sent CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 5 of 39 a reply but allegedly failed to resolve the issue. 1.12. The plaintiff further avers that he approached Chairman of the Resident Welfare Association, BFH Block and that upon his intervention several meetings were held between the parties, resulting in tentative understanding for a fresh Bayana Agreement, under which the plaintiff was to complete full furnishing of the building by June 2012 and the defendants were to execute the sale deed thereafter. However, after 3-4 days, the defendants withdrew from this proposal as well. 1.13. The plaintiff avers that he again approached the RWA members, and after further meetings, it was mutually decided that the plaintiff would deposit 15,00,000/- (10 lakh as security and 5 lakh as balance payment) and eight months' rent into the account of Defendant No. 1, after which the defendants agreed not to obstruct the construction and to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff claims that pursuant to this understanding, he purchased stamp papers worth ₹80,000/-, kept 10 lakhs in cash ready, and also prepared a demand draft of 5 lakh. However, instead of honoring the settlement, the defendants again backed out and lodged a police complaint alleging harassment by the plaintiff.
1.14. The plaintiff avers that this conduct reveals the dishonest intentions of the defendants who, according to him, wish to evade their contractual obligations and wrongfully appropriate the money he has invested in the project. He alleges that the CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 6 of 39 defendants are habitual in such fraudulent dealings and have similar litigation pending against them in the Tis Hazari Courts.
1.15. The plaintiff further asserts in the plaint that he has, at all times, requested the defendants to perform their part of the agreement, but the defendants have continuously ignored his requests and adopted delaying tactics. He claims to have completed construction of the building substantially as per the defendants' own demands, and therefore, unless directed by the Court, the defendants will not perform their part of the contract.
1.16. The plaintiff states that the cause of action arose in October 2011 when the defendants refused to perform the agreement, and subsequently each time the plaintiff issued legal notice, received a reply, purchased stamp papers, and made further requests. The cause of action is stated to be continuous. 1.17. The summons was served on the Defendants and both entered appearance filed their Written Statement.
2. CASE OF DEFENDANTS AS PER WRITTEN STATEMENT AND AMENDED WRITTEN STATEMENT AND COUNTER CLAIM.
2.1. The defendants have vehemently opposed the contentions of the plaintiff in the present case. In the amended Written Statement and Counter Claim the defendant no 1 have claimed rent of ₹ 360,000/- and also sought damages of ₹ 15,00,000/- after the filing CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 7 of 39 of Written Statement for not completing the building work and further resulting in deterioration of semi constructed work and consequently, causing mental agony, harassment to defendant no 1. 2.2. The case set up by defendants in the Written Statement is that the Collaboration Agreement 24.11.2010 stands admittedly executed and further defendants pleads that the plaintiff's suit is legally untenable and must be dismissed.
2.3. Further, it is averred by defendants that plaint is not maintainable as it beyond and purview of pecuniary jurisdiction of this court as the value of suit property on the basis of market value is ₹ One Crore and plaintiff have deliberately and wrongly valued the suit property as ₹ 20,00,000/-. Thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed at the outset.
2.4. The defendants have admitted the execution of Collaboration Agreement dated 24.11.2010 and construction work carried out by the plaintiff but the defendants have levelled allegations against plaintiff of threatening the defendant no1 and his wife and restricting them of not allowing to inspect and check the construction work at the suit property. Further, it alleged by the defendants in Written Statement that plaintiff has been using inferior and sub-standard quality building material in the construction work which may lead to collapse of building, causing loss of life and property to defendants and their family. 2.5. The defendants further asserts that the plaintiff was to complete the entire structure of building as per CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 8 of 39 specification within the period of 13 month i.e. 24.12.2011 but the plaintiff miserably failed to adhere to the timeline, in fact only 25% of the work was complete which signifies complete deviation from the terms of Collaboration Agreement dated 24.11.2010.
2.6. The defendants further asserts that the plaintiff in order to harass the defendants stopped the said work from 1st October to 7th December 2011. Further, plaintiff has not been paying agreed monthly rent of ₹ 10,000/- per month since July, 2011 causing arrears which by June 2014 amount to ₹3,60,000, and that cheques issued by the plaintiff were dishonored. It is further averred that the plaintiff used substandard and unbranded materials, refused lawful inspection and laboratory tests contemplated by an earlier handwritten annexure dated 22.11.2010, and thereby caused deterioration of the partly constructed building; on these grounds the defendant denies any obligation to execute sale documents in favour of the plaintiff until the entire building, including finishing works, was completed in accordance with the agreed specifications.
2.7. Defendant No.1 also alleges that the plaintiff resorted to unlawful acts by forcefully entering and occupying the suit premises on 26.09.2014 and thereafter occupying the second floor without authority, and by obtaining an electricity connection in his name in March 2015 despite defendant's objections. These acts, it is pleaded, demonstrate CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 9 of 39 mala fides and an attempt by the plaintiff, assisted by property dealers, to coerce execution of documents and to usurp defendant's property; furthermore, such conduct has caused the defendant mental agony and loss of prospective rental income. On these factual and legal premises, the defendant advances a counter-claim for recovery of arrears of rent totaling Rs.3,60,000 and for damages of Rs.15,00,000 for loss of rental income, deterioration of the building and harassment, stating readiness to pay requisite court fees at the time of execution. The defendant accordingly prays that the plaintiff's suit be dismissed with heavy costs for want of maintainability and for coming to court with unclean hands, and that the counter-claim be allowed with appropriate reliefs and costs; the defendant reserves the right to lead further evidence in support of these averments.
3. ISSUES IN THE PRESENT LIS 3.1. Vide order dated 08.01.2015, following issues were framed in the present dispute:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of agreement dated 24.11.2010 as claimed? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) as damages and Compensation? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 10 of 39
4. Whether no cause of action arise against the defendant no 2? OPD
5. Relief?
3.2. Thereafter, the defendant no 1 file Amended Written Statement and Counter Claim against the plaintiff to which plaintiff filed replication and written statement respectively along with various documents. Further on the basis of amended Written Statement and reply to counterclaim following additional issues were framed:
6. Whether Counter claim is not maintainable as Court fee on it has not been paid, if so, its effect? OPP
7. Whether Counter claim is barred by limitation?
OPP
8. Whether defendant no 1 is entitled to damages to the tune of 15 lacs because of deterioration of semi constructed building by plaintiff? OPD
9. Relief
4. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE 4.1. The plaintiff, Sh. Jaspal Singh, in the present case has been examined as PW-1, tendered his affidavit in evidence, which is exhibit as Ex PW1/A, in which he reiterated the contents of the plaint as true and correct. He relied upon document Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/15 (Colly), except Ex. PW1/7 which was de- exhibited and marked as Mark-L, and Ex. PW1/12 which was de-exhibited and marked as Mark-M. The CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 11 of 39 witness was extensively cross examined by the defendant no1, which runs into several dates. The examination of PW 1 is as follows:
In order to prove his case, the plaintiff entered the witness box as PW-1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence, Ex. PW1/A, in which he reiterated the contents of the plaint as true and correct. He relied upon documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/15 (colly.), except Ex. PW1/7 which was de-exhibited and marked as Mark L, and Ex. PW1/12 which was de-exhibited and marked as Mark M. He also relied upon documents Mark A to Mark K. 4.2. PW 2, Sh. Satish Sharma, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW-2/A. The examination of PW. 2 is as follows:
PW-2, Sh. Satish Sharma, was examined as a witness for the plaintiff. He stated that he was not a summoned witness but had appeared in court at the request of the plaintiff. He deposed that he is a neighbor of the parties -residing at house No. 88, whereas the plaintiff resides at house No. 82 in the same locality and that he has known the plaintiff for about ten to eleven years. He identified himself as a salesman (pulses merchant) and produced his election identity as proof of identity; he did not have documentary proof of long residence with him in court but said he could place such records on the next date of hearing.
4.3. PW 3, Sh. Dinesh Kumar Malhotra, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW-3/A. The examination of PW.3 is as follows:
The witness denied the suggestion that he is the interested witness in the instant matter on behalf of plaintiff and further CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 12 of 39 denied the suggestion he is personally interested to purchase the suit property from the defendant no.1 but on his refusal, or that he is illegally in hand and glove with the plaintiff. The witness denied the suggestion that there was any meeting between plaintiff and defendant no.1 which took place under his mediation and under the mediation of Satish Sharma. Further, denied the suggestion that the defendant no.1 did not allow plaintiff to complete the construction and defendant no.1 is defaulter in any respect. The witness denied the suggest that plaintiff is in default to comply the terms and conditions of the collaboration agreement, in all respect. Further, the denied the suggestion that the plaintiff had took forcible and illegal possession of 2nd floor of the property bearing no.BFH-82 (west), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088.
5. DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE 5.1. The defendant no 1, Sh. Rajender Paul Varmani, entered the witness box as witness no DW. 1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit EX. DW-1/A. The witness relied on many documents which are as follows:
a. Ex. DW. 1/1 which is reply to notice is de-
exhibited as it is already exhibited as PW. 1/9. b. RWA letter Ex. DW. 1/2 (OSR) c. Exhibit DW 1/3 is the copy of complaint dated 19.12.2011 which is now de-exhibited.
d. Complaint dated 07.01.2012, Ex. DW. 1/4 (OSR) e. Ex. DW. 1/5 is the copy of the complaint dated CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 13 of 39 05.03.2012, which is now de-exhibit. f. Copy of House rent cheque & its deposit slip is marked as Mark 'A'.
g. Copy of Special Power of Attorney is mark as Mark 'B'. The same is not on record.
h. Copy of Jal board bill & NDPL bill is marked as Mark 'C' i. Copy of handwritten agreement dated 22.11.2010 which is already exhibited as PW.1/D-7 j. Copy of Collaboration Agreement which is already exhibited as Ex. PW 1/5.
5.2. During Cross examination, the cross examination of defendant no 1 is as follows:
The defendant, Sh. Rajender Paul Varmani, entered the witness box as DW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A. He relied upon several documents, namely the RWA letter Ex. DW-1/2 (OSR), complaint dated 07.01.2012 Ex. DW-1/4 (OSR), copy of house-
rent cheque and deposit slip Mark A, alleged Special Power of Attorney Mark B (not on record), Jal Board and NDPL bills Mark C, handwritten agreement dated 22.11.2010 already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D-7) and the Collaboration Agreement (already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/5). Certain documents sought to be relied upon were de-exhibited as they already stood exhibited during plaintiff's evidence.
In his cross-examination, DW-1 stated that although he does not recall the exact date of execution, the Collaboration Agreement was indeed entered into with the plaintiff. He CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 14 of 39 admitted that the plaintiff had laid the lintel of all three floors, though he volunteered that the same was not properly executed. He further admitted that he has not filed any suit seeking specific performance of the said agreement or claiming damages against the plaintiff.
DW-1 also admitted that he had handed over physical possession of his plot to the plaintiff for the purpose of reconstruction and that prior to collaboration, the structure comprised a semi-constructed ground and first floor which was demolished by the plaintiff. He acknowledged that the property presently stands constructed up to the third floor, though he disputed the quality and completeness of construction. He stated that he is in possession of the first floor but has not been residing there for the past two years. He admitted filing a separate suit for possession against the plaintiff, pending before the Court of the Ld. District Judge, Rohini.
He further admitted that in 2014- 2015, he had forcibly entered the suit property, stating that the plaintiff had not paid rent for three years. He acknowledged receiving ₹5,00,000/- from the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement. He admitted that he had not spent any amount on construction except 2,200/- towards purchase of sand and payment of an electricity bill. He also admitted that the plaintiff was entitled to the second floor without roof rights under the agreement but volunteered that construction was incomplete.
When confronted with Ex. PW-1/D-9, the defendant denied authorship of the handwritten endorsement at point 'A'. CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 15 of 39 He challenged the report of the Local Commissioner (Ex. PW-1/3) as incorrect but admitted that he has not challenged it before any forum. He admitted that the building plan had been sanctioned and that the plaintiff had given him 1,60,000/- for the same, though he volunteered that he spent some additional amount without specifying the figure. He admitted that the suit property continues to stand in his name.
He denied allegations of damaging the property but admitted his son's signatures on an affidavit marked DW-1/X-1, while disputing its contents. He identified the photographs of the property already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/15 (colly.). He admitted filing a civil suit in 2019 for possession of the entire property, and the certified copies of the said case record were collectively exhibited as Ex. DW-1/X-2. When confronted with his cross-examination in the said suit dated 25.09.2024 (portion A-1 to A-2), he admitted deposing that he was in possession of three floors of the property.
DW-1 denied awareness of police complaints made by the plaintiff regarding alleged damage or fire;
copies of the said complaints were shown to him and marked as Mark A, B and C. He stated that he is agreeable to allowing the plaintiff to complete the pending construction or rectify deficiencies. He denied the suggestion that his affidavit Ex.
DW-1/A is beyond pleadings or that it contains false statements.
He admitted his possession of a shop at Shakti Nagar on pagdi basis and the pendency of eviction proceedings in respect thereof. When confronted CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 16 of 39 with contradictions between his depositions before this Court and in the earlier suit, he denied the inconsistency. When shown video recordings produced by the plaintiff, he admitted their correctness; the same were directed to be filed on record in a pen drive along with certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, collectively exhibited as Ex.
DW-1/X-3.
DW-1 denied all suggestions that he is deposing falsely.
6. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES 6.1. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that it is a clear case where the court should exercise its discretionary powers to grant specific performance of contract.
6.2. Further, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff had substantially invested in the property of the defendant and this clearly signifies his readiness and willingness to perform the Collaboration Agreement date 24.11.2010. 6.3. The attention of this court is drawn to Clause 6 of Collaboration Agreement dated 24.11.2010 and it is argued by the Ld. Counsel that immediately on completion of third floor the defendant was obligated to handover physical possession of third floor and execute the documents in favor of plaintiff. It is further submitted that due to non-fulfilment of conditions of Clause 6, it further galvanized the plaintiff to seek redressal of his grievance by filing CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 17 of 39 the present suit.
6.4. The Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argues that defendant no 1 never filed any case for enforcement of Collaboration Agreement and nor filed any case seeking damages on account of alleged sub-standard construction carried out by the plaintiff. 6.5. Per Contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for Defendant no 1 that there is no averment as to readiness and willing to perform the Collaboration Agreement dated 24.11.2010.
6.6. Further, it is argued that the discretionary relief of Specific Performance of Contract should not be extended to the plaintiff as he has not come before the court with clean hands.
6.7. It is also argued by the Ld. Counsel for defendant no 1 that the Clause 6 has been misinterpreted by the plaintiff and Clause 6 nowhere says the physical possession of the third floor is to be given on the completion of 'Super Structure" in fact it says on completion which signifies complete in all aspect. It is further submitted that it is admitted position that the plaintiff has failed to complete the building construction in terms of Collaboration Agreement. 6.8. It is further argued that the entire project was to be completed with 13 months and the plaintiff failed to complete it.
6.9. Further, the attention of this court is drawn to the para 21 of the plaint wherein it is admitted by the plaintiff that the work is 'Almost Complete' which signifies that that the work was not complete at all. CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 18 of 39 6.10. Final Arguments heard on behalf of parties at length.
Considered. Documents perused.
7. ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION 7.1. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, considered the relevant provisions of law, pleadings of both the parties, testimonies of witnesses and material on record. The issue wise findings are as under:
7.2. RE. ISSUE NO 1, WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT DATED 24.11.2010?
a) The onus to prove the issue no 1 is upon the plaintiff.
The cynosure of the present dispute between the parties is the Collaboration Agreement dated 24.11.2010.
b) The seminal question arises for the consideration of this court is what is the nature of the Collaboration Agreement? and Can it be specifically enforced under Section 10 of Specific Relief Act?
c) In order to arrive at a conclusion supported by mandate of law, I have the profit of referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Sushil Kumar Agarwal V. Meenakshi Sadhu & Others (2019) 2 SCC 241, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in has held as follows:
17. The expression "development agreement" has not been defined CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 19 of 39 statutorily. In a sense, it is a catch-all nomenclature which is used to be describe a wide range of agreements which an owner of a property may enter into for development of immovable property. As real estate transactions have grown in complexity, the nature of these agreements has become increasingly intricate. Broadly speaking, (without intending to be exhaustive), development agreements may be of various kinds:
17.1. An agreement may envisage that the owner of the immovable property engages someone to carry out the work of construction on the property for monetary consideration. This is a pure construction contract;
17.2. An agreement by which the owner or a person holding other rights in an immovable property grants rights to a third party to carry on development for a monetary consideration payable by the developer to the other. In such a situation, the owner or right holder may in effect create an interest in the property in favour of the developer for a monetary consideration;
17.3. An agreement where the owner or a person holding any other rights in an immovable property grants rights to another person to carry out development.
In consideration, the developer has to hand over a part of the constructed area to the owner. The developer is entitled to deal with the balance of the constructed area. In some situations, a society or similar other association is formed and the land is conveyed or leased to the society or association;
18. When a pure construction contract is entered into, the contractor has no interest in either the land or the construction which is carried out. But in various other categories of development agreements, the developer may have acquired a valuable right either in the property or in the constructed area. The CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 20 of 39 terms of the agreement are crucial in determining whether any interest has been created in the land or in respect of rights in the land in favour of the developer and if so, the nature and extent of the rights.
d) Assaying the above mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that the Collaboration Agreement dated 24.11.2010 is a development agreement to develop or construct the building on the land owned by the defendant no 1, by the plaintiff . Further, the recitals of the aforesaid Collaboration Agreement is required to be examined. The important stipulations of aforesaid agreement is as follows:
i) The Collaboration Agreement dated 24.11.2010 admittedly was entered between plaintiff (Second Party) and defendant (First Party). Further, the agreement stipulates that the first party is interested to demolish the Demised premises and construct Four Storied building on the said demised premises as per sanctioned plan on the said demised premises after demolishing the existing structure belonging to owner and therefore contact to Second Party herein for the purpose who is a builder, and the first party in his sound and disposing mind, without undue undue influence, coercion or fraud has agreed to give contract of demolition existing structure and reconstruct a four for storied building as permitted and sanction granted by the CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 21 of 39 authorities.
ii) The Subject matter of this agreement by and between both the parties is to demolish the structure existing on the demised premises and to reconstruct a four storied building on the demised premises in consonance of the "ANNEXURE" attached with the Collaboration Agreement.
iii) The First Party will hand over vacant physical possession of the said old structure to the second party for demolishing, re-constructing and development of the demised premises as per sanctioned plan.
iv) After completion of the third floor of the demised premises, the first party shall handover physical possession of Second Floor of the said property, without roof right to the Second Party and execute the Sale document in favor of the Second Party.
v) The demised premises is free from all encumbrances.
vi) The Second Party will complete the project within 13 month from the date of start of project.
vii) The Second Party has agreed to pay ₹10,00,000/- in cash to the first party. a. ₹2,00,000/- after the execution of this agreement. b. ₹ 8,00,000/- at the time of execution of sale documents in favor of the Second Party.
CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 22 of 39
viii) The It is agreed that the second party will get all approval of plan and construct the four floors at his own cost.
ix) The second party will be free to use the said second floor in any manner as he likes i.e rent out or sell the at his own will.
e) Meticulous examination of above stipulations clearly signifies that that the Collaboration Agreement dated 24.11.2010 is a construction agreement wherein the owner of the demised premises had agreed to get the building constructed to the extent of four floors at the expense and cost of the builder (plaintiff). Further, there is a clear stipulation in Collaboration Agreement, wherein immediately at the completion of third floor of demised premises the first party shall handover physical possession of Second Floor of the said property, without roof right to the Second Party and execute the Sale document in favor of the Second Party and the second floor can be utilised by the plaintiff in any manner. This stipulation clearly signifies that the plaintiff have secured valuable interest in the property in the form Second Floor.
f) Another crucial stipulation was payment of ₹ 10,00,000/- out which plaintiff paid ₹ 5,00,000/- and completion of project within 13 month from the start of project.
g) Now, Coming to second question Whether the Collaboration Agreement dated 24.11.2010 can be specifically enforced? The Hon'ble Supreme Court Sushil Kumar Agarwal, (2019) 2 SCC 241(Supra), CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 23 of 39 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
25. The issue before this Court is whether Section 14(3)(c)(iii) is a bar to a suit by a developer for specific performance of a development agreement between himself and the owner of the property. The condition under Section 14(3)(c)(iii) is that the defendant has, by virtue of the agreement, obtained possession of the whole or any part of the land on which the building is to be constructed or other work is to be executed. If the rule of literal interpretation is adopted to interpret Section 14(3)(c)(iii), it would lead to a situation where a suit for specific performance can only be instituted at the behest of the owner against a developer, denying the benefit of the provision to the developer despite an interest in the property having been created. This anomaly is created by the use of the words "the defendant has, by virtue of the agreement, obtained possession of the whole or any part of the land" in Section 14(3)(c)(iii). Under a development agreement, an interest in the property may have been created in favour of the developer. If the developer is the plaintiff and the suit is against the owner, strictly applied, clause (iii) would require that the defendant should have obtained possession under the agreement. In such a case if the developer files a suit for specific performance against the owner, and the owner is in possession of the land by virtue of a lawful title, the defendant (i.e. the owner) cannot be said to have obtained possession of the land by way of the agreement. This would lead to an anomalous situation where the condition in Section 14(3)(c)(iii) would not be fulfilled in the case of a suit by a developer. Application of the literal rule of interpretation to Section 14(3)(c)(iii), would lead to an absurdity and would be inconsistent with the intent of the CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 24 of 39 Act.
27. By giving a purposive interpretation to Section 14(3)(c)(iii), the anomaly and absurdity created by the third condition will have no applicability in a situation where the developer who has an interest in the property, brings a suit for specific performance against the owner. The developer will have to satisfy the two conditions laid out in sub-clauses (i) and
(ii) of Section 14(3)(c), for the suit for specific performance to be maintainable against the owner. This will ensure that both owners and developers can avail of the remedy of specific performance under the Act. A suit for specific performance filed by the developer would then be maintainable. Whether specific performance should in the facts of a case be granted is a separate matter, bearing on the discretion of the court.
h) Apply principles laid down by Hon'ble Court as adumbrated above to the present case, the bar of Section 14, Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not apply in the present case and the case of plaintiff falls under conditions laid out in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 14(3)(c). The plaintiff in consonance of Collaboration Agreement dated 24.11.2010 did the following acts:
i. The plaintiff made payment of ₹5,00,000/-
which stands admitted by the defendant in his evidence. It is also pertinent to mention herein that as per the Collaboration Agreement the plaintiff was supposed to make payment of ₹2,00,000/- at the time of execution of Collaboration Agreement.
ii. The plaintiff took permission from concerned CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 25 of 39 department for issuance Sanction plan. iii. The Plaintiff took possession of the demised premises and started construction. Further, the plaintiff erected the super structure and invested substantial amount of money in the construction. The plaintiff has brought on record various bills, slips etc. to substantiate the claim of expenditure on the erection of super structure and further, completing the project only some work which is incomplete can be substantiated from the report of Local Commissioner.
iv. The plaintiff has been able to show that he has invested substantial amount of money in the demised premises which clearly signifies that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the contract.
v. The Local Commissioner Report, photographs, and evidence on record clearly signifies that the plaintiff has invested substantial money in erection of super structure.
vi. Thus, after examination of facts adumbrated above, I am of the view that the present suit for specific performance is maintainable and the bar of Section 14 (c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not apply in the present case.
i) Coming to the case in hand, the present suit is of 2012, therefore, the amendment to Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not apply to the present case as the CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 26 of 39 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Katta Sujatha Reddy & Ors, Supreme Court, 2024 20 SCC 140, thus the Section 10 applies to the present case not affected by the amendment of 2018. Section 10, before the amendment, conferred courts with the discretion to provide a decree for specific performance.
j) Section 10, before the amendment in 2018 stated that the Court can exercise its discretion to award specific performance of contract where (a) there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused by the non-performance of the act agreed to be done;
or (b) when the act agreed to be done is such that compensation in money for its non-performance would not afford adequate relief. The Explanation provided that unless there is anything to the contrary, the court shall presume that the compensation in money is not an adequate relief for the breach of a contract to transfer immovable property.
k) Now considering the arguments led by parties. One of the important arguments is the interpretation of Clause 6 of the Collaboration Agreement. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for defendant no1 that Clause 6 nowhere says the physical possession of the third floor is to be given on the completion of 'Super Structure" in fact it says on completion which signifies complete in all aspect. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff the Clause 6 has to be literally interpreted and it simply recites CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 27 of 39 that on completion of Second Floor of demised premises the defendant no 1 is obligated to transfer physical possession and execute Sale Documents.
l) The interpretation of recital of document needs to be specific, unambiguous and clear. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Kishore Sehgal Thru LRs Versus Murti Devi (D) Thru Lrs, 2024 SCC Online SC 2582, the Court held as follows:
18. It is a cardinal principle of interpretation that where the language employed in the instrument is clear and unambiguous, the common literary meaning ought to be assigned in interpreting the same and one should not fall back on any other inference. Only the expression in clear words contained in the instrument/document must be considered and not the surrounding circumstances. In short, literal construction must be considered first, rather than going into the intention behind what is said in the instrument/document if the language of the instrument is clear and unambiguous.
m) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM) Versus E.S. Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, 2021 6 SCC 718, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
16. The duty of the Court is not to delve deep into the intricies of human mind to explore the undisclosed intention, but only to take the meaning of words used i.e. to say CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 28 of 39 expressed intentions (Smt. Kamala Devi vs. Seth Takhatmal & Anr 2 ). In seeking to construe a clause in a Contract, there is no scope for adopting either a liberal or a narrow approach, whatever that may mean.
The exercise which has to be undertaken is to determine what the words used mean. It can happen that in doing so one is driven to the conclusion that clause is ambiguous, and that it has two possible meanings. In those circumstances, the Court has to prefer one above the other in accordance with the settled principles. If one meaning is more in accord with what the Court considers to the underlined purpose and intent of the contract, or part of it, than the other, then the court will choose former or rather than the later. Ashville Investment v. Elmer Contractors. 3 The intention of the parties must be understood from the language they have used, considered in the light of the surrounding circumstances and object of the contract. Bank of India and Anr. v. K. MohanDas and Ors 4 .
Every contract is to be considered with reference to its object and the whole of its terms and accordingly the whole context must be considered in endeavoring to collect the intention of the parties, even though the immediate object of inquiry is the meaning of an isolated clause. Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors. v. M/s. Green Rubber Industries and Ors.
n) Upon assay of the above mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this court is of the opinion that the Clause 6 of Collaboration Agreement needs to read CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 29 of 39 as it is, which signifies that the defendant no 1 was obligated to transfer the physical possession of Second floor on its completion. The Clause 6 of Collaboration Agreement nowhere says it has to be complete in all aspect. It is also pertinent to mention that on refusal of defendant no1 to adhere to Clause 6 then the plaintiff sent him Legal Notice dated 23/12/2011 for compliance of Clause 6 of Collaboration Agreement. In reply to the legal Notice a reply dated 19.12.2011, EX DW1/1 was sent by defendant no 1 wherein following lines have been added which is not the part of Clause 6 which is as follows:
Your client can claim for the physical possession of the Second Floor of the said property without roof right on after completion of entire building with all finishing work, fittings, fixtures etc.
o) The addition, with all finishing work, fittings, fixtures etc, clearly signifies that it is an afterthought and it was never part of Clause 6 of Collaboration Agreement. Thus, the argument raised by defendant no 1 is liable to be rejected.
p) Another argument raised by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no1 is as per the Collaboration Agreement entire project was to be completed within 13 months which the plaintiff failed to comply with. In this regard Section 67 Indian Contract Act, 1872 needs to be considered.
"67. Effect of neglect of promisee to afford promisor reasonable facilities CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 30 of 39 for performance.--If any promisee neglects or refuses to afford the promisor reasonable facilities for the performance of his promise, the promisor is excused by such neglect or refusal as to any nonperformance caused thereby."
q) This argument of defendant no 1 is liable to rejected as it was the defendant no1 who was continuously obstructing the plaintiff in the construction work. The plea of using substandard and inferior quality material was taken by defendant no 1. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that defendant no 1 failed to produce any evidence in this regard. Thus, the arguments raised by defendant no1 is liable to be rejected.
r) Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the pleadings, oral evidence and documents placed on record, the Court finds that the plaintiff, examined as PW-1, has supported the Collaboration Agreement dated 24.11.2010 and reiterated that he demolished the pre- existing structure and raised construction up to the third floor in terms of the agreement. His deposition, though subjected to extensive cross-examination, remains consistent on material aspects, namely that he completed the super-structure, undertook all major civil work, and was repeatedly obstructed by the defendants from completing the finishing items. His admissions regarding incomplete fittings, absence of certain permissions, and lack of government licence for construction do not detract from the central assertion that the bulk of the CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 31 of 39 construction was carried out by him and that any remaining work could not be completed due to defendants' conduct. His testimony is substantially corroborated by photographs, the LC report, sanction plan and documents pertaining to payments made by him. The Court finds no material contradiction in his deposition sufficient to discard the substance of his case.
s) PW-2, an independent neighbour, testified to having witnessed demolition of the old structure, reconstruction of a multi-storeyed building, and the factum of disputes between the parties. Though PW-2 admitted that he did not read the agreement, was unaware of the internal terms, financial arrangements, or precise dates, his testimony naturally supports the plaintiff's narrative regarding the occurrence of construction and the existence of disputes. His lack of knowledge of technical and contractual details reduces the weight of his testimony but does not undermine the factual corroboration it provides regarding the physical construction activity and discord between the parties.
t) PW3, also deposed on the similar line and further corroborates the meeting of RWA with the plaintiff and defendant. Though the witness was unaware about the collaboration agreement but main factum of erection of structure and dispute with the defendant was proved by the witness. u) Turning to the defendant's evidence, which is CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 32 of 39 important piece of evidence, the defendant as DW-1 has made several material admissions. He admits executing the Collaboration Agreement with the plaintiff, handing over possession of the plot to the plaintiff for reconstruction, receiving 5,00,000/- at the time of execution, and permitting demolition of the old structure. He further admits that the plaintiff constructed the building up to the third floor, and that he (the defendant) forcibly re- entered the premises around 2014-15 alleging non-payment of rent. He has not filed any civil action for cancellation of the Agreement, specific performance, damages for defective construction, or mandatory injunction, despite alleging serious deficiencies in construction. His plea of substandard construction remains wholly unsubstantiated as he has produced no expert report, no complaint to municipal authorities, no inspection report, and did not challenge the Local Commissioner's findings, thereby rendering the allegation of defective construction unsupported by any reliable material.
v) The Court further notes that the defendant has taken inconsistent stands regarding possession. In his separate civil suit pending before the District Judge, he deposed to being in possession of three floors of the same property, whereas before this Court he claimed that he was not in possession except for the first floor. These contradictions materially affect the credibility of his testimony. Additionally, DW-1 admitted that he has spent no significant amount on CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 33 of 39 construction except for a small payment for sand and some electricity bills, thereby corroborating the plaintiff's assertion that the entire cost of construction was borne by the plaintiff. His deposition further reveals that he received 1,60,000/- from the plaintiff for obtaining sanction of the building plan. This strengthens the inference that the plaintiff was consistently performing his obligations and that the defendant was correspondingly required to execute the sale deed for the second floor upon completion of the third-floor slab, which he admittedly failed to do. w) From the totality of evidence, the Court finds that the plaintiff was ready and willing and has substantially performed his part of the Collaboration Agreement to the extent possible, and the defendants' non- cooperation and obstruction prevented completion of finishing works. The documentary evidence- particularly the sanction plan, the set of photographs, and the LC's report strongly supports the plaintiff's version. The defendants' allegations of defective construction remain unproved, unsupported by any document or expert testimony, and contradicted by contemporaneous conduct. The defendants' repeated negotiations, subsequent withdrawal from settlements, and filing of police complaints further indicate reluctance to perform their reciprocal obligations. The Court is also persuaded by the material admission of the defendant that he re- entered the property forcibly, which weakens the CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 34 of 39 defence and supports the plaintiff's assertion that he was prevented from completing the remaining work. The contradictions in the defendant's stand regarding possession, as reflected in his testimony and his deposition before the learned District Judge, further erode the reliability of his version.
x) Accordingly, the Court holds that the plaintiff's evidence is consistent, probable and supported by material on record, whereas the defendant's evidence suffers from contradictions, lack of corroboration and failure to substantiate essential allegations. The overall findings therefore tilt in favour of the plaintiff. The Court concludes that the plaintiff has proved substantial performance of the agreement, whereas the defendants have failed to discharge their reciprocal obligations and have obstructed the completion of the project, thereby disentitling themselves from challenging the plaintiff claim. y) Accordingly, after detail assay of the above facts and circumstances, this court arrives at the irresistible conclusion which supports the mandate of law that the Issue no 1 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
7.3. IN RE. ISSUE NO 2, WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO RS. 10,00,000/- AS DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION.
z) Insofar as the plaintiff's claim for damages and compensation of ₹10,00,000 is concerned, though the material on record reflects obstruction and non- cooperation on the part of the defendants, the CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 35 of 39 plaintiff has not led cogent, quantifiable evidence to establish actual monetary loss occasioned to him. The plaintiff has failed to bring on record any evidence to give credence to his claim of damages and compensation. Thus, the issue no 2 is decided against the plaintiff. The claim for damages is, therefore, declined.
7.4. IN RE. ISSUE NO 3: WHETHER THE SUIT IS NOT PROPERLY VALUED FOR THE PUPOSE OF COURT FEES.
aa) The onus to prove the issue no 3 is on the defendants as it was the defendant who had taken the objection about the under valuation of the suit by the plaintiff. As per the defendant no 1 the value of the suit property is around ₹ 1 Crore and the plaintiff has deliberately valued the suit as ₹20,00,000/-. The defendant no 1 has not led any evidence or brought any material on record to show that the value of the property was ₹ 1 Crore not ₹20,00,000/-. Therefore, in absence of cogent evidence and material the issue no 3 is decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
7.5. IN RE. ISSUE NO 4, WHETHER NO CAUSE OF ACTION ARISE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT NO 2?
7.6. In the present suit the plaintiff is claiming all the relief against defendant no 1 and no relief is sought against defendant no 2. Consequently, the issue no 4 is decided against the plaintiff and in favor of defendant no 2.
CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 36 of 39 7.7. IN RE. ISSUE NO 5, 6 & 7.
bb) The issue no 5, 6 & 7 are decided together. The defendant no 1 filed Counter Claim with amended Written Statement and also defendant no claimed damages of ₹15,00,00/- from plaintiff because of deterioration of semi constructed building by plaintiff.
cc) Admittedly, in the present counter claim defendant no 1 have failed to file court fees despite multiple opportunity. The counter claim was filed on 01.05.2015 and defendant no 1 is claiming rent of ₹3,60,000/- from July 2011 to Jun 2014. Admittedly, defendant no 1 entered the suit premises on 29.09.2014. Further, cause of action to claim rent was continuous when the plaintiff did not make any payment of rent. Thus, the onus to prove the Issue no 5 & 6 is on the defendant no1 and no material or evidence has been brought on record to show that no rent was paid by plaintiff. The issue no 5 & 7 are decided against the defendant as no court fees has been paid by the defendants on the Counter Claim amount of ₹ 360,000/- & ₹ 15,00,000/- as claimed by the defendant.
dd) In the issue no 6 defendant is claiming rent of ₹3,60,000/- from July 2011 to Jun 2014. Admittedly, defendant no 1 entered the suit premises on 29.09.2014. As per Article 52 of Schedule of Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation is three years from the time when the arrears become due. CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 37 of 39 Thus, the Counter claim was filed on 01.05.2015, and the defendant entered the suit premises on 29.09.2014, then the defendant can only get rent for the period of 01.05.2012 till 28.09.2014 and any claim beyond the said period is barred by limitation. As adumbrated above the defendant have failed to file the requisite court fees on the amount claimed in the Counter Claim and then the relief cannot be granted to the defendant and also no evidence has been led by the defendant to substantiate his claim in the Counter Claim. Accordingly, the Counter claim of defendant is hereby dismissed.
8. RELIEF ee) In view of the findings returned hereinabove, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has duly established substantial performance of his obligations under the Collaboration Agreement dated 24.11.2010 and that the defendants, despite receiving consideration and permitting demolition and reconstruction, failed to discharge their corresponding obligations and unjustifiably obstructed completion of the project. The plaintiff has, therefore, made out a case for enforcement of the contractual promise relating to transfer of the second floor. Accordingly, the suit stands decreed to the extent that the defendants are hereby directed to specifically perform the Collaboration Agreement dated 24.11.2010 by executing, in favour of the plaintiff or his duly nominated person, a registered sale deed in respect of the second floor of property CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 38 of 39 bearing No. BFH-82, West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, admeasuring 80 sq. yards, without roof rights, within a period of eight weeks from the date of this judgment, subject to the plaintiff tendering the balance sum of 5,00,000/- in terms of the agreement. In the event the defendants fail to execute the sale deed within the aforesaid period, the plaintiff shall be entitled to have the sale deed executed through the process of the Court in accordance with law. ff) Insofar as the plaintiff's claim for damages is concerned, though the material on record reflects obstruction and non-cooperation on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff has not led cogent, quantifiable evidence to establish actual monetary loss occasioned to him. The claim for damages is, therefore, declined. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering that the plaintiff was compelled to institute the present proceedings owing to the defendants' breach of their obligations, the plaintiff shall be entitled to costs quantified at 15,000/-, payable by the defendants. All other prayers stand rejected.
gg) A decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
by AKBAR
on 23.02.2026 AKBAR SIDDIQUE
SIDDIQUE Date:
2026.02.23
16:23:29 +0530
(AKBAR SIDDIQUE)
DJ-04, North District,
Rohini Courts, Delhi
CS No. 58265/16 JASPAL SINGH VS. RAJENDER PAUL VARMAIN ANR Page No. 39 of 39