Delhi District Court
Sanjeev Kumar Yadav @ Sanjay Yadav vs Jagdish Kumar Lr on 22 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
"AMONGST 20 OLDEST CASES"
CS (COMM) No. 69/2018
CNR NO.DLWT010111802018
SH. SANJEEV KUMAR YADAV @ SANJAY YADAV
S/O Late Sh.Ravinder Kumar Yadav,
R/O H.No.95, Ahir Mohlla, Nangloi,
Delhi-110041.
...Plaintiff
Versus
SMT. USHA (Now Deceased)
1. SH. JAGDISH KUMAR
(LR No.1/Husband of deceased defendant Smt. Usha)
S/o. Sh. Jai Narayan
2. SH. SHUBHAM
(LR No.2/Son of the deceased defendant Smt. Usha)
Both R/o House No.246, Y Block,
Mangolpuri, Delhi-110086
...Defendants
SUIT FOR SUIT FOR DECLARATION, SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
Date of institution of Suit : 10.12.2018
Date of Assignment to this court : 11.12.2018
Date of hearing of final argument : 20.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 22.12.2025
CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). Digitally 1/63
PREETI signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
22.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, I shall conscientiously adjudicate upon the Suit of plaintiff for Declaration, Specific Performance and Permanent Injunction, against the defendant, who is now deceased.
2. The Suit was filed as on 10.12.2018 and upon service of the summons upon the defendant, she neither appeared nor filed her Written Statement for which, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte. After leading the plaintiff evidence, the matter was heard and an ex- parte judgment and Decree dated 01.09.2020 was passed by the then Ld. District Judge, Commercial Court-02, West District, Tis Hazari.
3. On an application U/O IX Rule 13 CPC by the then alive defendant Ms. Usha, a detailed order was passed by the Ld. concerned Court dated 21.04.2022. The delay in filing the application stood condoned and the Court was of the considered opinion that defendant was not properly served on the said address and hence, ex- parte Decree has been set aside with opportunity/liberty to the defendant to file Written Statement within the directed period of time i.e. within 15 days. Hence, the present case was adjudicated thereupon.
4. Ms. Usha, original defendant and now since deceased, filed a Written Statement and reply to the interim application. However, despite directions of the Court, defendant failed to file Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 2/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 legible copies, Statement of Truth and affidavit of admission/denial of documents, as per requisites under the Commercial Courts Act 2015, despite extended timeline and accordingly, application U/O IX Rule 13 CPC stood dismissed and judgment dated 01.09.2020 restored, vide orders of the court dated 11.06.2023. However, on a subsequent application, seeking restoration of her application U/O IX Rule 13 CPC, after filing of reply by the non-applicant/plaintiff, a detailed order was passed by the Court dated 15.02.2024 whereby, conditional order was passed, allowing the defendant to contest the suit with the suit being restored to its original number. On compliance of the condition, on payment of cost and filing of the Statement of Truth and affidavit of admission/denial of documents by the defendant as per procedure, upon satisfaction of compliance of all the necessary prerequisites, case has proceeded with further, on merits.
5. In further progress of the Suit, the relevant fact being mentioned is interim orders of the court dated 03.06.2024 by which, the interim application U/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC was disposed of in light of the submissions of the defendant that plaintiff was in actual possession of the suit shop i.e. shop bearing no.I-313, Ground Floor, Karampura, Delhi, though, denying the legality of the possession of the suit shop in favour of the plaintiff. Ld. Predecessor of the court disposed of two interim applications U/O XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC, one of plaintiff and the other of the defendant, with directions to both the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit property, till further orders, which remained till the taking up of Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 3/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 file for final adjudication.
6. The matter was taken up for Case Management Hearing on 01.07.2024, after which, the matter went for trial. During this stage, a relevant order has been passed by the Ld. Predecessor dated 08.07.2024 wherein the Court took judicial notice of orders dated 22.04.2019 passed by the SDM (Patel Nagar) in case No.1.SDM/PN/145 Cr.P.C./2019/5720, PS Tilak Nagar, under Section 145 Cr.P.C., in favour of plaintiff, which was not challenged by the defendant. Ld. Predecessor clarified that the observations made vide orders dated 08.07.2024 shall not have bearing on the merits of the case, after which, the matter was re-notified for plaintiff evidence. Vide detailed orders of the Court dated 02.09.2024, permission for placing on record fresh fresh pen drive in place of old pen drive alongwith transcript, was allowed to be taken on record.
7. There is another relevant progress in the suit by way of disposal of an application U/O VII Rule 11(b) CPC that came up for hearing during the stage of trial, which was filed on behalf of defendant Ms. Usha, challenging the maintainability of the suit on the ground that there was no Commercial dispute between the parties. Vide detailed orders dated 08.08.2024, the Ld. Predecessor of the Court observed :
"...Thus, it is settled legal proposition that even if the property is residential but if it is exclusively used for commercial purpose, the dispute arising qua the said property will fall within the ambit of The Commercial Courts Act. The case law, relied upon by learned counsel for Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 4/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 defendant is therefore not applicable to the fact and circumstances of the present case.
It is nowhere denied by the defendant that the suit property in question is a shop. In view thereof, the present suit falls within the purview of The commercial Courts Act and is triable by this Court, Application is accordingly dismissed."
8. Another relevant development, during the proceedings of the case is the factum of the demise of the defendant Ms. Usha, for which an application U/O XXII Rule 4 r/w Section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of plaintiff. After holding necessary proceedings, Death Certificate of the deceased Ms.Usha and particulars of address LRs of the deceased defendant were taken on record and notice of the application was accordingly issued to the proposed LRs. Ld. Predecessor took note of the disclosure of address(es) of LRs before proceedings pending before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Petition U/S 151 CPC bearing C.R.P. No. 261/2024 titled 'Usha Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav @ Sanjay Yadav' and directed the service of the application upon the LRs by way of affixation at the address Y-246, Mangol Puri, New Delhi-110083. The application was accordingly allowed vide orders dated 15.05.2025 and owing to non-appearance of either of the LRs of deceased Ms. Usha, both the LRs were proceeded ex-parte. However, at the stage of considering the matter for ex-parte judgment upon substitution of the LRs of the deceased defendant, an application U/O IX rule 7 CPC and another application U/O XXII Rule 2 CPC was filed on behalf of LRs of the deceased Ms. Usha.
Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). AGRAWAL PREETI 5/63 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025
9. However, the application U/O XXII Rule 2 CPC was disposed of in view of the LRs having been impleaded vide earlier orders of the Court dated 15.05.2025. As regards the application U/O IX Rule 7 CPC, ld. Predecessor was pleased to allow the application and set-aside the orders dated 05.05.2025, qua the LR/applicant i.e Sh. Jagdish, husband of deceased defendant, being the sole applicant. Accordingly, LR no.2 namely Sh. Shubham, son of deceased defendant Ms. Usha, remained ex-parte. Accordingly, the case was proceeded with further.
10. Accordingly, as derived from the pleadings, the concise facts of the plaint are being summarised hereunder:-
10.1 The plaintiff was having friendly relations with the husband of the defendant namely Sh.Jagdish Kumar since last 10-12 years. In July 2017, the defendant approached the plaintiff to sell out her property/shop bearing No.I-313, Ground Floor, Karampura, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') for a sum of Rs.15 Lakhs, owing to financial crisis of her husband.
10.2 On 18.07.2017, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.15 Lakhs in cash to the defendant towards total sale consideration of suit property, to the defendant, on promise of the defendant to execute the sale documents/Sale Deed in respect of the suit property, with the concerned Registrar within a week. The documents such as Agreement to Sale & Purchase, Affidavit, Receipt, Deed of Will and Possession Letter were executed in favour of the plaintiff at the office Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 6/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 of Sh.O.P. Sharma, Notary Public, on 20.07.2017 with two witnesses namely Sh.Mahender Pal S/o Sh.Jai Singh & Imran S/o Sh.Bhure. It is averred that at the time of receiving the consideration amount of Rs.15 Lakhs, defendant handed over all the original chain of papers pertaining to the property to the plaintiff and physical peaceful possession of the suit property was also handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant in the presence of both the witnesses. On 20.07.2017, at the time of notarizing the documents, the defendant again assured the plaintiff to get the documents registered with the concerned Registrar Office within a week. Plaintiff got the entire proceedings videographed with his mobile and preserved the video to a Pendrive, which is annexed with the plaint.
10.3 Being the absolute owner of the property in question, on 21.07.2017, the plaintiff rented out the suit property to Sh.Braham Singh S/o Sh.Azad Yadav R/o WZ-340, Shakarpur Village, Pitampura, Delhi, at a monthly rent of Rs.35,000/-.
10.4 It is averred that on 22.07.2017, plaintiff reached the suit property when he found the defendant alongiwth Property Dealer, in an attempt to sell the suit property alongwith top floor to one Sh.Ram Niwas, for which, defendant also received token money of Rs.25,000/-. It is averred that the said Sh. Ram Niwas handed over the token/Bayana receipt to the plaintiff on his revelation of being earlier purchaser of the suit property. It is averred that as learned form Sh. Ram Niwas defendant had told them that she had lost the original chain of papers pertaining to the sit property in question and CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). Digitally 7/63 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 that she had procured duplicate chain of papers for the same, after lodging a FIR in this regard. The plaintiff warned the defendant to lodge a criminal complaint against her for her criminal conspiracy.
Defendant apologized for her act and left from there. The said episode is also videographed in the mobile of plaintiff and preserved in Pendrive.
10.5 A false criminal complaint was filed by the defendant Smt.Usha at PS Subhash Place with concocted allegations that plaintiff had kidnapped the defendant and forcibly executed the papers, under force and pressure. After finding the allegations baseless, the concerned IO filed a Status report in favour of the plaintiff.
10.6 The plaintiff got transferred the electricity connection in his name on 21.11.2017. Defendant neither executed the sale documents nor refunded the amount, despite the plaintiff requesting the defendant, several times. The plaintiff is ever ready to perform his part of contract and get the sale documents registered for which the entire consideration has already been given to the defendant, in respect of the suit property 10.7 The defendant instead of performing her part of contract and execute the sale documents, is threatening that she would create third party interest and would sell the said property to some other person. The defendant has lodged several false, frivolous and fabricated complaints before the various Agencies against the Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 8/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 plaintiff in order to get wrongful gains for herself. The plaintiff apprehends that if the defendant succeeds in creating third part interest, plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Hence, the present suit.
10.8 The cause of action for filing the present Suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant when the defendant tried to sell the suit property to third person and further arose on each and every occasion when a false criminal complaint was filed at PS Subhash Place. It is further arose on 04.06.2018, when the plaintiff was sent to jail on the false and frivolous complaint lodged by the defendant. It again arose on 11.09.2018, when the defendant lodged another false and frivolous complaint at P.S. Moti Nagar, against the plaintiff. The cause of action stated to be still continuing in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
10.9 The present suit has been filed before this Court as the suit property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and also agreement of sale and purchase was executed and amount was paid within the jurisdiction of this court. It is stated that this Court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit.
10.10 The plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of declaration at Rs.200/-, being in physical possession of the suit property, for specific performance at Rs.200/- and for permanent injunction at Rs.150/-, and stated that the appropriate Court fee has been affixed thereupon. The value of the suit property is Rs.15 Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 9/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 Lakhs, stated to be within pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. It is stated that the suit property is commercial.
10.11 By way of the present suit, plaintiff has prayed for :-
(a) A Decree of declaration that plaintiff is the owner of the suit property.
(b) A Decree of specific performance in its favour and against the defendant to execute the Sale Deed in respect of the suit property.
(c) A Decree of permanent injunction, thereby, restraining the defendant and her associates, from permanently creating any third party interest in respect of suit property, as well as the settled possession of the plaintiff thereupon.
11. As per Written Statement filed on behalf of the then defendant Smt. Usha which shall be read as Written Statement on behalf of the contesting defendant/LR No.1 Mr. Jagdish, the crystalised facts in defence and contest by defendant, as averred in the Written Statement, are as under.
11.1 As per the averments in the Written Statement, the suit of the plaintiff has been outrightly denied on merits. There are several legal objections raised by the defendants, interalia being non- maintainability of the suit as filed without any valid cause of action; suit is not maintainable U/S 2(c) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015; CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). Digitally 10/63 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 inadequate court fees paid by the plaintiff; suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable being gross abuse and misuse of process of law; plaintiff has not valued the suit property for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, has not affixed proper court fee on the suit; summons were never served upon the defendant; the suit is not maintainable being barred by provisions of General clause SC/ST Act.; suit is barred by Section 269ST of Income Tax Act, though denying receipt of Rs.15 Lakhs in cash; plaintiff approached the court with unclean hands; concealment of material facts including pendency of criminal case against the plaintiff for which an FIR is pending; suit is based on false and concocted story; plaintiff having lodged a false FIR against the defendant at Rohtak Haryana; suit based on concealment of material facts; a civil suit already pending before before SDM Court; present suit being barred under Specific Relief Act, deserves dismissal not being a Commercial dispute.
11.2 On merits, Defendants have outrightly denied the entire avermens stated in the plaint as wrong and false. Defendant never approached to the plaintiff to sell out her shop (M/s. Shubham Motors) bearing No. I-313, Karampura, Delhi, referred to as Suit property. Defendant has good reputation and deep roots in the market and society and their work was going well and there was no necessity of selling the suit shop, as claimed. Suit of the plaintiff is base on false, concocted, and fabricated facts and the receipt of the plaintiff is fake, forged, and fabricated. Therefore, suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). GUPTA AGRAWAL 11/63 GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 11.3 The defendant never took single any penny from the plaintiff and the suit of the plaintiff is barred as per Income Tax Act as not more then Rs. 2 Lakhs can be given in cash. The entire story of plaintiff about giving Rs. 15 lakh in cash to the defendant is false and fake. It is denied that defendant got executed/notarised documents such as agreement to sell and purchase, Affidavit, Receipt, Deed of will and possession letter in favor of plaintiff at the office of Sh. O.P.Sharma Notary Public. It is further denied that the defendant has got signed in the presence of witnesses Mahender pal and Imran on the documents Registration No. 3584. It is further denied that the defendant handed over all chain documents and physical possession of the property to the plaintiff.
11.4 On 30.04.2017, bag of the defendants was snatched by the bikers, which contained relevant/important property documents including other things and Rs.1000/-, for which, defendant lodged a criminal complaint with the police. It is further averred that on July 2017, two unknown persons kidnapped the defendant and taken to a farm house, where plaintiff forcibly took her thumb impression on written and blank papers after mercilessly beating her (deceased defendant). It is averred that defendant did not sign any documents and blank papers and is/was an un-educated woman. On 01.05.2018 the goons of the plaintiff had beaten the defendant at the suit property for which FIR No. 150/2018 was lodged. It is stated that the entire documents of the plaintiff are totally fake, forged and fabricated, denying the averments in the plaint outrightly.
Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). AGRAWAL PREETI 12/63 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 11.5 It is denied that defendant ever assured the plaintiff for registering the sale documents of the suit property. The defendant is/was the sole owner of the suit property and the plaintiff got prepared the alleged documents by fraud and unlawful act, committed against the defendant belonging to ST cagetory. Plaintiff prepared all documents without Aadhar number and PAN and the entire story is contradictory, fake and fabricated, with criminal and malafide intention. The defendant had filed the complaint for her kidnapping and forcibly getting thumb impression by the plaintiff.
11.6 It is stated that the suit property has been grabbed by the plaintiff without payment of a single penny to the defendant and that the plaintiff has filed the present Suit to to mislead the Court by false and fabricated story. It is denied that any cause of action ever arose at any point of time in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant at any point of time. It is stated that the suit has not been valued properly for relief as stated and even proper and appropriate court fees has not been affixed. It is denied that plaintiff is entitled to any relief as prayed, praying for dismissal of the suit.
12. Replication was also preferred by the plaintiff to the Written Statement, wherein contents of the plaint have been reiterated and the averments and all allegations in the written statement have been denied, praying for decreeing the Suit in his favour and against the defendant.
Digitally PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). GUPTA AGRAWAL 13/63 GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025
13. On completion of pleadings, following issues were arrived at, to be adjudicated upon by the Court:
1. W h e t h e r p l a i n t i ff i s e n t i t l e d t o d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t p l a i n t i ff i s t h e r i g h t f u l o w n e r o f t h e s u i t p r o p e r t y b e a r i n g N o . I - 3 1 3 , G r o u n d F l o o r, Karampura, Delhi? (OPP)
2. W h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i ff i s e n t i t l e d t o d e c r e e o f permanent injunction? (OPP)
3. W h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i ff i s e n t i t l e d t o a d e c r e e o f specific performance? (OPP)
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable Under Section 2(C)(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? (OPD)
5. W h e t h e r t h e C o u r t f e e p a i d b y p l a i n t i ff i s inadequate? (OPD)
6. Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE:
14. It may now be relevant to concisely consider the evidence that has been led by respective parties in support of their averments. For the purpose of appreciating the evidence, it shall be relevant to consider that there have been several endeavour towards recording of evidence in the present case. There were as many as 5 plaintiff witnesses who were examined on behalf of plaintiff when the defendant remained ex-parte, leading to passing of an ex-parte judgement dated 01.09.2020. Thereafter, the next relevant progress Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 14/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 pertains to impleadment of LRs of the deceased defendant/Smt. Usha, who died during the pendency of an application U/O IX Rule 13 CPC seeking setting-aside of the ex-parte decree, which was allowed on 21.04.2022, dismissed again on 11.01.2023 and restored vide orders of the court dated 15.02.2024. Thereafter, issues in the suit have been framed as detailed herein-above on during the case management hearing on 01.07.2024. Thereafter, the plaintiff examined in chief three witness mainly PW1 plaintiff himself, PW2 Imran Chowdhary and PW3 Sh. Mahender Pal, who were also examined in chief. PW1 was also cross-examined and discharged while the matter remained re-notified for cross-examination of PW2 and PW3. PW2 has been cross-examined and discharged on 08.08.2024, when the plaintiff granted opportunity to take steps to summon remaining witnesses, as per list of witnesses.
15. While the matter was still pending towards conclusion of plaintiff evidence, the sole defendant Smt. Usha expired and her LRs were brought on record vide orders of the court dated 15.05.2025. At this stage, PW2 was further examined in respect of the additional chief examination that was led, after leave of the court in terms of orders dated 02.09.2024. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff did not wish to examine any other witness and therefore, PE was closed. Accordingly, for the purpose of adjudication of the suit there are two witness of the plaintiff, who are to be considered i.e PW1 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav and PW2 Imran Chowdhary, after which one sole witness of the defendant has been examined in D.E. Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 15/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025
16. Plaintiff/Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav appeared in the witness box to tender himself as prime plaintiff witness. Plaintiff tendered himself in evidence as PW1 and his affidavit of chief- examination is tendered and relied upon as Ex.PW1/A bearing his signatures at Point A and Point B. By way of affidavit of chief- examination, PW1 has deposed as per the averments in the plaint and has relied upon documents, detailed as under :
Sl No. Documents Exhibited as
1 Certified copy of Notarized Agreement to Sale Ex.PW1/1
and Purchase
2 Certified copy of Notarized Affidavit Ex.Pw1/2
3 Certified copy of Notarized Receipt Ex.PW1/3
4 Certified Copy of Notarized Deed of Will Ex.PW1/4
5 Certified Copy of Notarized Possession Letter Ex.PW1/5
6 Certified copy of Rent Agreement Ex.PW1/6
7 Pen Drive having video Ex.PW1/7
8 Receipt of Token Money executed in favour of Ex.PW1/8
Sh. Ram Niwas
9 Copy of Status report filed by the police Mark-A
Ex.PW1/9 de-exhibited/
10 Certified copy of summoning order dated Ex.PW1/10
23.12.2022
11 Documents issued by BSES pertaining to transfer Ex.PW1/11 (Colly) of electricity connection in the name of deponent 12 Site plan of the suit property Ex.PW1/12 13 Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/13 14 Certified copy of Kalandara dated 22.04.2019 Ex.PW1/14(Colly) 15 Copy of letters dated 23.03.2022 and 06.06.2022 Ex.PW1/15 (Colly).
issued by The Hon'ble National Commission of Scheduled Castes
17. PW1 has been strenuously cross-examined by Sh. D. Sabharwal, ld. Counsel for the defendant (LR no.1 of deceased defendant/Jagdish), at length. During cross-examination, PW1 Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 16/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 categorically denied the suggestion that he was a land grabber from poor people. PW1 further denied the suggestion that he or his associates snatched the original documents pertaining to the suit property from the defendant or that FIR No. 192/2017 PS Subhash Place U/S 356/379/34 IPC was registered against him in this regard. He further denied that he was not approached by husband of defendant to sell the suit property. PW1 denied that attestation of notary Ex.PW1/1 (Agreement of sale and purchase) is illegal and also categorically denied that the consideration of Rs.15 Lakhs was not paid to the defendant. He further denied the suggestion that document PW1/1 (Agreement to Sale and purchase) and Ex.PW1/3 (Notarised Receipt) were signed by defendant (deceased Ms. Usha) at the farm house of the deposing witness. PW1 explained in his testimony that only two documents were signed by the defendant at his farm house and that remaining were signed by her before the Notary in the Court. He further denied that the defendant has signed the documents under coercion and at gun point, asserting that the documents were signed by the defendant voluntarily.
18. The cross-examination of PW1 was also recorded in respect of the registration of FIR No.150/2-18 PS Moti Nagar, U/S 447/448/386/323/506/34 IPC, registered against the plaintiff/PW1, as admitted. Though, denying that it was also registered against other persons and deposing that it was a false FIR. PW1 further deposed that he came to know about the complaint dated 21.07.2017 filed by the defendant on 26.07.2017 on receiving a call from concerned PS Subhash Place. PW1 categorically denied the suggestion that the Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 17/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 possession of suit property was forcibly taken by him, prior to execution of sale documents or that the suit property is a residential property, explaining that the suit property involved a shop which was purchased by plaintiff/PW1 from defendant and that the defendant herself was using the suit property as a shop. The suggestion that the present suit was filed to grab the property of defendant, has been denied and further denied that the suit was false or that the defendant is deposing falsely.
19. The second witness on behalf of the plaintiff is PW2 namely Imran Chowdhary who tendered his affidavit of chief- examination as Ex.PW2/A and additional affidavit of evidence by way of Ex.PW2/A1 bearing his signatures at Point A and Point B. Both the affidavits were taken on record as chief-examination by way of his respective statements dated 29.07.2024 and 15.05.2025. In his chief-examination, the witness deposed in support of execution of the documents. During chief examination, the witness deposed in support of execution of the documents. During chief-examination, PW2 has deposed that he is one of the witnesses alongwith Mr. Mahender Pal at the time of notarisation of the documents executed by deceased defendant Ms. Usha, in respect of the suit property and has placed reliance, on already exhibited documents, as witness thereof, as under:-
Sl No. Documents Exhibited as
1 Certified copy of Notarized Agreement to Sale Ex.PW1/1
and Purchase
2 Certified copy of Notarized Affidavit Ex.Pw1/2
3 Certified copy of Notarized Receipt Ex.PW1/3
Digitally
CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 18/63
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
22.12.2025
4 Certified Copy of Notarized Deed of Will Ex.PW1/4
5 Certified Copy of Notarized Possession Letter Ex.PW1/5
20. PW2 has further deposed that the assurance was given by the deceased defendant for execution of the registered sale document within one week of notarisation. He has further stated his deposition in respect of an attesting witness on the notarised rent agreement already exhibited as Ex.PW1/6. Remaining chief- examination is in support of the averments in the plaint and has specifically deposed that the receipt of token money of Rs.25,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of a third person namely Sh. Ram Niwas in an attempt to resale the suit property, was handed over to the plaintiff, which is Ex.PW1/8. PW2 also deposed that the episode pertaining to intervention of the plaintiff at the suit property on 22.07.2017 was videographed in the mobile of the plaintiff and was preserved in pen drive, in presence of the deposing witness.
21. By way of additional chief examination affidavit Ex.PW2/A1, the witness re-testified in terms of the averments in the earlier chief examination Ex.PW2/A and further sought to tender another pen drive stated to be containing the proceedings of the execution and notarisation of documents, videographed by the deposing witness PW2 in plaintiff's mobile as Ex.PW2/X1. He further tendered a Certificate U/S 63 BSA as Ex.PW2/X2.
22. The cross-examination of PW2 by ld. Counsel for LR no.1 namely Jagdish, was conducted wherein PW2 has deposed that Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 19/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 he was an employee of the plaintiff since 2007, admitting his signatures on agreement to sale and purchase Ex.PW1/1 at point A and admitted that he signed the same being the employee of the plaintiff. PW2 deposed that PW1/1 was executed in his presence at the farm house of the plaintiff. He denied that he was not aware of contents of Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6 or that he had signed the same without understanding the contents, at behest of the plaintiff. During cross-examination, PW2 failed to recollect when the possession of the suit property was handed over by defendant to the plaintiff. He admitted his signature at point 'X' on receipt Ex.PW1/5 (Notarised possession letter). PW2 failed to recall the date of signing on Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6, while denying that the defendant was made to sign these documents on gun point at the farm house. He denied that he was deposing falsely at behest of the plaintiff.
23. The witness(PW2) was further recalled for cross- examination in respect of his additional affidavit Ex.PW2/A1. During detailed cross-examination by ld. Counsel for LR no.1 Jagdish, PW2 denied the suggestion that he was complainant in FIR no. 150/2018 dated 01.05.2018, PS Moti Nagar, U/S 448/323/509/506/34 IPC. PW2 categorically denied that the said FIR was registered when documents of the suit property were forcibly snatched from deceased defendant Ms. Usha and when forcible possession of suit property was taken from Ms. Usha, as suggested. PW2 categorically denied any knowledge about the said FIR.
24. PW2 was further cross-examined in respect of another CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). Digitally 20/63 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 FIR bearing No.192/2017, PS Subhash Place, to which he expressed lack of knowledge. He denied that he was running a gang alongwith 8 to 10 other members, engaged in grabbing of property of people, after granting them loan. PW2 explained that the pen drive Ex.PW2/X1 (previously exhibited as Ex.PW1/7) was prepared at farm house and notary office in two folders. He denied signature of deceased Usha were taken on Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/8, forcibly at gun point by the plaintiff or that he was deposing falsely at the behest of the plaintiff. He denied that deceased was not given any consideration amount or that the suit was based on forged and fabricated documents.
The Plaintiff did not examine any other witness and the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE:
25. As has been considered, there are two LRs of deceased defendant Ms. Usha, who were impleaded in the array of defendants owing to her demise during the pendency of the suit. However, LR no.1 is the only contesting defendant while LR no.2 named Shubham remained ex-parte. LR no.1 of deceased defendant has tendered only witness in defence evidence. DW1, the sole defendant witness who has been examined in D.E. is Ms. Anita Yadav, Assistant Ahlmad in the court of the then Ld. ASJ-2 (West), Tis Hazari, as a summoned witness. She produced the summoned judicial file in respect of case bearing FIR No.150/2018, U/S 447/448/506 IPC and SC/ST Act, PS Moti Nagar. The witness tendered certified copy of final report as Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 21/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 Ex.DW1/A, photocopy of certified copy of complaint dated 12.04.2018 as Ex.DW1/B, photocopy of charge framed vide orders dated 17.01.2023 as Ex.DW/C and photocopy of certified copy of order on charge dated 17.01.2023 as Ex.PW1/D. A formal cross-
examination has been conducted by ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, since the summoned witness was an official witness, who admitted having no personal knowledge about contents of the record.
Defendant did not examine any other witness and the DE was closed.
26. At this stage, it may be relevant to appreciate the pending proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in C.R.P. No. 261/2024. It may be appreciated that a Revision Petition bearing C.R.P. No. 261/2024 has been filed and is stated to be pending before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the impugned orders passed by my Ld. Predecessor dated 08.07.2024, by which the application filed on behalf of defendant U/S 141 R/W Section 151 CPC was dismissed.
27. It has been observed that vide orders which are impugned before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Ld. Predecessor has already clarified that the observations made in the said orders will have no bearings on the merits of the case. It is further important to consider that this Court has not received any directions from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in regard to Stay of the trial in the present Suit. It is also submitted by both the arguing counsels on behalf of the parties, admitting that the present proceedings or the Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 22/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 outcome of the suit, are not under any stay orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi or any other Court of higher jurisdiction. It is also considered that the present Suit is amongst the top targeted cases amongst the targeted cases of the court and that this court is under directions to make most expediated efforts to bring the pendency to Zero for the targeted 5 year old matters as per the list of Action Plan for Arrears Reduction in District Judiciary (APAaR-DJ), under directions of Hon'ble Supreme court of India.
28. The Court has heard the arguments addressed by Sh. Vijay Malik, ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Sh. D. Sabharwal, ld. Counsel for defendant. The entire record including the pleadings have been perused. The applicable law has been duly considered. The entire evidence, both oral and documentary, have been appreciated.
29. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has contended in support of the plaintiff case with the arguments that all the notarised documents pertaining to suit property are duly proved. It has been strenuously argued that several false criminal proceedings were initiated by the defendant against the plaintiff for which the plaintiff also remained in three months judicial custody in a fabricated case pertaining to allegations under the SC/ST Act and has sought to draw attention of the Court to the letter issued by National Commission of Scheduled Caste, expressing regret in favour of the plaintiff, after the complaint of the defendant against the plaintiff was closed due to false and baseless allegations. It is further argued that despite false a FIR lodged by defendant at PS Subhash Place, alleging that the plaintiff Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 23/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 had kidnapped the defendant and got the documents executed forcibly, a closure Status Report was filed due baseless complaint.
30. During further arguments, ld. Counsel for plaintiff has contended that the crux of the case has been duly recorded and proved vide pen drive ExPW2/X1 to prove the case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant/LRs of the deceased defendant. It is prayed that suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant/LRs of the defendant.
31. On behalf of defendant/LR no.1 Sh. Jagdish, Sh.D. Sabharwal, ld. Counsel for defendant has submitted strenuous arguments contending that the present suit was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed submitting that the orders of this Court U/O VII Rule 11 CPC are a subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which is still pending. On Court query, it has been conceded that there is no Stay on the progress and adjudication of the present Suit. It has been argued that the present Suit is not a Commercial Suit and further that the suit of the plaintiff is based on insufficiently stamped and unregistered documents, which are not admissible in evidence. It is contended that since the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are not admissible in evidence, plaintiff has failed to prove any case in his favour and against the defendant. It is contended that the defendant has duly proved that the original property papers were snatched by the plaintiff for which a DD entry was registered. It is further contended that the present suit of plaintiff has been wrongly titled, in order to avoid payment of adequate court Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 24/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 fees for the relief of Specific Performance. During arguments, reliance has been placed on following judgments.
1. Sumer Singh & Anr. Vs. Om Prakash Gupta and Ors.; 2017 Legal Eagle(DEL) 2081 - On the aspect of the law on cases covered within the ambit of 'Commercial Dispute' as per the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
2. Bidyut Sarkar & Anr Vs. Kanchilal Pal (Dead) Through LRs & Anr.; Civil Appeal Nos.10509-10510 of 2013, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, orders dated 28.08.2024 - Regarding inadmissibility of Agreement to Sell, being insufficiently stamped.
32. Plaintiff relied on 'R. Hemlatha Vs. Kashthuri'; Civil Appeal No.2535/2023 (@ SLP (C) No.14884/2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, order dated 10.04.2023 - In support of the arguments that unregistered agreement to sell shall be admissible in suit for Specific Performance.
33. At this stage, it may be relevant to appreciate the pending proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in C.R.P. No. 261/2024. It may be appreciated that a Revision Petition bearing C.R.P. No. 261/2024 has been filed and is stated to be pending before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the impugned orders passed by my Ld. Predecessor dated 08.07.2024, by which the application filed on behalf of defendant U/S 141 R/W Section 151 CPC was dismissed.
34. It has been observed that vide orders which are impugned before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Ld. Predecessor has already clarified that the observations made in the said orders Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). AGRAWAL PREETI 25/63 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 will have no bearing on the merits of the case. It is further important to consider that this Court has not received any directions from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in regard to Stay of the trial in the present Suit. It is also submitted by both the arguing counsels on behalf of the parties, admitting that the present proceedings or the outcome of the suit, are not under any stay orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi or any other Court of higher jurisdiction. It is also considered that the present Suit is amongst the top targeted cases amongst the targeted cases of the court and that this court is under directions to make most expediated efforts to bring the pendency to Zero for the targeted 5 year old matters as per the list of Action Plan for Arrears Reduction in District Judiciary (APAaR-DJ) under directions of Hon'ble Supreme court of India.
35. It may be relevant to adjudicate Issue no.4, before the adjudication of other issues, on merits of the case, since it is to be first determined, if this Court as a designated court, having jurisdiction over cases pertaining to Commercial Courts Act, 2015, ought to entertain the Suit.
ISSUE NO.4.
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable Under Section 2(C)(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? (OPD)
36. It may not be out of place to also consider that the detailed order has been passed by this Court vide orders dated Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 26/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 08.08.2024 on an application U/O VII Rule 11 (b) CPC of the defendant. The Court, in due consideration of the authority laid down in case titled 'Jagmohan Behl Vs. State Bnak of Indire' , decided on 22.09.2017, by Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the legal binding position has been considered wherein it was held :
"The natural and grammatical meaning of clause (vii) is that all disputes arising out of agreements relating to immovable property when the immovable property is exclusively used for trade and commerce would qualify as a commercial dispute. The immovable property must be used exclusively for trade or business and it is not material whether renting of immovable property was the trade or business activity carried on by the landlord. Use of the property as for trade and business is determinative........... The expression "shall not cease", it could be asserted, has been used so as to not unnecessarily expand the ambit and scope of sub-clause (c), albeit it is clarificatory in nature. The expression seeks to clarify that the immovable property should be exclusively used in trade or commerce, and when the said condition is satisfied, disputes arising out of agreements relating to immovable property involving action for recovery of immovable property, realization of money our of immovable property given as security or any other relief pertaining to immovable property would be a commercial dispute.
(emphasis supplied)"
The application afore-detailed was disposed of with the findings of the Court that:
" Thus, it is settled legal proposition that even if the property is residential but if it is exclusively used for commercial purpose, the dispute arising qua the said property will fall within the ambit of The Commercial Courts Act. The case law, relied upon by learned counsel for defendant is therefore not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
It is nowhere denied by the defendant that the suit property in question is a shop. In view thereof, the present suit falls within the purview of The Commercial Courts Act Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 27/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 and is triable by this Court. Application is accordingly dismissed."
37. It is also important to observe that the said order of Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide orders dated 08.08.2024 are stated to be pending challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in associate proceedings, wherein there is no directions passed by the Hon'ble High court of Delhi to stay the progress of the present case or to pronounce the judgment on conclusion of trial. This suit is amongst the oldest cases. At the cost of repetition, it has been considered that the present suit is amongst the 'oldest cases of District' and under directions from Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for quickest disposal towards 'Zero' pendency of 5 years old cases. Accordingly, this issue is adjudicated afresh, after evidence has been led by respective parties.
38. Arguments addressed on the issue have been duly considered. The evidence led by the parties relevant to the issue, has been appreciated and legal position has been duly examined. The prime plaintiff witness as PW1 has duly testified that the present suit has been filed to claim and assert interests and rights of the plaintiff against the defendant, in respect of the suit property bearing No. I-313, Ground Floor, Karampura, Delhi, which is stated to be a shop. During cross-examination, PW1 has categorically denied the suggestion put on behalf of the defendant that the suit property is a residential property and volunteered to explain that the suit property is a shop which was purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 28/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 and defendant had been using the same as shop. PW2, supporting witness of the plaintiff, has also deposed that the suit property for which the plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration, specific performance of execution of sale deed and necessary additional relief, is pertaining to a shop located on the ground floor, situated in Karampura, New Delhi. The same deposition has been reasserted by additional affidavit Ex.PW2/A1. The nature of the property as residential or commercial, has not been confronted during cross- examination to PW2, specifically on behalf of defendant.
39. The only evidence that has been led on behalf of defendant/LR no.1of defendant, is a summoned witness from the Court of Ld. Sessions Judge, where a trial is pending in a criminal case and is not relevant to the current issue under consideration.
40. As per facts of the case suit for Declaration, Specific Performance and Permanent Injunction has been filed by the plaintiff against deceased defendant (now represented through her LRs with LR no.1, as contesting LR) in respect of the suit property stated to be shop bearing no. I-313, Ground Floor, Karampura, Delhi, for which the plaintiff allegedly made a payment of Rs.15 Lakhs to the defendant, towards total sale consideration. It is further the case of the plaintiff that notarised documents such as Agreement to Sale & Purchase, Affidavit, Receipt, Deed of Will and Possession Letter, were executed in favour of the plaintiff on 20.07.2017 and it was an understanding between the parties that the defendant would execute the sale documents/sale deed in respect of the suit property/shop in Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 29/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 question before the concerned registrar within a week. On failure of the defendant to execute the necessary sale documents to complete the sale, present suit was filed. It may also be relevant to consider that the plaintiff is admittedly in physical possession of the suit property and has let out the shop to one tenant namely Sh.Braham Singh, for which the rent agreement is relied upon as Ex.PW1/6. The factum of the physical possession with the plaintiff is not denied by the defendant, though, a defence has been put up that the possession of the suit property was forcibly taken by the plaintiff.
41. In the written statement of defence, being considered on behalf of the defendant/LR no.1 of the deceased defendant, it is averred that Ms. Usha/deceased defendant did not voluntarily entered into an agreement of sale and purchase and associated documents, in respect of the suit property with the plaintiff, with the allegation that the defendant was kidnapped and forcibly made to sign on blank papers, denying execution of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff. As regards the user/nature of the suit property, it is the case of the defendant itself that the defendant was running a shop at the suit property under the name M/s Shubham Motors and that the defendant did not intend to sell her shop to the plaintiff. As such, the nature of user of the suit property as a shop, has not been raised as a defence of being a residential property, in the Written Statement. This objection has only come up later, during the pendency of the Suit. However, as an Issue has been framed on the aspect, the matter deserves to be adjudicated, as per law.
Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 30/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025
42. It may be relevant to examine the legal position applicable to the facts of the present case. It is binding position as laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CM(M) No.3574/2024 in 'Kanhiya Lal Prakesh Kumar Vs. AJM Housing Pvt Ltd. , by way of the judgment dated 28.10.2024, wherein it has been held :
"6. This court has gone through the impugned order and learned Trial Court has, and rightly so, relied upon judgment of Supreme Court given in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP, (2020) 15 SCC 585 wherein the apex court has, in no certain terms, settled the legal position and has observed and held that the words 'used exclusively in trade or commerce" need to be interpreted purposefully and the word 'used" denotes, 'actually used" and it cannot be either „ready for use" or "likely to be used" or "to be used". Para 37 of said judgment reads as under:-
"37. A dispute relating to immovable property per se may not be a commercial dispute. But it becomes a commercial dispute, if it falls under sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act viz. "the agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce". The words "used exclusively in trade or commerce" are to be interpreted purposefully. The word "used" denotes "actually used" and it cannot be either "ready for use" or "likely to be used" or "to be used". It should be "actually used". Such a wide interpretation would defeat the objects of the Act and the fast tracking procedure discussed above."
7. The abovesaid categoric directions clinch the issue and makes it abundantly clear that it is the actual user of any such property which becomes the governing and deciding factor and not the 'intended user" or even 'permissible user"."
43. It has been further considered that the ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the defendant Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). AGRAWAL PREETI 31/63 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 in 'Sumer Singh and Anr. Vs. Om Prakash Gupta and Ors.' ; 2017 Legal Eagle (DEL) 2081; 2017 (2) PLR 35, dated 17.01.2017, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the case of the plaintiff is based on an Agreement for sale of purchase of a property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property involved was being used as a shop, therefore, being commercial and covered as per the sub clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
44. It is therefore a well settled legal position as per Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act, commercial disputes refer to disputes originating from agreements related to immovable properties, which are used exclusively in trade or commerce. Though, a dispute related to any immovable property may not be considered as commercial dispute, however, if the immovable property in question is being used solely in trade or commerce, the disputes arising out of such a property shall fall under the commercial disputes, within the meaning and purpose of Section 2(1)(c) (vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, as per law, the said property in question must already be in use, exclusively for trade or commerce related purposes, as on the date when the parties entered into the agreement. The fact whether the property is used exclusively for trade or commerce can be considered as the acid test to establish if a dispute should be filed as a civil suit or a commercial dispute. As such, as per law, any dispute related to immovable properties used exclusively in trade or commerce shall be considered a commercial dispute.
45. After considering the legal position and facts of the case Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 32/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 and appreciating the evidence led by the parties, it is established on record that the suit property bearing no. I - 3 1 3 , G r o u n d F l o o r, K a r a m p u r a , D e l h i was a shop and was also being used as a shop in the name and style of M/s Shubham Motors by defendant, as per the own case of the defendant, as on the date of alleged agreement for sale and purchase and additional documents, allegedly executed on 20.07.2017.
46. The defendant has not been able to bring any impediment of law or contradicting facts to discharge the onus to prove that the suit property, which is the subject matter of the present case, is not a commercial property. The right and title asserted by the plaintiff on the basis of alleged documents pertaining to suit property, involves a commercial dispute within the meaning and purpose of Section Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act,2015 and therefore, the present suit falls within the ambit of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 and is triable by this Court.
Issue no.4 is accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUES NO.1 & 3
1. W h e t h e r p l a i n t i ff i s e n t i t l e d t o d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t p l a i n t i ff i s t h e r i g h t f u l o w n e r o f t h e s u i t p r o p e r t y b e a r i n g N o . I - 3 1 3 , G r o u n d F l o o r, Karampura, Delhi? (OPP)
3. W h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i ff i s e n t i t l e d t o a d e c r e e o f specific performance? (OPP) Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 33/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025
47. Let us now examine issue no.1 & 3 on merits of the case. Issue no.1 and 3 are interconnected and hence, taken up together. Before considering the facts of the case, arguments relevant to the issues, as addressed by ld. Counsel for parties may be relevant.
48. It is the case argued on behalf of ld counsel for the plaitniff that defendant entered into a contract of sale of the suit property with the defendant for which she executed necessary documents which were duly notarised. It is further contended that the entire consideration amount of Rs.15 Lakhs has been paid to the defendant at the time of receiving the original chain of papers which were handed over by defendant to the plaintiff in the presence of witness. It is contended that the plaintiff became an absolute owner of the suit property and accordingly, leased out the suit shop in favour of a tenant since the very next date of execution of the alleged documents. It is contended that the present issued is necessary for adjudication in favour of the plaintiff since the defendant has tried to sell out the shop in question to some 3 rd party person and further that the defendant filed several criminal litigations and complaints before the SC/ST Commission with a view to deny the plaintiff his original ownership over the suit shop. It is contended that the entire proceedings of execution of documents were preserved in a pen-drive which have been tendered through its witness, praying for the Court to appreciate the dishonest intention of the defendant in denying the original ownership of the plaintiff which has been acquired by payment of the entire sale consideration to the defendant. It is further Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 34/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 contended that necessary consequential relief by way of specific performance seeking directions against the defendant to execute the sale deed have been prayed, asserting the entitlement of the plaintiff to the declaration as prayed.
49. On behalf of defendant, it has been strenuously argued that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration with the consequential relief of specific performance on the ground the agreement to sale and purchase qua the suit property was insufficiently stamped and therefore inadmissible in evidence. It is contended that for proving the agreement of sale and purchase qua the suit property, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed. It is further contended that there are several complaints made by the deceased defendant against the plaintiff regarding her kidnapping forcible signing and executing the documents relied upon by the plaintiff and further denying that any sale consideration was ever passed hands from the plaintiff to the defendant, outrightly denying the claimed rights and title of the plaintiff over the suit property. It is contended that the suit of the plaintiff seeking the declaration is misplaced, praying for dismissal of the suit.
50. Before adventing on the merits of the issue, it is considered relevant to examine the legal aspect of the rights of the plaintiff to seek the very Decree for Declaration in favour of the plaintiff as original owner of the suit property. During arguments, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2535/2023 (@SLP (C) CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). Digitally 35/63 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 No.14884/2022 in case titled 'R. Hemlatha Vs. Kashthuri', vide judgment dated 10.04.2023, submitting that the agreement of sale and purchase relied upon by plaintiff is admissible in evidence, considering that the plaintiff has also prayed for the relief of Decree of specific performance which falls within the first exception carved out in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, as under:
"13. Under the circumstances, as per proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act to be registered, may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument, however, subject to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act. It is not the case on behalf of either of the parties that the document/ Agreement to Sell in question would fall under the category of document as per Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has rightly observed and held relying upon proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act that the unregistered document in question namely unregistered Agreement to Sell in question shall be admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance and the proviso is exception to the first part of Section 49."
51. In support of the contentions of the defendant, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10509-10510 of 2013 in case titled 'Bidyut Sarkar & Anr. Vs. Kanchilal Pal (Dead) Through LRs & Anr.' vide orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 28.08.2024, has been placed reliance upon, with the contention that the agreement to sell in question was insufficiently stamped and as a document is foundation to the suit, the agreement to sell is legally inadmissible as evidence and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. However, during arguments, ld. Counsel for CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). Digitally 36/63 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 defendant failed to bring any substantial notification, regulation or rule to show that the stamp paper, on which the Agreement of sale and purchase dated 20.07.2017 was allegedly executed, was as such, insufficiently stamped document.
52. Before adventing further on the issue, the Court shall examine the maintainability of this suit as per the Decree of Declaration, Specific Performance and Permanent Injunction, as prayed by way of the present suit by the plaintiff in its favour and against the deceased defendant (now LRs of deceased defendant) qua the suit property I-313, Ground Floor, Karampura, Delhi. The court has duly appreciated the legal position in this regard and finds the applicability of the binding judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal of 2025 arising out of SLP(C) No.26848-26849/2018 in case titled 'Annamalai vs. Vasanthi & Ors.; (2025)3 SCC 523 ; vide judgment dated 29.10.2025. In the very recent afore-cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Annalalai case (Supra), issue regarding maintainability of the suit for specific performance without seeking a declaratory relief qua subsistence of the contract, at the outset, has been duly considered. Hon'ble Supreme Court duly examined the legal position, whether in absence of a declaration, a decree of specific performance could be passed and when a declaratory relief is essential. It has been held:
25. A declaratory relief seeks to clear what is doubtful, and which is necessary to make it clear. If there is a doubt on the right of a plaintiff, and without the doubt being cleared no further relief can be granted, a declaratory relief becomes essential because without such a declaration the consequential relief may not be available to the plaintiff8.
CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). Digitally 37/63 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 For example, a doubt as to plaintiff's title to a property may arise because of existence of an instrument relating to that property. If plaintiff is privy to that instrument, Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 enables him to institute a suit for cancellation of the instrument which may be void or voidable qua him. If plaintiff is not privy to the instrument, he may seek a declaration that the same is void or does not affect his rights. When a document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same is not necessary as the same is non est in the eye of law, being a nullity. Therefore, in such a case, if plaintiff is in possession of the property See: Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.R.s. and others, (2008) 4 SCC 594 which is subject matter of such a void instrument, he may seek a declaration that the instrument is not binding on him. However, if he is not in possession, he may sue for possession and the limitation period applicable would be that as applicable under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on a suit for possession. Rationale of the aforesaid principle is that a void instrument /transaction can be ignored by a court while granting the main relief based on a subsisting right. But, where the plaintiff's right falls under a cloud, then a declaration affirming the right of the plaintiff may be necessary for grant of a consequential relief. However, whether such a declaration is required for the consequential relief sought is to be assessed on a case-to-case basis, dependent on its facts....
32. In our view, a declaratory relief would be required where a doubt or a cloud is there on the right of the plaintiff and grant of relief to the plaintiff is dependent on removal of that doubt or cloud. However, whether there is a doubt or cloud on the right of the plaintiff to seek consequential relief, the same is to be determined on the facts of each case. For example, a contract may give right to the parties, or any one of the parties, to terminate the contract on existence of certain conditions. In terms thereof, the contract is terminated, a doubt over subsistence of the contract is created and, therefore, without seeking a declaration that termination is bad in law, a decree for specific performance may not be available. However, where there is no such right conferred on any party to terminate the contract, or the right so conferred is waived, yet the contract is terminated unilaterally, such termination may be taken as a breach of contract by repudiation and the party aggrieved may, by treating the contract as subsisting, Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 38/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 sue for specific performance without seeking a declaratory relief qua validity of such termination."
53. As per the facts pleaded in the plaint, plaintiff was having friendly relations with husband of the defendant, when he was approached by defendant who wanted to sell out the suit property which is shop bearing no. I-313, Ground Floor, Karampura, Delhi. On 18.07.2017, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.15 Lakhs in cash to the defendant towards total sale consideration of suit property, to the defendant, on promise of the defendant to execute the sale documents/Sale Deed in respect of the suit property, with the concerned Registrar within a week. The documents such as Agreement to Sale & Purchase, Affidavit, Receipt, Deed of Will and Possession Letter were executed in favour of the plaintiff at the office of Sh.O.P. Sharma, Notary Public, on 20.07.2017 with two witnesses namely Sh.Mahender Pal S/o Sh.Jai Singh & Imran S/o Sh.Bhure. The defendant handed over all the original chain of papers pertaining to the property to the plaintiff and physical peaceful possession of the suit property also. Plaintiff got the entire proceedings videographed with his mobile and preserved the video to a Pendrive, which is annexed with the plaint and exhibited through its wtness.
54. The plaintiff claimed to have become absolute owner of the suit property and therefore, rented out the shop to his tenant for which rent agreement is also relied upon in evidence. It is case of the plaintiff that the defendant attempted to sell the suit property to some third person and even received a token money, which receipt was handed over to the plaintiff by the third person after the plaintiff Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 39/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 informed the intending purchaser that he had already purchased the suit property.
55. The plaintiff has thereafter, narrated the entire chain of development by way of various complaints and criminal cases lodged by the defendant against the plaintiff, with the allegations that the plaintiff had kidnapped the defendant and had got forcibly executed the papers, under force and pressure. Reliance has been placed on the Closure Report filed by the police in one such FIR. Plaintiff has claimed settled position over the suit property, through his tenant by asserting the transfer of electricity connection in his name and stated that the plaintiff was always willing to perform his part of contract and get the sale documents registered, which the defendant did not cooperate. It has also been contended that a false SC/ST complaint registered by defendant, was also closed against the plaintiff and that there was also one pending false criminal complaint based on baseless accusations levelled by the deceased defendant.
56. By way of Written Statement, defendant asserted that defendant never approached to the plaintiff to sell out her shop (M/s. Shubham Motors) bearing No. I-313, Karampura, Delhi, referred to as Suit property. Suit of the plaintiff is based on false, concocted, fake receipt and fabricated facts. Defendant never took any penny from the plaintiff. It has also been denied that defendant got executed/notarised documents such as agreement to sell and purchase, Affidavit, Receipt, Deed of will and possession letter in favor of plaintiff at the office of Sh. O.P.Sharma Notary Public. It has Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 40/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 been further denied that the defendant has got signed in the presence of witnesses Mahender pal and Imran on the documents Registration No. 3584. It is further denied that the defendant handed over all chain documents and physical possession of the property to the plaintiff.
57. The further averments in Written Statement of the defendant are with the allegations that on 30.04.2017, the bag of the defendant was snatched, wherein there were important property documents and further that in July 2017, defendant was kidnapped and taken to the farm house, where plaintiff forcibly took her thumb impression after mercilessly beating her, denying that defendant signed any documents of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. It is alleged that appropriate police complaints were registered by defendant and denied that the defendant ever assured the plaintiff for registering the sale documents of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff of the suit property. It has been denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property or is entitled to the declaration or execution of the sale deed in his favour.
58. The prime witness plaintiff himself has tendered on record Agreement to sell as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6, Ex.PW1/8, Ex.PW1/11 and Ex.PW1/12. None of the documents tendered by the plaintiff witness, have been denied or challenged by defendant in his cross-examination. However, the plaintiff has not tendered on record the original chain of documents pertaining to the suit property, though the possession of these documents with plaintiff, has never been denied by defendant, either in the pleadings or during his cross- CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). Digitally 41/63 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 examination. A suggestion has been put to PW1 on behalf of defendant that original documents of the property were snatched by the plaintiff and the associates and suggestions pertaining to pending criminal cases have also been led. PW1 has been cross-examined to show that the defendant has not challenged the factum of presence of the defendant at the time of signing the documents Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/3 and signing the remaining documents by the defendant before the Notary in the Court. The only suggestion that was put to PW1 on behalf of defendant is the alleged coercion and having made the defendant sign at gun point, which has been categorically denied by the plaintiff in his testimony. PW1 outrightly denied that possession of the suit property was forcibly taken from the defendant prior to execution of sale documents.
59. The second and last witness of the plaintiff PW2 Sh. Imran Chowdhary is the attesting witness of the documents Ex.PW1/1, Ex.PW1/2, notarised receipt Ex.PW1/3, Notarised possession letter Ex.PW1/5, rent agreement Ex.PW1/6 and has also claimed to be the witness to the handing over of receipt of token of money of Rs.25,000/- allegedly executed by the defendant in favour of the third person Sh. Ram Niwas tendered on record as Ex.PW1/8. PW2 has further tendered on record the pen-drive for videography as Ex.PW2/X1 appended with the Certificate U/S 63 BSA as Ex.PW2/X2. Interestingly, during cross-examination of PW2 again, execution of the documents relied by PW1 and PW2 have not been denied. The only suggestion put to the witness was that the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6 were made to be signed by the CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). Digitally 42/63 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 defendant at gun point at farm house, which was categorically denied by the witness. It has already been considered that the only witness tendered by the defendant has been in respect of the summoned record of a pending criminal case, which shall not be relevant for consideration before this court, as it is well settled position of law that the standard of proof in a Criminal Case and a Civil Case do not stand on the same footing and more so, the progress and finding if any of the criminal case, are not binding on a Civil Court. Even otherwise, any pending criminal case may be a matter of trial and shall have no bearings on this case.
60. On appreciation of evidence, PW1 has duly proved documents i.e. certified copy of notarized agreement to sell and purchase Ex.PW-1/1, certified copy of notarized affidavit Ex.PW1/2, certified copy of notarized receipt Ex.PW1/3, certified copy of notarized deed of Will Ex.PW1/4, certified copy of notarized possession letter Ex.PW1/5, certified copy of rent agreement Ex.PW1/6, pen drive Ex.PW2/X1(Ex.PW1/1/7), original receipt of token money Ex.PW1/8, copy of papers pertaining to the transfer of connection issued by BSES Ex.PW1/11, site plan Ex.PW1/12, and certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW2/X2(Ex.PW1/13) and copy of status report as Mark A.
61. The defence put forth by the defendant is by way of denial of execution of the proved documents by the plaintiff, on the ground that the defendant was kidnapped and was taken to the farmhouse by the associates of the plaintiff, and was forced to sign Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 43/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 the same. However, from perusal of the entire evidence tendered by PW1, there is no merits in the defence raised by the defendant, who has miserably failed to show any iota of force or coercion for execution of the document tendered and proved by the plaintiff witness. Mere assertions by the defendant without any believable proof or testimony, shall in itself, be not sufficient to demolish the execution and reliability of the written documents, duly proved by PW1 on record. The signatures of the defendant on each of the documents are not denied.
62. During cross-examination of PW1, there was no cross- examination of the witness on the aspect of alleged attempt of the defendant to sell the suit property to a third person, after having received the consideration amount from the plaintiff. The receipt of consideration amount is duly proved vide Ex.PW1/3. It is also not the case put before the court that there was any other sale consideration amount that was contracted between the parties for sale of the suit property from the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant has outrightly denied receipt of even a penny of payment from the plaintiff, though, the entire evidence points out otherwise. PW1 has been able to substantiate its chief-examination by withstanding the cross-examination on behalf of defendant, to stand by the assertions averments as his testimony in chief-examination.
63. PW-2 Sh. Imran Chaudhary has come in the witness box as an attesting witness to the documents at the time of notarisation and has duly proved documents which have already been proved by Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 44/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 the plaintiff. He has also testified that defendant had assured the plaintiff that she will execute the Sale Deed with concerned Registrar within a week. He has also proved Rent Agreement dated 27.07.2017 to show that the plaintiff was in physical possession of the suit property and accordingly, gave the suit property on rent to his tenant. This fact has not been denied by the defendant, who has only made a half-hearted attempt to challenge the possession of the plaintiff through his tenant qua the suit property. The defendant has not brought forth any substantial defence to breach the testimony of PW2 and even while cross-examining and challenging the pen-drive Ex.PW2/X1, the main attention has been to cross-examine PW2 in respect of the pending criminal cases, without breaching the admissibility or contents of the pen drive Ex.PW2/X1. PW2 has also withstood the cross-examination of the defendant without any breach of dent and has duly supported the case of the plaintiff.
64. In light of the facts and evidence in the matter, plaintiff has been successful in discharging the onus to prove, by way of preponderance of probabilities, that the defendant duly executed the proved documents i.e. agreement to sell and purchase, which is Ex. PW-1/1 and Ex. PW-1/3 which is the receipt of Rs. 15 Lacs wherein total sale consideration in respect of property is 15 Lacs. The plaintiff, through both the witnesses, has also proved that the total consideration of the suit property in the sum of Rs.15 Lakhs was paid by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, as full and final payment for purchase of the suit property from the defendant. The fact of payment of cash of Rs.15 Lakhs i.e. over Rs.2 Lakhs, in Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). AGRAWAL PREETI 45/63 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 contravention of the RBI Guidelines has been taken into consideration by the court during the proceedings whereby orders dated 29.07.2025 were passed. Vide orders of even date, the matter was brought to the notice of Income Tax Department pursuant to the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme court issued in judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.5200 of 2025 (arising out of SIP(c) No.13679 of 2022) titled as 'RBANMS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION VS. B. GUNASHEKHAR and ANR', wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that upon any cash transaction for the amount of Rs.2 Lakhs and above, the Courts must intimate the same to the jurisdictional Income Tax Department to verify the transaction and the violation of Section 369 ST of the Income Tax Act, if any.
65. The plaintiff has duly established that upon payment of said sale consideration of Rs.15 Lakhs to the defendant in consideration of sale of the suit property, there are no further dues which are pending. Plaintiff has also proved that he has completely performed his part of contract and is in physical possession of the suit property. By way of unbreached testimony of the plaintiff, it has been duly proved on record that the defendant was repeatedly approached by the plaintiff for getting the sale deed registered and executed in his favour before the concerned Sub-Registrar, but the defendant avoided on one pretext or the other and infact registered several complaints against the plaintiff before different forums clearly demonstrating the disinterest of the defendant towards performance of her part of the contract. The scope of an Agreement to sell has been highlighted by CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). Digitally 46/63 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ''Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) through Director v. State of Haryana and Another.'; (2012) 1 SCC 656, wherein it was observed that :
"16. Section 54 of the TP Act makes it clear that a contract of sale, that is, an agreement of sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. This Court in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam [(1977) 3 SCC 247] observed:
"32. A contract of sale does not of itself create any interest in, or charge on, the property. This is expressly declared in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. (See Ram Baran Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazra [AIR 1967 SC 744]). The fiduciary character of the personal obligation created by a contract for sale is recognised in Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and in Section 91 of the Trusts Act. The personal obligation created by a contract of sale is described in Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as an obligation arising out of contract and annexed to the ownership of property, but not amounting to an interest or easement therein.
33. In India, the word 'transfer' is defined with reference to the word 'convey'. ... The word 'conveys' in Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act is used in the wider sense of conveying ownership.
***
37. ... that only on execution of conveyance, ownership passes from one party to another...."
17. In Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra [(2004) 8 SCC 614] this Court held:
"10. Protection provided under Section 53-A of the Act to the proposed transferee is a shield only against the transferor. It disentitles the transferor from disturbing the possession of the proposed transferee who is put in possession in pursuance to such an agreement. It has nothing to do with the ownership of the proposed transferor who remains full owner of the property till it is legally conveyed Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 47/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 by executing a registered sale deed in favour of the transferee. Such a right to protect possession against the proposed vendor cannot be pressed into service against a third party."
18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable property by way of sale can only be by a deed of conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of conveyance (duly stamped and registered as required by law), no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred.
19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale) would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54 and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under Section 53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject-matter."
66. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6377/2012 in case titled 'Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Suresh Chand and Anr.' vide judgment dated 01.09.2015 further considered the relevant provisions under the Transfer of Property Act and held :
"12. The Transfer of immovable property inter vivos is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "the TP Act"). Section 5 of the said TP Act defines "transfer of property" as follows:
"5. 'Transfer of property' defined. --In the following sections 'transfer of property' means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself or to himself and one or more other living persons and 'to transfer property' is to perform such act."
13. The TP Act envisages five different modes for CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). Digitally 48/63 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 transferring a property but for the purpose of the present appeal we are only concerned with one of the modes i.e., by way of "Sale" and the same is dealt under section 54 of the TP Act which defines "sale" and a "contract for sale" as follows:
"54. 'Sale' defined. -- 'Sale' is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and partpromised.
Sale how madeSale how made. --Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable 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 immovable 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 immovable 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 immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.
It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property."
14. Perusal of above said provisions lays down a specific mode of execution of sale deed with respect to immovable property for concluding the sale of a property. In sale for an immovable property the value of which exceeds Rs. 100/-, the three requirements of law are that the transfer of property of sale must take place through a validly executed sale deed, i.e., it must be in writing, properly attested and registered. Unless the sale deed is in writing, attested and registered, the transaction cannot be construed as sale, or in other words, the property will not be transferred.
15. There is a difference between a sale deed and an agreement for sale, or a contract for sale. A contract for sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. While a sale is a transfer of ownership; a contract for sale is merely a document creating a right to obtain another document, namely a registered sale deed to complete the transaction of sale of an immovable property.
Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 49/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 Section 54 in its definition of sale does not include an agreement of sale and neither confers any proprietary rights in favour of the transferee nor by itself create any interest or charge in the property. If after entering into a contract for sale of property, the seller without any reasonable excuse avoids executing a sale deed, the buyer can proceed to file a suit for specific performance of the contract."
67. Therefore, as per the binding law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been held as under:-
"17. In the instant matter, undisputedly plaintiff claims that there is only an agreement to sell, and there is no sale deed executed in his favour by the father. As per the settled position of law, this document does not confer a valid title on the plaintiff as it is not a deed of conveyance as per Section 54 of the TP Act. At best, it only enables the plaintiff to seek for specific performance for the execution of a sale deed and does not create an interest or charge on the suit property."
68. Accordingly, applying a well settled legal position to the facts of the present case, the documents which have been proved by the plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/8 are mere documents executed by the defendant are by way of and agreement of sale qua the suit property. It has been duly proved that possession of the suit property has been duly handed over by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff continues to enjoy the physical possession of the suit property through his tenant. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act , sale of immovable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not, in itself, create any right of ownership or valid title on the plaintiff. As per law, the documents duly proved by the plaintiff in its favour and against the defendant, by way of documents pertaining to contract of sale of the suit property bearing No. I-313, Ground Floor, CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). Digitally 50/63 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 Karampura, Delhi, shall enable the plaintiff for seeking specific performance for execution of a sale deed but in themselves do not create an interest or charge on the suit property. Accordingly, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to the Decree of Declaration of being a rightful owner of the suit property, as per law.
69. However, it has been duly proved on record that the plaintiff has parted with the entire sale consideration of the suit property and the entire intention of sale of the suit property has been duly acted upon by the defendant by accepting the entire sale consideration, coupled with handing over of physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. It is also a duly proved case that the entire original chain of ownership documents have been handed over by the defendant to the plaintiff, at the time of receiving the sale consideration. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to seek Decree of Specific performance in his favour and against the defendant(s). LR no.1 namely Jagdish is the contesting defendant and LR no.2 namely Shubham has remained ex-parte. However, both the LRs of the deceased defendant, who have now inherited the suit property being Class-1 heirs, shall step into the shoes of the deceased defendant and shall be bound by the intended sale by the deceased defendant of the suit property, in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants are accordingly directed to execute the sale deed in respect of the property in question i.e. I-313, Ground Floor, Karampura, Delhi and get the sale deed registered with the concerned Registrar within one month from the date of judgment. Cost of execution of the documents and payment of stamp duty, registration etc. shall be borne by the Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 51/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 plaintiff.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided against the plaintiff. Issue no.3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.2
2. W h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i ff i s e n t i t l e d t o d e c r e e o f permanent injunction? (OPP)
70. It is pertinent to mention that vide interim orders of the Court dated 03.06.2024, the interim application U/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC was disposed of in light of the submissions of the defendant that plaintiff was in actual possession of the suit shop i.e. shop bearing no.I-313, Ground Floor, Karampura, Delhi , though, denying the legality of the possession of the suit shop in favour of the plaintiff. Ld. Predecessor of the court disposed of two interim applications U/O XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC , one of plaintiff and the other of the defendant, with directions to both the parties to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit property, till further orders, which remained till the taking up of file for final adjudication.
71. By way of the present suit, plaintiff has asserted his rightful physical possession over the suit property bearing no. I-313, Ground Floor, Karampura, Delhi, stating that the physical possession was handed over to him by the deceased defendant, upon receiving the sale consideration amount of Rs.15 lakhs on 18.07.2017. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant assured the plaintiff to execute sale documents qua the suit property, as per law, for which Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 52/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 agreement to sale and purchase and possession letter in favour plaintiff was duly executed and notarised before the Notary public on 20.07.2017. It is also asserted on behalf of plaintiff that at the time of receiving the consideration amount, defendant handed over all original chain of documents of the suit property to the plaintiff. Furthermore, it is the case put forth by the plaintiff that the suit property has been rented out to one Sh. Braham Singh on 21.07.2017, who has been since paying monthly rent to the plaintiff.
72. The defendant has not disputed the factum of possession of the suit property with the plaintiff, through his tenant and has only denied the right of the plaintiff to continue in possession of the suit property, without setting up any counter claim for recovering the possession of the suit property. It is further claimed by the defendant that she did not execute the notarised documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/8 and that she did not receive the sale consideration amount and further that she did not handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff or original chain of documents of the property to the plaintiff.
73. The Court already examined in the former issues which have been discussed at length that the plaintiff has duly proved the execution of the notarised documents including Agreement of sale and purchase Ex.PW1/1, Receipt of consideration vide Ex.PW1/3, Possession letter vide Ex.PW1/5 and has also further proved the rent agreement with his tenant as Ex.PW1/6. The corroborative testimonies of PW1 and PW2 have duly proved the execution of the Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 53/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/5 before the Notary public and it is not the case disputed before the court as regards the signatures of the defendant upon all these documents, intending to enter into a contract for sale qua the suit property. It has also been considered that the defendant has not been able to bring on record any reliable evidence to substantiate the defence of the defendant/LRs of the defendant. It is also being considered, at the cost of repetition that the only evidence put forth by defendant via its witness DW1 is in respect of summoned record of the pending criminal case, which is not relevant and binding for consideration of the Civil rights between the parties, as per law.
74. The plaintiff has prayed for decree of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property bearing No. I-313, Ground Floor, Karampura, Delhi, seeking restraining orders against the defendant and her agents/associates from creating third party interest in the property in question. The law related to permanent injunction is provided under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 36 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, is the enabling provision which provides that the court may grant an injunction, temporary or permanent, as defined U/S 37 of the Act. The circumstances under which a permanent injunction would be granted are specified U/S 38 of the Act which lays down circumstances when a permanent injunction may be granted in order to safeguard rights related to the property. The circumstances under which permanent injunction in relation to property may be granted, are primarily governed by equitable consideration wherein the plaintiff is able to prove that the damage Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 54/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 caused or likely to be caused, cannot be determined in terms of money and that the grant of injunction may be necessary to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
75. Accordingly, in the backdrop of facts of the present case, in order to succeed for grant of relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to establish a superior legal rights to remain in possession over the suit property as against that of the defendant and has to further establish that the defendant has been threatening to commit a breach of a legal right in favour of the plaintiff to continue in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff should also show that the injunction would be necessary to prevent the breach of its right or obligation that exist in its favour and that the defendant is under an obligation towards the plaintiff, for which, damages shall not be an adequate remedy.
76. The plaintiff has, by 'preponderance of probabilities' established that he came into possession of the suit property when the same was handed over to him by the deceased defendant on 18.07.2017, after receiving the sale consideration duly proved vide Ex.PW1/8. The factum of possession of original chain of property papers with the plaintiff, has neither been denied by the defendant nor peaceful handing over of the title documents to the plaintiff, has been disproved by the defendant. The plaintiff has also been able to establish the execution of agreement of sale and purchase vide ExlPW1/1 qua the suit property in his favour, which was executed by the deceased defendant as its rightful owner. By way of the present CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). Digitally 55/63 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 suit, plaintiff has prayed for the necessary relief to seek specific performance of execution of the sale deed and additional documents, by way of registered documents pertaining to transfer of property, before the concerned registrar. The plaintiff has also established that the deceased defendant did not comply with the obligation and assurance to execute the registered sale deed qua the suit property in favour of plaintiff, despite execution of the agreement of sale and purchase the property vide Ex.PW1/1 and additional documents vide Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.P/W1/5. The LRs of the deceased defendant of which, LR no.1 namely Jagdish is the husband of the deceased defendant, is the only contesting defendant ,upon demise of the defendant Smt. Usha, during pendency of the suit. The other LR No.2 Shubham, son of the deceased defendant, remained ex-parte.
77. Plaintiff has also placed reliance through its witnesses PW1 and PW2 upon their testimonies pertaining to the an attempt of the defendant in selling the suit property to some third person. The corroborative testimony of PW1 and PW2 have also stated having placed their hands on a receipt of Rs.25,000/- allegedly executed by the defendant in favour of a third person Sh. Ram Niwas and have sought to exhibit the same vide Ex.PW1/8. However, both the deposing witnesses are third parties to the exhibit, which is not an admitted document by the defendant. Nevertheless, the oral testimonies of both the witnesses have clearly established existence of a genuine apprehension that a third party interest may be created in the suit property by the defendant or her LRs, if the present relief is not granted.
Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 56/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025
78. The present relief pertains to equitable rights where the court is to duly consider upholding equity and balance in order to prevent multiplicity of litigations between the parties. The very trial of the present case reveals several pending criminal cases and denial of grant of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, is likely to further disturb public order and equitable interests between the parties. Keeping in view that the possession of the property has changed hands from deceased defendant to the proposed buyer/plaintiff, who has been in settled possession through his tenant, since last more than 8 years and also having considered that the entire sale consideration has already been paid by the plaintiff, denying the relief of permanent injunction, cannot be compensated by grant of any damages for payment of money. Accordingly, the plaintiff has been able to discharge the onus to prove this issue in its favour and against the defendant.
79. A Decree of permanent Injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against both the LRs of deceased defendant, who are now defendants, restraining the defendants, directly or indirectly from creating any third party interest in the suit property in question i.e. shop bearing no.I-313, Ground Floor, Karampura, Delhi, till execution of Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff and thereafetr, except by due process of Law.
Issue no.2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 57/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 ISSUE NO.5
5. W h e t h e r t h e C o u r t f e e p a i d b y p l a i n t i ff i s inadequate? (OPD)
80. This issue has been framed for determination after trial of the Suit and accordingly, after meticulous consideration of the entire judicial proceedings that have taken place in the suit, it is reflected that the objection pertaining to non-payment of court fees by the plaintiff was never pressed before the court, before trial and there has been no adjudication or direction by the Court at any point of time, for issuing directions to the plaintiff for deposit of proper court fees as contemplated under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC,
81. As per Order VII Rule 11 (b) CPC :-
"11. Rejection of plaint:-
(a)...
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;"
There is a appendix proviso to Order VII Rule 11 (b) CPC, as under :
"[Provided that the time fixed by the court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice fo the plaintiff]"
Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 58/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025
82. It has been a strong contention on behalf of the defendant that the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court fee on the valuation of the suit property at Rs.15 Lakhs, for the purpose of valuation of the suit and also for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. The Court need not consider the aspect of pecuniary jurisdiction, as it is not a question of contest after adjudication of Issue no.4 herein-above.
83. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the present suit has been correctly valued as the plaintiff is in physical possession of the suit property and has not sought relief of possession qua the suit property against the defendant. It has been further submitted that the plaintiff is ready and willing to comply with the directions, if any, that may be issued by this Court for deposit of requisite court fees.
84. As per law of the land, Court Fee must be paid on Sale Consideration when Declaratory Suit Involves Title Based On Agreement To Sell. Further, Court Fee must be paid on sale consideration when declaratory suit involves title based on agreement to sell and where the plaintiff attempts to under-value the plaint and reliefs, the Court must intervene. It is further to be considered that the valuation of court fee must be based on real relief sought and not on mere drafting. In 'Subhash Chand Jain v. Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board', 2000 SCC OnLine MP 329, it has been held that "mere astuteness in drafting the plaint would not glaze the jurisdiction of court for looking at the substance of the relief asked for..... ....the CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). Digitally 59/63 PREETI signed by AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 plaintiff cannot evade proper court fee by framing the relief cleverly... ...the valuation and payment of court fee must reflect the "actual monetary interest involved." In the cited judgment, the well standing legal position has been reiterated that where a declaratory decree is sought with consequential relief, the valuation must be on the consideration stated.
85. The Court shall now consider the statutory provision s U/S 8 of the Suit Valuation Act, which is as follow :-
"Where in suits other than those referred to in the Court- fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), section 7, paragraphs V, VI and IX, and paragraph X, clause (d), Court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), the value as determinable for the computation of Court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same."
86. Therefore, as per the statutory provisions pertaining to payment of requisite court fee in cases of relief of specific performance, the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction as under:-
i. The valuation of the suit for the relief of specific performance of an agreement, for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction has to be the same.
ii. In a suit for the relief of specific performance, the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees, in fact, determines the jurisdiction (pecuniary) of the court before which the matter has to be listed for adjudication.
87. The statutory provision has been duly examined and fortified by our own High court of Delhi in 'Laxmi Narayan V/s Navneet & Ors.'; 2017 SCC Online Del 7863, therein it was Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 60/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 observed that :-
"... I have already noticed above that the valuation for the relief of specific performance of an agreement, for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction has to be the same. The plaintiff here has however valued the relief of specific performance for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 2,30,40,000/- and for court fees at Rs. 4,50,000/-. If this suit, for the relief of specific performance, for purposes of jurisdiction had been valued at Rs. 4,50,000/- as required by law, the suit should have been instituted in the Court of the District Judge.
... An agreement purchaser of a one room set on the ground floor of the property comprising of ground plus four floors cannot be directed to value the suit as per the valuation of the entire property."
88. Therefore, as per the binding legal precedents and applicable statutory law, the plaintiff shall be required to pay such amount of court fees in a suit for specific performance of contract based on the value of the contract, which in the present case is the sale consideration of Rs.15 lakhs, which find mention in Ex.PW1/1 which is the Agreement of sale and purchase and forms the foundational proved document to all the legal rights claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit.
89. It is further considered that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not deal with valuation of suits for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees payable thereon and therefore, the valuation of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale relating to an immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce, for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction is to be governed by the provisions of the Court Fees Act and the Suit Valuation Act.
Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 61/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025
90. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and considering the applicable provisions under the Suit Valuation Act and Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC r/w proviso CPC, the plaintiff is directed to pay ad valorem court fees on the sale consideration of Rs.15 Lakhs, for the relief of specific performance, prayed by way of the present suit. The plaintiff is granted a period of 30 days for deposit of requisite court fees.
Issue no.5 is disposed of accordingly, in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO.6
6. Relief.
91. Keeping in view the above findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, as under:-
1. A Decree of Permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, restraining the defendants directly or indirectly or through their associates, from dispossessing the plaintiff (or his representatives) from the suit property or create any third party interest in the suit property, except by due process of Law.
Digitally PREETI signed by CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). AGRAWAL PREETI 62/63 GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025
2. A Decree of specific performance is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of suit property/shop bearing no.I-313, Ground Fooor, Karampura, Delhi and get the sale deed registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar within one month on payment of adequate Court fees in terms of this judgment. Cost of execution of the documents and payment of stamp duty, registration etc. shall be borne by the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff is directed to affix advoleram court fees on the relief of Specific Performance for a sale consideration of Rs.15 Lakhs, within a period of one month from the date of this judgment, under intimation to the defendants.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Decree sheet to be drawn, upon deposit of the requisite court fees as directed, accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due completion.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 22nd day of December, 2025. PREETI Digitally
signed by
AGRAWAL PREETI
GUPTA AGRAWAL
GUPTA
(PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi.
22.12.2025
Dictated and pronounced on 22.12.2025.
Checked and Digitally signed on 03.01.2026.
CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). 63/63 (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025