Delhi District Court
Ravi Kumar Malik vs Mohd Aslam Zuberi on 9 January, 2026
In the Court of Sh. Sunil Beniwal, District Judge-06, South,
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CS DJ No.161/2024
CNR No.DLST01-001938-2024
1. Ravi Kumar Malik
S/o Shri Kaushendra Singh
R/o B-2, Ground Floor
above stilt Parking,
right side portion, Wing-1/back side,
in plot F-44, Khasra No.62 Min (1-0),
North side portion, Ber Sarai,
Tehsil Mehrauli, Ward Lado Sarai,
South Zone, New Delhi 110016.
Mobile: +91 9990462917.
email: [email protected] .....Plaintiff no.1.
2. Smt. Akanksha Choudhary
W/o Shri Ravi Kumar Malik,
R/o B-2, Ground Floor
above stilt Parking,
right side portion, Wing-1/back side,
in plot F-44, Khasra No.62 Min (1-0),
North side portion, Ber Sarai,
Tehsil Mehrauli, Ward Lado Sarai,
South Zone, New Delhi 110016.
Mobile: 9999815542
Email: [email protected] .....Plaintiff no.1.
Page 1 of 144
Versus
1. Mohd Aslam Zuberi,
(UID No.5095-1242-9217)
S/o late Athar Ali Zuberi
R/o F-268, Hauz Rani,
Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi 110017.
Mobile : 9818927696 .....Defendant no.1
2. Zuberi & Company
Through its proprietor - Md Aslam Zuberi
Office at - Mohd Aslam,
building Material suppliers & contractors
T-7, Begam Pur, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi 110017.
Mobile : 8799711149. .....Defendant no.2/
3. Shri Hari Krishan Pawar
S/o late Shri Ishwar Singh
Front side, plot F-44, Khasra No.62 Min (1-0),
North side portion, Village Ber Sarai,
Tehsil Mehrauli, Ward Lado Sarai,
South Zone, New Delhi 110016.
Mobile: 882112658, 9555880602 .....Defendant no.3
Date of filing of suit : 07.03.2024
Date of judgment : 09.01.2026
Page 2 of 144
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this judgement, this Court shall strive to decide and dispose of the captioned suit.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The Plaintiffs (husband & wife) have filed the present suit for declaration of title of suit property bearing No.B2,Ground Floor above stilt parking, right side portion, back side, in plot no.F44, Khasra No.62 Min (10), Ber Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi-110016, area measuring 60 sq yards (out of 120 Sq yards) consisting of fully furnished two bed rooms, one drawing/dinning, one kitchen, two bath cum toilets, car parking (suit/ subject property) along with permanent and mandatory injunction coupled with damages and being accompanied with application U/o39 rule 1 & 2 CPC.
3. It has been averred that in August 2021, the defendant no.1 had approached the plaintiffs, prospective buyers and allured plaintiffs to purchase one of his residential flat at construction stage being developed by defendant no.2 as per collaboration agreement dated 16.11.2020 between defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 in area measuring 120 sq yards situated at back side of property F44, Khasra Page 3 of 144 no.62 Min, Ber Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi-16 and the plaintiffs agreed to purchase 'suit flat/ suit property' and accordingly a notarized Agreement to Sale dated 19.08.2021 was executed in favour of the plaintiffs for a total sale consideration of Rs.76,50,000/-.
4. The main reliefs in the suit are for declaration of title of an immovable property/residential flat valued at Rs. 64,15,000/- with permanent and mandatory injunction and recovery of damages of Rs. 30,85,000/- (total claim Rs. 95,00,000/-).
5. It has been averred that the plaintiff paid a total amount of Rs.7,05,000/- as advance/Bayana. Plaintiffs had also handed over security cheque of Rs.26,40,000/- to defendants no.1 & 2. Plaintiffs made further payments of Rs.45,10,000/- to defendants no.1 and 2. As a result, the defendant no.1 executed certain documents in favour of plaintiffs.
PARTIES AND SUBJECT PROPERTY
6. The plaintiffs in the present suit are Ravi Kumar Malik and his wife, Akanksha Choudhary. They reside at Flat B-2, Ground Floor, above stilt parking, right side portion, Wing-1/back side, in Property F-44, Khasra No. 62 Min (1-0), village Ber Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, Ward Lado Sarai, South Zone, New Delhi-110016.
Page 4 of 1447. The defendants are as follows:
Mohd. Aslam Zuberi, who is the builder; Zuberi & Company, which is his proprietorship firm engaged in the construction, development, and sale of flats; and Hari Krishan Pawar, the landowner of the north side portion of property F-44, Khasra No. 62 Min.
Later on defendants no. 4 to 8 were also impleaded by the Court ie Mrs Archana Singhal, Ms. Uma Sharma Through POA holder, Mrs Bhawna Sharma, Mr Kalyan Bhattacharjee, and Mr Narender Kumar.
SUBJECT FLAT/ SUIT PROPERTY
8. The subject property in dispute is a private residential unit, namely Flat B-2, located on the ground floor above the stilt parking. It is a two-side open flat (right side), situated at the back side/Wing-1, measuring approximately 60 square yards. The flat comprises two bedrooms, a drawing/dining room, kitchen, two bathrooms, a balcony, one car parking space in the basement, and a private stilt parking on the ground floor. It is part of Property F-44, Khasra No. 62 Min, Ber Sarai, New Delhi-110016, and comes with proportionate undivided rights in the land and common areas.
9. It is the case of the plaintiffs that eventually, defendant no. 1 Page 5 of 144 agreed to transfer the fully furnished flat described above to the plaintiffs for a total final consideration of Rs. 64,15,000/-. The plaintiffs were handed peaceful possession of the flat on 27/02/2023. As a temporary measure, defendant no. 1 installed sub electricity and water meters derived from the main connection of defendant no. 3. However, the defendants failed to complete the finishing work and did not make the property fully habitable, which led to disputes between the parties.
10. According to learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property, with electricity and water connections provided by defendant no. 3 as a temporary arrangement. The plaintiffs express apprehension that the defendants may attempt to illegally evict them from the suit property, prompting a prayer for an ex parte ad interim injunction order.
CORE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND CHRONOLOGY
11. In 2021, defendant no.1 represented himself as the sole proprietor of defendant no. 2, a reputed firm engaged in the development and sale of flats. He presented a collaboration agreement dated 16/11/2020 (Mark A Colly.) with defendant no. 3 for the development of the back-side 120 square yards of F-44, Khasra No. Page 6 of 144 62 Min, Ber Sarai.
12. The plaintiffs, who were tenants seeking to own a house, were induced in August 2021 to agree to purchase a fully furnished flat (later marked as B-2) with private stilt and basement parking located in the back-side portion. They were assured of clear title, approvals from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and utility providers, and a promise of a registered sale deed.
13. An agreement to sell dated 19/08/2021 (EX.PW-1/7 Colly OSR) was executed between defendant no. 1/2 and plaintiff no. 2, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 76,50,000/-. An initial "bayana" (advance payment) of Rs. 7,05,000/- was paid through cash and cheque.
14. As averred, Defendant no. 1 insisted on substantial cash payments and obtained a security cheque of Rs. 26,40,000/- from plaintiff no. 1, assuring that the cheque would never be presented and citing the Reserve Bank of India's Positive Pay System for large cheques.
15. Between August 2021 and February 2023, the plaintiffs allege that they paid an aggregate of Rs. 52,15,000/- to defendants 1 and 2 through various means, including cash, cheques, and RTGS payments, all of which were acknowledged by receipts (Exhibited in evidence).
Page 7 of 14416. On 21-27/02/2023, defendant no. 1 executed a will EX.PW-1/16 Colly. OSR, general power of attorney (GPA) EX.PW-1/17 Colly. OSR, and an agreement to sell and purchase EX.PW-1/12 Colly. OSR, and also issued a possession letter EX.PW-1/14 Colly. OSR, thereby handing over possession of flat B-2 along with the specified parking rights. However, the consideration was incorrectly mentioned as Rs. 30,10,000/- and the wing was wrongly described, with a promise to rectify these at the time of final registry and include additional amounts.
17. The plaintiffs paid an additional sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- in March-April 2023 (in cash) towards the finishing of the flat, bringing the agreed final consideration for the finished flat to Rs. 64,15,000/-. In addition, the plaintiffs spent approximately Rs. 3,35,000/- on interiors and about Rs. 10,00,000/- jointly with other flat owners on building works and amenities, which they now seek to recover from the defendants.
18. Despite repeated assurances, the defendants allegedly failed to complete construction, did not obtain separate electricity and water connections in the plaintiffs' names, and provided only temporary sub-meter arrangements from defendant no. 3's connection.
19. Additionally, the defendants created nuisance, attempted unauthorised construction and encroachments in the basement and Page 8 of 144 terrace, threatened the plaintiffs, and tried to misuse the security cheque despite having received the full consideration.
20. On 18/07/2023, plaintiff no. 1 instructed his bank to stop payment of the security cheque, informed defendant no. 1, and lodged a police complaint alleging breach of trust, misappropriation, attempted trespass, and misuse of the cheque. Subsequently, a legal notice dated 30/09/2023 EX.PW-1/21 Colly. OSR was issued to defendants 1 and 2, demanding the execution of a registered sale deed, provision of utilities, refund of extra expenditure, and damages.
21. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they remain in continuous and peaceful possession of the flat since February 2023. They have paid the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) house tax for the financial year 2023-24 EX.PW-1/2, and, together with other flat owners, have installed CCTV cameras. However, they contend that title to the flat has not been transferred in their favour and that basic services are still not regularised.
RELIEFS AND INTERIM PRAYER The main prayers in the plaint include:
Declaration that the title of schedule flat B-2 (with stilt and basement parking rights) stands in the joint names of both Page 9 of 144 plaintiffs, for the consideration of Rs. 64,15,000 already paid;
Permanent and mandatory injunctions are sought to restrain the defendants and third parties from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession or from creating any third-party interests, and to direct the provision and regularisation of electricity, water connections, and other promised amenities.
Decree for money in the sum of Rs. 30,85,000/- is claimed as recovery/damages. This amount includes sums spent on making the flat and building habitable, and compensation for harassment, delay, and mental agony, with interest at 18% per annum until realisation, as well as costs.
Annexures Table
S. Annexure
Description Indicative Purpose
No. No.
Collaboration
To show the builder's
Agreement between
Annexure development rights and
1 the builder and
A1 (colly) sharing arrangement in the
landowner dated
property
16.11.2020
Agreement to Sell
To evidence the initial sale
dated 19-08-2021
Annexure agreement for the flat and
2 between the
A2 (colly) consideration/payment
purchasers and the
terms
builder/proprietorsh
Page 10 of 144
S. Annexure
Description Indicative Purpose
No. No.
ip firm
Subsequent
To show later transactional
Agreement to Sell
Annexure documents culminating in
3 & Purchase and
A3 (colly) possession/transfer
related documents
arrangements
dated 27.02.2023
To support the claim that the
Registered Will
builder treated the
Annexure executed by the
4 purchasers as
A4 (colly) builder dated
beneficiaries/owners of the
27.02.2023
flat
Registered General
Power of Attorney
To show authority/transfer
Annexure executed by the
5 of rights over the flat to the
A5 (colly) builder in favour of
purchasers
the purchasers
dated 27.02.2023
Receipts issued by
To prove payments made by
Annexure the builder dated
6 the purchasers towards the
A6 (colly) 19.08.2021 to
sale consideration
27.04.2023
To evidence
Annexure WhatsApp message communications and
7
A7 (colly) print-outs assurances between the
parties
To show criminal complaint
Police complaints
Annexure and breach-of-trust
8 made by the
A8 (colly) allegations and dispute
purchasers
history
Legal notice issued To establish pre-litigation Annexure 9 on behalf of the demand for sale deed, A9 (colly) purchasers to the utilities and refund/damages Page 11 of 144 S. Annexure Description Indicative Purpose No. No. builder 30.09.2023 To evidence that the WhatsApp Annexure purchasers are paying messages regarding 10 A10 electricity charges through payment of (colly) an intermediary rather than electricity charges via an independent meter PLEADINGS OF THE DEFENDANTS NO.1 & 2
22. The written statement submitted by Defendants 1 and 2 challenges the suit as a retaliatory and unsubstantiated action arising from a cheque bounce case. While acknowledging certain facts, such as the execution of the ATS and possession, the defendants contest the plaintiffs' account regarding consideration, obligations, and the purported "security cheque." Furthermore, they maintain that a significant portion of the sale consideration, including an additional Rs. 16,00,000/- remains outstanding.
NATURE AND THRUST OF WRITTEN STATEMENT
23. The answering defendant no.1 is a 70-year-old builder-contractor and sole proprietor of Zuberi & Company (D2), who has already initiated NI Act proceedings (CC NI Act 8611/2023) against plaintiff no. 1 regarding cheque no. 803736 for Rs. 26,40,000/-, returned with remark "payment stopped by drawer".
Page 12 of 14424. The defence argues the suit is a late addition after the NI Act complaint, that plaintiffs have possessed the property since 27.02.2023, and there is no valid cause of action since transfer of title depended on full payment, which plaintiffs failed to make.
DEFENCE VERSION OF FACTS AND SERIES OF EVENTS A. Agreement and payments
25. An Agreement to Sell dated 19 August 2021 was duly acknowledged, prepared, and stamped by Plaintiff No. 2 for the sale of a "raw flat" located on the first floor, Wing-2, F-44, Ber Sarai, with a total sale consideration of Rs. 76,50,000/-, including an advance payment (bayana) of Rs. 7,05,000/- (comprising Rs. 4,00,000/- in cash and Rs. 3,05,000/- via cheque no. 216331).
26. The defendants assert that payments amounting to approximately Rs. 27,05,000/- were made through cheques between August and November 2021. In total, prior to handing over possession, approximately Rs. 30,10,000/- was paid via cheques/RTGS and Rs. 4,00,000/- in cash (aggregating to Rs. 34,10,000/-), as documented in the agreement/receipt dated 27 February 2023.
B. 27.02.2023 documentation and cheque
27. It is admitted that on 27.02.2023, a fresh Agreement to Sell and Page 13 of 144 Purchase, a notarised possession letter and receipt for Rs. 30,10,000/-, a registered revocable GPA, a registered Will (in favour of plaintiffs) and an Affidavit/NOC mentioning cheque no. 803736 were executed. The defendants stress these were drafted and stamped by plaintiffs, and that they only ever promised one basement parking, not stilt parking or a "fully furnished" flat.
28. The defence asserts that the ATS dated 19 August 2021 remained valid, as the plaintiffs orally agreed to settle the outstanding balance through a cheque of Rs. 26,40,000 (undated, to be presented approximately six months later) and an additional Rs. 16,00,000 in cash within six months of 27 February 2023. Even if the cheque were honoured, a sum of Rs. 16,00,000 would still remain unpaid.
C. Cheque dishonour and NI Act complaint
29. Defendant No. 1 states that he informed Plaintiff No. 1 in July 2023 regarding his intention to present Cheque No. 803736 for an amount of Rs. 26,40,000/- during the last week of August. Upon presentation on 22.08.2023, the cheque was dishonoured on 23.08.2023 with the remark "payment stopped by drawer."
30. A legal demand notice under section 138 NI Act was then issued and received by plaintiff no. 1 on 16.09.2023, but no payment was made within 15 days. Accordingly a complaint CC NI Act 8611/2023 Page 14 of 144 before Saket Court, South District was filed, and the WS reproduces/relies on the NI Act complaint narrative.
D. Legal notices and plaintiff's suit
31. The WS alleges that plaintiffs sent two inconsistent legal notices: one dated 28.08.2023 through a different advocate (about a "raw flat on first floor" in Wing-2), and another dated 30.09.2023 through present counsel which is pleaded as evidence that the civil suit/notice are pre-meditated to "cover up" the NI Act offence and to arm-twist defendants.
32. Defendants admit plaintiffs' possession and payment of house tax but deny any obligation to provide electricity/water connections, to furnish the flat or refund any interior expenditure, treating such works as plaintiffs' choices and costs.
E. Denials and counter-allegations
33. The WS specifically denies any promise of a "fully furnished"
flat; any promise of stilt parking or extra basement parking; any commitment to secure BSES/DJB connections; any agreement on a reduced total consideration of Rs. 64,15,000/-; and any misuse/encroachment by defendants, instead alleging plaintiffs have Page 15 of 144 encroached shops in stilt belonging to defendant's son, Fraz Zuberi.
34. The defendants no.1 & 2 brand the plaintiffs' police complaint and civil allegations (nuisance, encroachment, breach of trust) as afterthoughts to the cheque bounce incident and as attempts to avoid criminal liability while retaining possession without full payment.
35. In light of the foregoing, the defendants reiterate that their written statement serves not only as a refutation of the plaintiff's claims but also as a proactive assertion of their own rights and grievances, specifically highlighting the outstanding monetary obligations and the alleged tactical nature of the suit. With the plaintiffs' possession and certain payments acknowledged, yet core disputes remaining over the full sale consideration and alleged encroachments, the defendants urge the Court to dismiss each limb of the plaint prayer--declaration, injunction, and money decree-- while seeking exemplary costs and other appropriate reliefs. Simultaneously, they have advanced a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC, aiming to enforce recovery of unpaid amounts arising from the dishonored cheque and outstanding consideration, as detailed in their pleadings and supported by annexed documents.
Reliefs and counter-claim stance Page 16 of 144
36. In reply to the plaint prayer, each limb (declaration, injunctions, money decree) is prayed to be rejected; defendants seek dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs and any other orders deemed fit.
37. Alongside the WS, defendants have filed a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC before this Court CS DJ 328/2024 Mohd. Aslam Zuberi Vs Ravi Kumar Malik, essentially to enforce their monetary claim arising out of unpaid consideration and the dishonoured cheque.
Documents/annexures with written statement S. Annexure / Very brief Purpose in defence No. document description GST registration certificate of Zuberi To prove proprietorship, Annexure & Co. and authority existence of defendant 1 D1/A letter authorizing no. 2 and defendant no.
(colly) defendant no. 1 to 1's authority to contest represent defendant proceedings no. 2 Copy of NI Act To show independent complaint CC NI Act criminal proceedings 8611/2023 (u/s 138) arising from dishonored Annexure 2 with its annexures cheque and defendants' D1/B (ATS, possession narrative on letter, GPA, cheque, consideration and memo, notices, etc.) default 3 Annexure Legal demand notice To highlight timing and Page 17 of 144 S. Annexure / Very brief Purpose in defence No. document description dated 28.08.2023 issued on behalf of alleged inconsistency defendant to between two notices sent D1/C plaintiffs' side, by plaintiffs, and bolster earlier notice than plea of 30.09.2023 notice afterthought/malice relied on in plaint Affidavit-cum-NOC dated 27.02.2023 To rebut "security executed by cheque" plea and prove Annexure plaintiffs, reciting cheque was issued 4 D1/D cheque no. 803736 towards legally for Rs. 26,40,000 and enforceable liability/part terms of its of sale consideration encashment To support plea that Gift deed in favor of shops/stilt area belong to Annexure Fraz Zuberi and defendant's son and that 5 D1/E receipt of conversion plaintiffs are the (colly) charges for shops in encroachers there, not the building defendants APPLICATIONS/ DOCUMENTS FILED BY DEFENDANTS NO. 4-8 Applications and Documents Filed by Flat-Owners in CS DJ 161/2024
38. The documents filed comprise a series of applications and Page 18 of 144 affidavits submitted by flat-owners. These were intended for impleadment as parties and for seeking modification of an interim injunction in the case CS DJ 161/2024. Accompanying these submissions is a detailed list of supporting documents and annexures.
Parties, Their Capacity and Details of Filing
39. All applicants, who are proposed defendants, are purchasers of flats situated in Wing-1, F-44, Ber Sarai.
Applicant no. 1: Mrs. Archana Singhal is the owner of Unit B-1, located on the ground floor of Wing-1. She has the right to one designated car parking slot.
Applicant no. 2: Ms. Uma Sharma, represented by her SPA holder Som Dutt Sharma, owns Unit B-3 on the first floor of Wing-1. She enjoys one car parking and has roof rights over a portion of the third floor.
Applicant no. 3: Mrs. Bhawna Sharma is the owner of Unit B-4, first floor, Wing-1, measuring 60 square yards. She holds one parking slot, but does not have any terrace rights.
Applicant no. 4: Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bhattacharjee, along with his wife Mrs. Ronita Bhattacharjee, owns Unit B-5 on Page 19 of 144 the second floor of Wing-1. They are entitled to one parking slot and have roof rights over a part of the third floor. Applicant no. 5: Mr. Narender Kumar and his wife Mrs. Manju Bala are the owners of Unit B-6, second floor, Wing-1. They have one parking facility, but do not possess terrace rights.
Core contents and series of events Background of Property and Purchasers
40. Admittedly defendant no. 3 is recorded as the absolute owner of the land bearing address F-44, measuring 500 square yards, situated at Khasra no. 62 Min, Ber Sarai. In the year 2020, defendant no. 3 entered into a collaboration agreement dated 16/11/2020 with defendant no. 1. This agreement was to facilitate the construction of two separate wings on the property: Wing-1, covering an area of 120 square yards, and Wing-2, covering 380 square yards. As per the terms, the construction was to include a stilt or basement level, followed by four floors and a terrace.
41. In pursuance of the collaboration, a total of eight residential units were constructed in Wing-1. Subsequently, defendant no. 3 executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 14/07/2023 in favour of defendant no. 1, thereby empowering defendant no. 1 in Page 20 of 144 relation to the subject property.
42. Both the applicants and the plaintiffs have purchased specific units in Wing-1. The mode of transfer has been through various instruments such as GPA (General Power of Attorney), ATS (Agreement to Sell), Will, and possession letters, all executed by defendant no. 1. All such purchasers are now in possession of their respective units. Each purchaser has also been allotted one car-parking space and holds proportionate undivided rights in the land and common areas, which includes the basement or stilt parking facility.
43. It is alleged that all purchasers have paid the full consideration amounts for their respective units. However, registered sale deeds have not yet been executed in most cases, with the exception of one sale deed which was executed subsequently. At present, electricity and water connections for the flats continue to operate on a common or temporary arrangement. The defendants have assured the residents that regularisation of services and execution of individual sale deeds shall take place in due course.
44. In order to represent the collective interests of the residents, the occupants of Wing-1, F-44, have formed the "Vaikunth Lok Apartment Owners Welfare Association" as an Association of Persons (AOP) on 08/12/2023. The Association has obtained a PAN (AOP) for its functioning.
Page 21 of 144B. Parking dispute and interim order
45. The common basement or stilt parking area has been asserted as a shared amenity among the residents, with one designated parking slot allocated per flat, thereby covering all eight flats within the block.
46. From January 2024, the plaintiffs, along with another flat- owner, Shri Om Dutt Gaur (also a resident of Wing-1), have allegedly taken actions that obstruct the use of this shared parking facility. Specifically, it is claimed that they have been blocking access to the common parking area by parking a tempo or their private vehicles, thereby preventing other residents from utilising their respective allotted parking slots.
47. The applicants allege that this obstruction has resulted in their being denied access to their allotted parking spaces. The justification provided by the plaintiffs and Mr. Om Dutt Gaur for this conduct is the status-quo order dated 06/04/2024. They interpret this order as conferring exclusive rights to the entire stilt parking area in favour of the plaintiffs.
48. The order dated 06/04/2024 was passed on the plaintiffs' application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Page 22 of 144 Procedure, 1908, following a Local Commissioner's report dated 01/04/2024. The order records that the plaintiffs are in possession of Flat B-2, F-44, Wing-1 (ground floor above the stilt parking), together with stilt parking, and directs maintenance of status quo "qua the subject property" until the final disposal of the injunction application.
49. The applicants contend that the status-quo order has been misinterpreted by the plaintiffs and Mr. Om Dutt Gaur. According to the applicants, the court intended only to protect the plaintiffs' flat and their corresponding one parking slot, rather than grant exclusive control over the entire stilt parking area. Furthermore, the applicants point out that the Local Commissioner did not hear or consider their position when preparing the report.
C. Impleadment grounds (Order I Rule 10) Applicants' Position and Pleadings
50. The applicants assert that they are bona fide purchasers who have been in long, lawful possession of their respective flats in Wing-1. Each applicant holds one parking slot and enjoys full common-area rights as accorded to all residents. Their interests are directly affected by the injunction and status-quo order passed by the Page 23 of 144 court, as well as the plaintiffs' interpretation and reliance on this order to exclude other residents from utilising the common parking area.
51. The applicants contend that they are both proper and necessary parties to the proceedings. They submit that any order regarding parking arrangements, common areas, or modification of the interim order will have a material impact on their proprietary and usage rights in the property. The applicants further argue that failure to join them in the proceedings could result in prejudice to their interests and may lead to multiplicity of legal actions. They emphasise that their impleadment will not cause any prejudice to the existing parties, but that denial of impleadment would result in serious prejudice to themselves.
Request for Modification of Injunction (Order XXXIX Rule 4)
52. The applicants state that the injunction was granted for the limited purpose of safeguarding the plaintiffs' flat and preventing dispossession or disconnection of essential services such as electricity and water. They clarify that the intention was not to grant exclusive rights over the entire stilt parking area to the plaintiffs. The applicants maintain that any reference in the court order to "along with stilt parking" is inadvertent and should be interpreted as conferring rights over only the plaintiffs' share of parking.
Page 24 of 14453. The applicants allege that the plaintiffs and Shri Om Dutt Gaur are misusing the language of the order to prevent other residents from parking and have even threatened them. Consequently, the applicants request the court to vary or modify the order dated 06/04/2024 so that the status quo is confined strictly to the plaintiffs' apartment/unit and their single stilt parking slot, and does not extend to the entire stilt parking area. This would enable all applicants and other flat owners to exercise their equal rights to park in the common area.
Proposed S. Annexure Document / Description Evidentiary Purpose No No. To depict the Annexure Photographs showing constructed building 1 A-1 overall building view and physical layout of Wing-1, F-44 Photographs showing To evidence Annexure alleged obstruction/parking 2 A-2 unauthorized/blocking pattern relied on by parking in stilt/basement applicants To show that the Sanction letter issued by building is Annexure Municipal Corporation sanctioned/approved 3 A-3 and receipt for processing and to support the of building plan planned parking/common areas Agreement of Association To prove existence and Annexure of Persons dated formal constitution of 4 A-4 08.12.2023 and PAN of the residents' Vaikunth Lok Apartments association for Wing-1 Page 25 of 144 Proposed S. Annexure Document / Description Evidentiary Purpose No No. Owners Welfare Association GPA dated 11.11.2022, To evidence purchase ATS dated 11.11.2022 and and possession of Unit Annexure Possession Letter dated 5 B-1 and corresponding A-5 11.11.2022 in favor of common/parking Applicant No. 1 (Archana rights Singhal) To corroborate actual Proof of electricity charges Annexure occupation and regular 6 and property tax paid by A-6 payment of dues by Applicant No. 1 Applicant No. 1 GPA dated 11.11.2022, ATS dated 17.11.2020, To evidence Will dated 11.11.2022 and title/interest and Annexure 7 Possession Letter dated possession of Unit B-3 A-7 11.11.2022 in favor of with roof rights and Applicant No. 2 (Uma parking Sharma) To establish authority Special Power of Attorney Annexure of the attorney to act 8 executed by Applicant No. A-8 and depose on behalf 2 in favor of her attorney of Applicant No. 2 To show continuing Proof of electricity charges occupation and Annexure 9 and property tax paid by contribution to A-9 Applicant No. 2 statutory dues by Applicant No. 2 ATS dated 12.07.2021, To prove purchase, Annexure 10 ATS dated 19.12.2023, consideration and A-10 GPA dated 19.12.2023, possession of Unit B-4 Page 26 of 144 Proposed S. Annexure Document / Description Evidentiary Purpose No No. SPA dated 19.12.2023 and Possession Letter dated and attendant rights 19.12.2023 for Applicant No. 3 (Bhawna Sharma) Proof of electricity charges To support continuous, Annexure 11 and property tax paid by lawful occupation by A-11 Applicant No. 3 Applicant No. 3 GPA dated 11.11.2022, ATS dated 11.11.2022 and To establish purchase Annexure Possession Letter dated and possession of Unit 12 A-12 11.11.2022 for Applicant B-5 with parking and No. 4 (Kalyan Kumar roof portion Bhattacharjee) To corroborate Annexure Proof of property tax paid 13 ownership/occupation A-13 by Applicant No. 4 and civic compliance GPA dated 02.03.2023, To prove purchase and ATS dated 02.03.2023 and Annexure possession of Unit B-6 14 Possession Letter dated A-14 with one basement/stilt 02.03.2023 for Applicant parking No. 5 (Narender Kumar) To demonstrate actual Proof of electricity charges Annexure occupation and 15 and property tax paid by A-15 enjoyment by Applicant No. 5 Applicant No. 5 CHRONOLOGY AND BRIEF DETAILS OF PROCEEDINGS Page 27 of 144 S. Proceedings Key Events & No Date Directions / Findings / Stage Submissions .
The plaintiffs
instituted a suit
seeking a
declaration of
title, an The court declined to
injunction, and grant an ex parte ad-
damages. They interim injunction
provided but directed that
details status quo be
regarding the maintained with
Institution Agreement to respect to the suit & ad- Sell (ATS), property. A Local 1 07/03/2024 interim payments Commissioner was relief made, appointed, and possession, and police protection the status of was ordered. The utilities. matter was Disputes arose scheduled for the concerning next hearing on incomplete 16/03/2024.
finishing of the property and the status of possession.
On this date, The matter was Post-LC the parties and adjourned for the 2 16/03/2024 appointment the Local Local Commissioner Commissioner's Page 28 of 144 S. Proceedings Key Events & No Date Directions / Findings / Stage Submissions .
were present, with the Local Commissioner attending virtually. The plaintiff report and any submitted a Interim Applications compliance (IA) to 01/04/2024.
affidavit, and Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of Defendant 1.
All parties The court adjourned were present.
the matter to The Local 06/04/2024 and LC report Commissioner 3 01/04/2024 directed the Local time requested Commissioner to file additional time the report positively to file the by that date.
report.
The court The court confirmed
reviewed the the plaintiffs'
Interim
Local possession and
4 06/04/2024 order on
Commissioner' ordered that status O.39 R1-2 s report, which quo be maintained confirmed that regarding the subject Page 29 of 144 S. Proceedings Key Events & No Date Directions / Findings / Stage Submissions .
the plaintiffs were in possession of property until the the property, disposal of the and noted the application under presence of a Order 39 Rule 1-2.
nameboard, Utilities were furniture, and directed to continue, vehicles. The and the next hearing defendants was fixed for were notified, 07/05/2024.
and Defendant 1 provided an explanation.
Defendants 1 and 2 filed their written The Local statements and Commissioner was counter-claims.
appointed to prepare
WS, An application
a report on the stilt
counter- for
5 07/05/2024 area and the parties'
claim, impleadment
respective rights.
second LC was made by
The next hearing
other flat
was scheduled for
owners. A
16/05/2024.
second Local
Commissioner
was appointed
Page 30 of 144
S.
Proceedings Key Events &
No Date Directions / Findings
/ Stage Submissions
.
to inspect the
stilt and
basement
areas.
The Local
Commissioner' The court ordered
s report that status quo be
revealed the maintained with
existence of respect to the
eight flats and plaintiffs' flat/share that the only. The applicants Order on basement was were permitted to applicants' a common park one car each in 6 16/05/2024 O.39 R4 area. The the common area, (parking) applicants and the plaintiffs alleged that the were directed to plaintiffs and remove any locks or an individual obstructions. The named Om next hearing was Dutt Gaur were scheduled for obstructing 09/07/2024.
parking.
The plaintiffs The court treated the WS objected to the plaintiffs' objection 7 09/07/2024 limitation; delay in filing as a technicality and D3 ex parte the written placed the written statement. The statements of Page 31 of 144 S. Proceedings Key Events & No Date Directions / Findings / Stage Submissions .
Defendants 1 and 2
non- on record. Defendant
appearance of 3's right to file a
Defendant 3 written statement
was also noted was closed. The next
by the court. hearing was set for
12/08/2024.
The court
allowed an
application for
impleadment The new applicants
by several flat were impleaded as
owners and Defendants 4-8,
heard oral subject to the filing
opposition of affidavits. Written Impleadmen 8 12/08/2024 from the statements were to t of D4-D8 plaintiffs. be filed, and the Allegations of parking directions parking were reiterated. The blockage by next hearing was the plaintiffs fixed for 04/02/2025.
and Om Dutt Gaur were raised.
Review The plaintiff The court appointed
9 04/02/2025 attempt; moved a a Commissioner to
third review verify the claims of
Page 32 of 144
S.
Proceedings Key Events &
No Date Directions / Findings
/ Stage Submissions
.
application and
all parties regarding
both sides
the parking area. The
Commissio alleged
matter was
ner obstruction of
adjourned to
access to the
19/03/2025.
basement.
The
Commissioner' The court issued a
s report was notice to the
CC report not on record. Commissioner to file 10 19/03/2025 follow-up All parties the report and except adjourned the matter Defendant 3 to 03/04/2025.
were present.
The amended
memo of The right of
parties was Defendants 4-8 to
filed and the file written
Commissioner' statements was
Issues
s report was closed. The plaintiffs framed; WS 11 03/04/2025 perused. The were directed to file rights plaintiffs their list of witnesses closed withdrew their and affidavits in review evidence. The next application. hearing was fixed for The court 17/04/2025.
framed the
Page 33 of 144
S.
Proceedings Key Events &
No Date Directions / Findings
/ Stage Submissions
.
issues in the
matter.
The plaintiffs
filed their list
of witnesses
The Local
and affidavits.
Commissioner was
Appointmen A request was
appointed to record
t of LC to made for the
12 17/04/2025 evidence from all
record Local
parties, and detailed
evidence Commissioner
terms were set for
to record
the evidence process.
evidence for all
parties
involved.
The plaintiffs
The parties were
filed their
directed to
Evidence affidavits in
coordinate with the
affidavits evidence and
Local
filed; an interim
13 30/05/2025 Commissioner, who
evidence application for
was instructed to
recording expedited
expedite the process
continuing conclusion of
and submit a report
plaintiff
by 02/07/2025.
evidence.
PE/DE Evidence Defendants were
14 02/07/2025 recording recording directed to file their
ongoing; before the list of witnesses and
Page 34 of 144
S.
Proceedings Key Events &
No Date Directions / Findings
/ Stage Submissions
.
affidavits at least one
week in advance of
the Local
defendant Local
Commissioner's
evidence Commissioner
date. The Local
notice was ongoing.
Commissioner's
report was due on
19/08/2025.
Both sides
reported their
evidence
before the The court allowed
Local the application. The
Commissioner. affidavit was to be
Evidence
The plaintiffs produced before the ongoing;
moved an Local 15 19/08/2025 BSA 2023 application for Commissioner, who Section 63 an affidavit was directed to certification under Section expedite evidence 63 of the BSA and submit the report 2023, which by 20/09/2025.
was objected to by the defendants.
Defense Defendants 1 The parties were 16 20/09/2025 evidence and 2 filed directed to appear affidavit their affidavits before the Local Page 35 of 144 S. Proceedings Key Events & No Date Directions / Findings / Stage Submissions .
in evidence. Commissioner on
Recording of 22/09/2025 for
evidence defense evidence.
filed before the The Local
Local Commissioner's
Commissioner report was due on
continued. 27/09/2025.
The Local
Commissioner'
s report was Final arguments
Evidence filed, and were scheduled for
concluded; evidence was 10/10/2025 at 2:00 17 27/09/2025 final concluded. The PM. The parties arguments plaintiffs were directed to file scheduled submitted their written photographs arguments.
and an affidavit.
There was no
representation
Final The court adjourned
for the
arguments the final arguments
plaintiffs in the
commence to 17/10/2025 and
18 10/10/2025 morning. The
ment; directed the parties
defense sought
adjournmen to file written
an
t granted submissions.
adjournment.
The plaintiff's
Page 36 of 144
S.
Proceedings Key Events &
No Date Directions / Findings
/ Stage Submissions
.
counsel
appeared in the
afternoon and
presented
submissions.
Both parties
were present,
The parties were
and the court
ordered to file
heard part of
written submissions
Final the final
before the next
19 17/10/2025 arguments - arguments. The hearing, with the Part 1 counsel remaining arguments requested more to be heard on time to file 28/10/2025.
written submissions.
Written submissions from the Final plaintiffs were The matter was put arguments - taken on up for clarifications 20 28/10/2025 Part 2 & record. The and judgment on conclusion court heard 17/11/2025.
final arguments from both sides at length.
21 17/11/2025 Presiding The parties The matter was
Page 37 of 144
S.
Proceedings Key Events &
No Date Directions / Findings
/ Stage Submissions
.
appeared either
Officer on adjourned and put up
via video
half-day for hearing on
conference or
leave 29/11/2025.
in person.
The court
could not take
The matter was
Post- up the matter
scheduled for
22 29/11/2025 arguments due to a heavy clarifications/judgme status board and lack nt on 15/12/2025.
of available time.
The plaintiff
and their
counsel were The matter was put
present. up for
Pending
23 15/12/2025 However, the clarifications/judgme
judgment
matter could nt on 26/12/2025 at
not be taken up 2:00 PM.
due to the
heavy board.
The plaintiff's
counsel The matter was
Matter appeared via scheduled for
24 26/12/2025 under video pronouncement of
dictation conference. judgment on
There was no 09/01/2026.
representation
Page 38 of 144
S.
Proceedings Key Events &
No Date Directions / Findings
/ Stage Submissions
.
from the
defendants.
The judgment
was in the
process of
being drafted.
ISSUES FRAMED
54. Upon completion of pleadings, this Court framed the following issues vide its order dated 03.04.2025;
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of declaration against the defendants thereby declaring the title of suit property in the joint names of plaintiffs? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants qua the suit property, as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.30,85,000/- along with interest against the defendants, as prayed for? OPP Page 39 of 144
4. Relief.
EVIDENCE PROCEEDINGS Chronology of Plaintiff Witness Evidence Proceedings S. Date Key Events Counsel Present Remarks No. PW-1 entered the witness box and tendered Exhibit Plaintiff:
PW-1/A. Several Mritunjay Adjourned documents were Kumar and to tendered, exhibited, PW-1; 05/09/2025 05/02/20 1 and marked during Defendants: at 3 PM for 25 these proceedings. Niyati cross-
The cross- Patwardhan examination examination was (D1,2,4-8); D3 of PW-1 deferred due to lack of ex parte time. Fees were paid by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff:
Mritunjay Kumar and The cross- PW-1; Adjourned 05/16/20 examination of PW-1 Defendants: to 2 25 commenced and was Ashim 05/23/2025 partially completed. Shridhar/SD at 12 Noon;
Sharma (D1,2,4-8); D3 ex parte Page 40 of 144 S. Date Key Events Counsel Present Remarks No. Plaintiff:
Mritunjay Cross-examination of Kumar/BS Bora PW-1 continued but and PW-1;
was only partially
05/23/20 Defendants:
3 completed. Dates for Adjourned;
25 Ashim
further proceedings
Shridhar/SD
were set via
Sharma
WhatsApp group.
(D1,2,4-8); D3
ex parte
The cross-
examination of PW-1 Plaintiff:
concluded and the Mritunjay
witness was Kumar/BS Bora Dates for
discharged. The and PW-1; further
06/24/20 defendants requested Defendants: proceedings 4 25 to cross-examine Ashim communicat PW-2 first, with PW-2 Shridhar/SD ed via indicated to be Sharma and D1 WhatsApp;
available at the end of (D1,2,4-8); D3 July or the first week ex parte of August.
Plaintiff:
PW-2 tendered Mritunjay Exhibit PW-2/A, and Kumar and documents were PW-2; Adjourned marked, with 08/04/20 Defendants: to
5 objections raised. The 25 Ashim 08/08/2025 cross-examination of Shridhar/SD at 2 PM;
PW-2 commenced and Sharma and D1 was partially (D1,2,4-8); D3 completed.
ex parte Page 41 of 144 S. Date Key Events Counsel Present Remarks No. Plaintiff:
Mritunjay Kumar and Cross-examination of PW-2; Adjourned PW-2 continued and 08/08/20 Defendants: to 6 concluded, after 25 Ashim 08/29/2025 which PW-2 was Shridhar/SD at 12 Noon;
discharged.
Sharma and D1 (D1,2,4-8); D3 ex parte PW-3 (Yashpal Singh) and PW-4 (Om Dutt Gaur) tendered their affidavits as Exhibit Plaintiff:
PW-3/A and Exhibit Mritunjay PW-4/A, respectively. Adjourned Kumar, PW-3, Both witnesses were to and PW-4;
cross-examined and 09/19/2025;
09/02/20 Defendants:
7 discharged. PW-2's dates
25 Ashim
EEC was tendered communicat
Shridhar/SD
with video ed via
Sharma and D1
affirmation. The WhatsApp;
(D1,2,4-8); D3
defendants were
ex parte
directed to file their
witness list and
affidavits within two
weeks.
Plaintiff Witnesses Examined
55. The following plaintiff witnesses were examined during the Page 42 of 144 evidence proceedings:
PW-1: Smt. Akanksha Choudhary Smt. Akanksha Choudhary, Plaintiff No. 2 and wife of Plaintiff No. 1, entered the witness box and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW-1/A colly.). Her cross-examination commenced on 05/02/2025, continued on 05/16/2025 and 05/23/2025, and concluded on 06/24/2025. She was discharged on 06/24/2025.
PW-2: Sh. Ravi Kumar Malik Sh. Ravi Kumar Malik, Plaintiff No. 1, tendered his evidence by affidavit (Ex. PW-2/A colly.). His cross-examination commenced on 08/04/2025 and continued on 08/08/2025, concluding the same day. He was discharged on 08/08/2025.
PW-3: Sh. Yashpal Singh Sh. Yashpal Singh, father-in-law of PW-1 and a retired Delhi Police Head Constable, tendered his evidence by affidavit (Ex. PW-3/A colly.). He was cross-examined and discharged on 09/02/2025.
PW-4: Sh. Om Dutt Gaur Sh. Om Dutt Gaur, owner of Flat B-7 on the third floor, Wing-2, and a neighbor/resident, tendered his evidence by affidavit (Ex.Page 43 of 144
PW-4/A colly.). He was cross-examined and discharged on 09/02/2025.
Documents Exhibited/Tendered/Marked on Behalf of Plaintiff PW-1 (Akanksha Choudhary) Documents The documents exhibited, tendered, or marked on behalf of PW-1, Akanksha Choudhary, S. Marking Status / Exhibit No. Document Description No. Objections Ex. Tendered, Plaintiff no. 2's 1 PW-1/A signatures evidence-by-affidavit (colly.) identified at A & B Ex.
2 PW-1/1 Site plan of suit property Exhibited (colly.) Exhibited;
Ex. Copy of Property Tax
3 objection raised (no
PW-1/2 Receipt (MCD)
65B certificate)
Ex.
4 PW-1/3 Photographs Exhibited
(colly.)
Copy of Collaboration
Mark A
5 Agreement dated Marked
(colly.)
16.11.2020
Mark B Partition deed dated
6 Marked
(colly.) 15.11.2011
Mark C
7 GPA dated 14.07.2021 Marked
(colly.)
8 Ex. Report of LC Sh. Mohit Exhibited
Page 44 of 144
S. Marking Status /
Exhibit No. Document Description
No. Objections
PW-1/4
Jolly
(colly.)
Ex.
Report of LC Sh. Nikhil
9 PW-1/5 Exhibited
Sehrawat
(colly.)
Ex.
1st Report of LC Mikhil Exhibited (consent 10 PW-1/6 Sharda given) (colly.) Ex.
ATS dated 19.08.2021 PW-1/7 11 (defendant no. 1 in favour Exhibited OSR (colly.) of PW-1) OSR Ex.
12 PW-1/8 Receipt dated 19.08.2021 Exhibited OSR
OSR
Ex. Receipt no. 1118 dated
13 Exhibited
PW-1/9 09.09.2021
Ex. Cash Receipt dated
14 Exhibited
PW-1/10 30.07.2022
Ex. Cash Receipt dated
15 Exhibited
PW-1/11 26.02.2023
Ex.
PW-1/12
16 ATS dated 27.02.2023 Exhibited OSR
(colly.)
OSR
Ex.
PW-1/13
17 Affidavit dated 27.02.2023 Exhibited OSR
(colly.)
OSR
Ex. Possession letter dated
18 Exhibited OSR
PW-1/14 27.02.2023
Page 45 of 144
S. Marking Status /
Exhibit No. Document Description
No. Objections
(colly.)
OSR
Ex.
19 PW-1/15 Receipt dated 27.02.2023 Exhibited OSR
OSR
Ex.
PW-1/16
20 Will dated 27.02.2023 Exhibited OSR
(colly.)
OSR
Ex.
Registered GPA dated
PW-1/17
21 27.02.2023 (registered Exhibited OSR
(colly.)
28.02.2023)
OSR
Ex.
Cash receipt dated
22 PW-1/18 Exhibited OSR
22.03.2023
OSR
Ex.
Cash receipt dated
23 PW-1/19 Exhibited OSR
27.04.2023
OSR
Ex.
Cash receipt dated
24 PW-1/20 Exhibited OSR
22.03.2023
OSR
Ex.
Legal notice dated
25 PW-1/21 Exhibited OSR
30.09.2023
OSR
PW-3 & PW-4
Ex. PW-3/A: Yashpal Singh tendered his evidence affidavit. Ex. PW-4/A: Om Dutt Gaur tendered his evidence affidavit.
Page 46 of 144DEFENCE EVIDENCE
56. Defendant evidence consisted solely of DW-1 Md. Aslam Zuberi (defendant no.1) tendering Ex.DW-1/A(colly.) on 22.09.2025.
57. The defense evidence was presented on 22 September 2025 at 2:15 PM, during which DW-1 submitted an affidavit and underwent partial cross-examination. Proceedings continued on 24 September 2025 at 3:15 PM, when the cross-examination of DW-1 was completed, following which DW-1 was discharged and defense evidence was closed for Defendants 1 and 2, with no additional witnesses presented. Counsel Sh. S.D. Sharma appeared for Defendants 1, 2, and 4-8, accompanied by DW-1 (Md. Aslam Zuberi/Defendant 1) in person. The plaintiff was represented by Mr. Mritunjay Kumar. Defendant 3 proceeded ex parte. Fees were paid by Defendant 1 on 22 September and by the plaintiff on 24.09.2025.
Documents Tendered, Exhibited, and Marked During Defense Evidence
58. The following documents were tendered, exhibited, &/or marked during the course of the defense evidence, primarily through the deposition of DW-1, Md. Aslam Zuberi. Each document is listed with its respective date, exhibit or mark number, nature, and relevant context as reflected in the proceedings:
Page 47 of 144 Exhibit/ Nature of Relevant
S. No. Date
Mark No. Document Details/Context
Tendered by DW-1;
DW-1
22.09.202 Ex. DW-1/A signatures identified;
1 Evidence-
5 (colly.) contents affirmed as
by-affidavit
known.
Affidavit Relied upon by
22.09.202 Ex. (pages 45- DW-1 during
2
5 PW-2/D1 46 from LC examination-in-
report) chief.
CC NI Act Exhibited during
24.09.202 Ex. DW-1/3
3 861/2023 cross; referenced
5 (colly.)
complaint MCD/power issues.
Exhibited; resolved
Delhi High
Ex. MCD booking error
24.09.202 Court order
4 DW-1/X1 for F-44 (same no.
5 WP(C)
(colly.) as Anita Pawar's
13257/2024
plot).
Exhibited; cleared
CGRF order electricity
Ex. CG connections for
24.09.202
5 DW-1/X2 121/2024/F- Wing-1 flats post-
5
(colly.) 1/14 dt. HC; consolidated
30.01.2025 CGs 121/124-
127/2024.
Page 48 of 144
Exhibit/ Nature of Relevant
S. No. Date
Mark No. Document Details/Context
To Vijender Kumar
Sharma/Pushpa
Sharma dt.
Registered 20.06.2022 (₹32L
Ex.
24.09.202 sale deed consideration, stamp
6 DW-1/X3
5 B-8 third ₹1.6L, e-stamp IN-
(colly.)
floor DL17526274618107
U rectified; original
held due to unpaid
balance).
Marked; DW-1
GST
24.09.202 admitted not
7 Mark 1/2 certificate
5 producing original
(original)
but offered later.
Legal notice
24.09.202 Marked during
8 Mark 1/4 dt.
5 cross.
28.08.2023
Collaboratio Referenced/shown;
24.09.202 Mark A n agreement signed by Som Dutt 9 5 (colly.) pg. 45 point Sharma (D5, A attorney D6).
Referenced;
GPA dt.
irrevocable per 24.09.202 Mark C 14.07.2021 10 DW-1 but contains 5 (colly.) pg. 5 para revocable clause 18 point A (unaware).
Referenced/shown;
Ex. PW-1/1 24.09.202 shop/toilet area 11 (colly.) pg. Site plan 5 (denied as stilt 31 point A parking by DW-1).
Page 49 of 144 Exhibit/ Nature of Relevant
S. No. Date
Mark No. Document Details/Context
Shown to DW-1;
Video of D3
admitted obstruction
demolition
24.09.202 Video (PW-2 to parking for all
12 on
5 phone) including himself;
basement
shared via
entry gate
WhatsApp.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE PLAINTIFFS REPEATED IN VERBATIM It has been argued on behalf of the plaintiffs as follows;
59. That the Plaintiffs - Shri Ravi Kumar Malik and Smt. Akanksha Choudhary (husband and wife), have instituted the present suit seeking declaration of title as joint owners of the immovable property valued at Rs. 64,15,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Four Lakh Fifteen Thousand only), which is in their present possession having been handed over by Defendant No.1 pursuant to agreements executed with Defendant No.3. The Schedule of Property appears at pages 30-32 of the record, comprising: A flat admeasuring about 60 sq. yards; (shown on map Page 30); A ground-floor portion/ parking of about 773 sq. ft. with a toilet (termed as a shop by Defendant No.1) (shown on map Page 31); and One car parking space in the common basement area (shown on map Page 32).
Page 50 of 14460. That the Plaintiffs also seek a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction, along with damages of Rs. 30,85,000/- and interest against Defendants No.1 and 2.
61. It has been argued that the Plaintiffs' claim is supported by cogent documentary and oral evidence establishing the Defendants' breach of contractual obligations, unjust enrichment, and harassment, entitling the Plaintiffs to the reliefs prayed. That Defendant No.1, the sole proprietor of Defendant No.2, has admitted to being engaged in the construction business as a builder and contractor for the past five decades.
62. His admission during cross-examination dated 22.09.2025 reads:
"I am in the construction business for the last 50 years. Earlier I used to work as a contractor, but for the last 15 years, I used to take all the work in my name under Zuberi & Co."
63. That Defendant No.3 is the title holder of an area measuring 500 sq. ft. by virtue of a Partition Deed dated 15.11.2011 (Mark B, pages 47-50), duly admitted by Defendant No.1, wherein the subject property falls.
64. That Defendant No.1 entered into a Collaboration Agreement Page 51 of 144 dated 11.11.2020 (Mark A, pages 38-46) with Defendant No.3, who also executed a revocable GPA in favour of Defendant No.1 (Mark C, pages 51-59).
65. These documents stand admitted by Defendant No.1 in his affidavit and cross-examination.
66. That on the basis of the said collaboration, Defendant No.1 executed an Agreement to Sell dated 21.08.2021 (Ex. PW-1/7 Colly, OSR) with the Plaintiffs, assuring delivery of a fully furnished flat with all amenities and clear title by May 2022. Defendant No.1 and 2 duly received the advance payment and issued receipts (Ex. PW-1/8, OSR), admitted by Defendant No.1.
67. That although possession of the property was handed over to the Plaintiffs on 27/02/2023, with novation of agreement to sale, registered GPA, registered will, receipts and possession letter was made and executed by Defendant no.1 but the Defendants No.1-3 failed to provide the promised amenities ie parking, and registered sale deed, despite receiving the entire consideration of Rs. 64,15,000/-, leading to the institution of this suit.
68. That the Court appointed Local Commissioners to inspect the suit property, who confirmed that the Plaintiffs are in undisputed possession--also admitted by all Defendants.
Page 52 of 14469. That Defendants No.4-8 were impleaded pursuant to the Court's directions, but they have failed to file written statements despite due opportunity.
70. That Defendant No.3 too failed to file his written statement or appear, although Defendant No.1 admitted during cross-examination dated 24.09.2025 that Defendant No.3 and his family are fully aware of this proceeding, as quoted:
"My last conversation with D3, his wife and his son must have around 7-8 days ago. The complete family of D3 takes care of the property. I have told D3, and his son about the present suit."
71. That the Plaintiffs, examined as PW-1 and PW-2, have proved all material documents and adduced the evidence of four witnesses in support of their case.
72. That payment of the entire consideration amount of Rs. 64,15,000/- has been duly proved through cheques, rtgs, transfers, cash receipts all bearing the admitted signatures of Defendant No.1/ DW-1, as confirmed during his cross-examination.
73. That Defendant No.1/ DW-1's admissions regarding the Collaboration Agreement, Partition Deed, GPA, possession of the plaintiffs of the suit property and the transaction itself substantiate Page 53 of 144 Plaintiffs' claim of lawful ownership and entitlement to a registered sale deed.
74. That property tax receipts (EX. PW-2/4) in Plaintiffs' names further establish their lawful possession.
75. That the Defendant No.3 provided temporary electricity arrangement till February 2025, when the Plaintiff got the electricity connection in its own name, and also take the payment receipts as apparent from EX.PW-2/5 electricity payment to D3, and that establishes that the Plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit property in consent with D3 & D1- after making full and final payment to Defendant No.1 and payment of electricity bill i.e. temporary arrangement to Defendant No.3.
76. That Defendant No.1 subsequently executed a modified Agreement to Sell dated 27.02.2023 (EX. PW-1/12, OSR) with renewed consideration of Rs. 30,10,000/-, supported by affidavit (EX. PW-1/13) and possession letter (EX. PW-1/14). This novated agreement, admitted by the Defendant, supersedes the earlier contract (EX. PW-1/7).
77. That Defendant No.1 has also admitted the documents executed by him in favour of Defendants No.4 to 8 and to another flat transferred through registered sale Deed EX-DW-1/3 (colly), and that Page 54 of 144 establishes that the suit property is entitled to be transferred in name of Plaintiffs through registered Sale Deed, which the Defendant No.1- 3 failed to perform.
78. That the details of flats sold by Defendant No.1 in the same premises having almost same areas and admitted by DW-1 are as follows:
Mode of S. Exhibits Owner Name Value (₹) Execution/Transf No. er Pushpa Sharma & Registered Sale EX-DW1/X3 1 Vijender 32,00,000/- Deed dated 18-
(colly) Kumar 06-2022 Sharma Documents filed by D4-D8 and executed by D1 and admitted by DW-1 during cross examination.
Mark 1 page Ms Uma
2 26,00,000/- GPA 11-11-2022
101 Sharma D-5
Mrs. Archana
3 Mark A page 66 34,90,000/- GPA 11-11-2022
Singhal - D4
Mark 2 page Mrs. Bhavna GPA Dated 08-
4 25,00,000/-
120 Sharma - D6 12-2023
Mark 3 page Mr. Kalyan GPA dated 11-11-
5 41,55,000/-
157 Kumar 2022
Page 55 of 144
Bhattacharjee-
D7
Mark 4 page Mr. Narender GPA Dated 02-
6 30,22,000/-
175 Kumar 03-2023
79. That the sale of similar flats by Defendant No.1 to Defendants No.4-8 in the same premises at comparable prices (Rs. 25,00,000/- Rs 41,00,000/- range) confirm the genuineness of the Plaintiffs' transaction. Defendant No.1/ DW-1 admitted execution and consideration in each case. It is apparent that the EX.PW-1/12 is novation and the Defendant No.1 took the consideration amount as mentioned in the same and handed over the flat and shop space to the Plaintiffs.
80. That the Defendant No.1 in his cross examination dated 22-09- 2025 has admitted that he used to get the documents ready and accordingly, it is apparent that EX-PW1/12 is executed with mutual consent of the parties. Excerpts of the statement of DW1 dated 22-09- 2025, "My sons also used to assist me in getting the paperwork ready. I used to get the documents ready for the flats constructed by me, through the document writers sitting at Mehrauli."
Page 56 of 14481. That PW-2 in his evidence by Way of Affidavit has clearly stated that the extra amount of Rs. 34,05,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Lakh Five Thousand Only) was paid to Defendant No.1 for the space about 733 sq feet on ground floor with toilet which is termed as shop by Defendant No.1 during cross examination and the property is shown in the map on page 31.
82. That all the signatures on the receipts executed by Defendant No.1 are admitted by DW-1.
83. That the Defendant No.1 further admitted that he has handed over the possession to the shop, statement of DW1 is excerpted herein as, "Vol. - I had permitted the Plaintiff to park his car in said shop in order to avoid MCD proceedings. ... Vol. I say that the Plaintiff has saved my premises/ shop by parking his car, from D4 to D8 who were illegally trying to grab the said shop/ property. I thank the Plaintiff for protecting my place from D4 to D8."
84. It is further submitted that Defendant No.1 has taken more than Rs. 60,00,000/- from only two of his buyers one is the Plaintiff and the other is PW-4- whom he has also provided the flat and another shop and PW4 has also filed a suit No. CSDJ/45/2025 and vide order dated 03-09-2025 the concerned Coordinate Court has granted him status Page 57 of 144 quo with regards to the flat and shop/ stilt space with toilet on ground floor of area about 588 sq feet. The order has been filed for reference.
85. Thus it is evident that the Defendant No.1 has taken total consideration amount of Rs. 64,15,000/- from the Plaintiffs towards the sale of the properties in possession of the Plaintiffs, but failed to transfer the title through execution of registered sale deed.
86. That the Defendant No. 1 entered into both written and oral agreements with the Plaintiffs, receiving the full consideration of Rs. 64,15,000/-, as evidenced by admitted receipts, yet failed to fulfill his contractual obligations, including the execution of a registered sale deed.
87. The statement of DW-1 (Mohd. Aslam Zuberi) during cross- examination on 24.09.2025 reveals a pattern of bad faith, as he falsely claimed not to have received full payment from other flat buyers except Defendant No. 8 (Shri Narendra Kumar).
88. However, DW-1's admissions and the documents he executed confirm receipt of the entire amount from the Plaintiffs. Furthermore, DW-1 initially denied his signatures on certain documents (EX.PW-1/9, 11, 18) during cross-examination on 22.09.2025, only to retract and admit them on 24.09.2025, stating, Page 58 of 144 "I say that I inadvertently denied my signature on a few documents in the last cross-examination dated 22-09- 2025; however, those signatures are mine."
89. This retraction, likely made to avoid perjury, underscores DW-1's lack of credibility and habitual misrepresentation, further supporting the Plaintiffs' claim of breach and justifying the reliefs sought.
90. That it is clear from the evidence that the Defendants no.1 & 2 accepted full consideration, handed over possession, but failed to convey title--thereby defaulting on his legal obligations. That Defendant No.1 alone appeared as DW-1 and led evidence, producing no documents in support of his defence.
91. The Plaintiffs are subjected to ongoing harassment by Defendants No. 1, who have attempted illegal encroachments in the premises where the suit property situated and failed to provide the agreed-upon parking facility in the common basement area, further compounded by obstacles created by Defendant No. 3, as evidenced by video footage and documents filed on 24.09.2025. DW-1 (Mohd. Aslam Zuberi) admitted during cross-examination on 24.09.2025, stating, "I had handed over the key of the main gate of the basement parking area to all eight flat owners; however, Page 59 of 144 they are not parking in the said basement as there is enough space surrounding the building, and that is convenient for me."
92. This admission reveals that Defendant No. 1, in connivance with Defendant No. 3, has deliberately obstructed access to the basement parking and failed to install a lift, thereby breaching the terms of the agreement. Consequently, the Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering with their possession and a mandatory injunction directing the completion of essential amenities, including the lift, parking, and utilities, within a specified timeframe.
93. That the Plaintiffs have, therefore, discharged the burden of proof on Issues 1 and 2 and are entitled to decree as prayed.
Issue No. 3: Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 30,85,000/- along with interest against the Defendants, as prayed for? OPP
94. That the Plaintiffs claim Rs. 30,85,000/-, comprising Rs. 5,35,000/- for extra expenses (e.g., poor-quality fixtures), Rs. 15,00,000/- for harassment and Rs. 10,50,000/- for delay from May 2022 to February 2023. These are supported by financial records and witness testimony (Yashpal Singh, Om Dutt Gaur) as well as Page 60 of 144 admission by DW1.
95. That the Defendant No.1 has himself admitted that the delay in the project was caused due to MCD related issues and the Plaintiffs as well as other flat buyers in the premises i.e. D4-D8 got the electricity connection only in February 2025 and DW1 admitted the same as apparent from EX.DW1/X1, and EX.DW1/X2 (Colly) and thus has harassed the plaintiffs despite taking full and final consideration amount.
96. That the DW1 has admitted as excerpted from his statement during cross examination dated 24-09-2025, "I did not get any lift installed in the premises where the subject property is located. However, I had constructed a provision for the left i.e. lift well...... I did not place any permanent cover on the opening to the lift well."
97. Thus the Defendant No.1 who claims himself to be a builder of repute has kept the life and property of the inhabitants as well as visitors of the premises in danger and no prudent person can expect such kind of hazardous activities from any builder.
98. The installation of lift in the premises is a basic necessity and the Plaintiffs are entitled to claim the cost of the same from Defendant No1 & 2.
Page 61 of 14499. That the PW1 & PW2 have established the poor quality of electric wire furnishings and entitled to recover the same from Defendant No1.
100. That the Defendants during cross examination of the Plaintiffs' witnesses have asked about due diligence on the part of buyers and the Plaintiffs' witnesses established the same.
101. It is evident from record that Defendant No. 5 Shri Somdutt Sharma is one of the witness of collaboration agreement and has purchased two similar kinds of flats as admitted by DW-1 as well, however DW1 admitted himself that in collusion with Defendant No.3 he has made some illegal construction in the premises without taking approval from MCD and thus has caused unnecessary harassment to Plaintiffs.
102. That the Plaintiffs, a young couple, were induced by Defendant No. 1's assurances of a home loan facility and timely transfer of the suit property through a registered sale deed. Despite the non- sanctioning of the home loan, the Plaintiffs arranged funds and paid the full consideration of Rs. 64,15,000/- to Defendants No. 1 and 2, driven by their aspiration to own a home.
103. However, the Defendants not only delayed possession from May 2022 to February 2023 but also failed to execute the promised Page 62 of 144 registered sale deed. Furthermore, during cross-examination, the Defendants, particularly Defendant No. 1 in connivance with Defendants No. 4 to 8, attempted to tarnish the reputation of Plaintiff No. 1 and destabilize their family by posing derogatory and repetitive questions, such as, "Are you in touch with your husband?" and "Is your relationship with your husband cordial?" These questions, as evident from the record, demonstrate a deliberate intent to cause mental harassment, agony, and reputational harm to the Plaintiffs, which cannot be fully compensated monetarily. Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs seek damages as prayed in the suit to address the severe distress caused by the Defendants' actions.
104. Defendant's Breach: Defendant No. 1 (DW-1) admitted during cross-examination on 24.09.2025 to delays in the project caused by MCD deviations, which were negligently managed by the husband of Defendant No. 4 without professional oversight. DW-1 further conceded that his firm, Zuberi & Co., employed no professional engineers or architects, relying instead on unqualified personnel, including his sons with only 12th-grade education.
105. This gross negligence, particularly the failure to install a lift (admitting only a provision for a lift well without a permanent cover), endangered the lives and property of the Plaintiffs and other occupants, including visitors to the premises. Such conduct by Page 63 of 144 Defendant No. 1, a self-proclaimed builder of repute, amounts to fraudulent misrepresentation and bad faith, breaching the agreements.
106. Consequently, the Plaintiffs pray for a decree of Rs. 30,85,000/- with interest from the date of filing until realization, reflecting Defendant No. 1's egregious bad faith and the resultant harm.
Issue No. 4: Relief/ Consolidated Relief:
Based on the above, the Plaintiffs seek:
Specific performance directing execution and registration of a sale deed of property in possession.
Permanent & Mandatory injunction against dispossession and interference and amenities.
Damages of Rs. 30,85,000/- with interest & Costs of the suit.- Legal Expenses details are annexed herein as Annexure A2 Colly for determining the cost of the present suit.
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS/ JUDGMENTS FILED AND RELIED UPON
107. That pleadings must be read in their entirety; accordingly, the Court may grant specific performance notwithstanding an absence of explicit prayer, where the pleadings and evidence so indicates as the plaint and documents of the plaintiffs clearly mention and refer the Page 64 of 144 relief of execution of a registered sale deed, as mentioned in the exhibited and marked documents, which have to be read as whole;
Judgment Relied upon:
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MRS. AKELLA LALITHA VERSUS SRI KONDA HANUMANTHA RAO & ANR. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6325- 6326 OF 2015 Relevant Para 15, 16 & 17.
"15...... It is settled law that relief not found on pleadings should not be granted."
108. In the present Case from the Pleading it is apparent that the Plaintiffs are seeking declaration of title through execution of Registered Sale Deed by Defendants.
BHAGWATI PRASAD VS SHRI CHANDRAMAUL AIR 1966 SC735 "10. ........If a plea is not specifically made and yet it is covered by an issue by implication, and the parties knew that the said plea was involved in the trial, then the mere fact that the plea was not expressly taken in the pleadings Page 65 of 144 would not necessarily disentitle a party from relying upon it if it is satisfactorily proved by evidence. The general rule no doubt is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by the parties. But where the substantial matters relating to the title of both parties to the suit are touched, though indirectly or even obscurely in the issue, and evidence has been led about them, then the argument that a particular matter was not expressly taken in the pleadings would be purely formal and technical and cannot succeed in every case."
Para 15 "15... ....The importance of the pleadings cannot, of course, be ignored, because it is the pleading that lead to the framing of issues and a trial in every civil case has inevitably to be confirmed to the issues framed in the suit. The whole object of framing the issues would be defeated if parties allowed to travel beyond them and claim or oppose reliefs on grounds not made in the pleadings and not covered by the issues. But cases may occur in which though a particular plea is not specifically included in the issues, parties might know that in substance, the said plea is being tried and might lead evidence about it. It is only in such a case where the Court is satisfied that the ground on which Page 66 of 144 reliance is placed by one or the other of the parties, was in substance, at issue between them and that both of them have had opportunity to lead evidence about it at the trial and the formal requirement of pleadings can be relaxed."
SYED DASTAGIR VS T R GOPALAKRISHNA SETTY 1999 CIVIL APPEAL 2061 OF 1987 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Relevant Excerpts "9...... In construing a plea in any pleading, Courts must keep in mind that a plea is not an expression of art and science but an expression through words to place fact and law of ones case for a relief. Such an expression may be pointed, precise, some times vague but still could be gathered what he wants to convey through only by reading the whole pleading, depends on the person drafting a plea. In India most of the pleas are drafted by counsels hence aforesaid difference of pleas which inevitably differ from one to other. Thus, to gather true spirit behind a plea it should be read as a whole."
" .....Section 16 (c) does not require any specific phraseology but only that the plaintiff must aver that he has performed or has always been and is willing to perform his part of the contract. So the compliance of Readiness Page 67 of 144 and willingness has to be in spirit and substance and not in letter and form. So to insist for mechanical production of the exact words of an statute is to insist for the form rather than essence. So absence of form cannot dissolve an essence if already pleaded."
"13. In interpreting a pleading wherever there be two possible interpretations, then the one which defeats justice should be rejected and the one which sub-serve to justice should be accepted.
14. It was held in the case of Ramesh Chandra v. Chuni Lal, AIR 1971 SC 1238, that readiness and willingness cannot be treated as a strait-jacket formula. This have to be determined from the entirety of facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and conduct of the party concerned."
109. In the present Case it is apparent through pleading, evidence that the Plaintiffs have performed on their part and willing to pay the requisite stamp duty for the registered Sale Deed to be Executed by Defendants specially Defendant No.3.
LATA CONSTRUCTION & ORS. V. DR. RAMESHCHANDRA RAMNIKLAL SHAH, (2000) 1 SCC 586 Page 68 of 144 Key principle: Novation under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act substitutes a new contract for the old one and discharges the old contract when the parties intend substitution.
Relevance: Bolsters the Plaintiffs' claim that EX.PW-1/12 supersedes EX.PW-1/7 (novation) and that the new terms (including the final consideration and a promise of a registered sale deed) govern the rights.
UNION OF INDIA V. KISHORILAL GUPTA & BROS., AIR 1959 SC 1362 Relevance in Context: This judgment supports the proposition that a subsequent agreement (such as EX.PW-1/12 in the present case) can supersede and replace an earlier agreement (EX.PW-1/7), provided the parties intended for the new contract to take effect and the previous contract to be discharged.
Key principle: Novation, when validly agreed, extinguishes the original contract.
Relevance: Supports the view that the later agreement to sell (EX.PW-1/12) can terminate and replace the earlier agreement, aligning with the Plaintiffs' position on novation.
Page 69 of 144SYED ABDUL KHADER V. RAMI REDDY, (1979) 2 SCC 601 Key principle: A principal is bound by the acts of its agent when the agent contracts within the scope of authority; the principal bears the obligation to perform.
Relevance: Establishes that Defendant No.3 (the owner/principal) is bound to fulfill the sale-deed obligation since D1 acted as its agent under the revocable GPA.
DORAB CAWASJI WARDEN V. COOMI SORAB WARDEN, (1990) 2 SCC 117 Key principle: Possession in the face of breach can justify injunctions and other protective orders; possession-related relief is a recognized remedy.
Relevance: Supports the request for a permanent injunction to protect Plaintiffs' possession and prevent interference by the Defendants.
PIONEER URBAN LAND & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. V. GOVINDAN RAGHAVAN, (2019) 5 SCC 667 Page 70 of 144 Key principle: Timely performance in development/dealing with delays and the consequences of non-performance; delay may affect rights but must be weighed against force majeure and contractual terms.
Relevance: Helps frame the Defendant's delay (and related consequences) in the context of the development agreement, supporting a claim for damages and specific performance where applicable.
RAM SARUP GUPTA (DEAD) BY LRS VS BISHNU NARAIN INTER COLLEGE & ORS 1987 AIR 1242;
Has categorically held that pleadings should receive a liberal construction and the Court must not adopt a pedantic approach. The substance of the matter must prevail over the form. Therefore, the [Plaint/Written Statement] cannot be discarded or misinterpreted by looking at the Prayer clause or isolated paragraphs in isolation; rather, the entire averments contained in the body of the pleading must be construed together to determine the real controversy between the parties.
"The pleadings, however, should receive a liberal construction, no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair- splitting technicalities. Sometimes, pleadings are expressed in Page 71 of 144 words which may not expressly make out a case in accordance with strict interpretation of law. In such a case, it is the duty of the court to ascertain the substance of the pleadings to determine the real issue between the parties."
MAYAR (H.K.) LTD. & ORS VS OWNERS & PARTIES, VESSEL M.V. FORTUNE AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1828 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Reaffirmed that while considering an application for rejection of a plaint (Order 7 Rule
11), the court must look at the entire plaint and not just specific parts or the prayer.
SUGHAR SINGH VS HARI SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5110 OF 2021 The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that lack of "specific averment"
under Section 16(c) was not fatal if overall pleadings showed compliance in substance.
PUNIT BERIWALA -VERSUS BHAI MANJIT SINGH HUF & ORS. CS(OS) 598 OF 2021 Oral Agreement is accepted.Page 72 of 144
While scrutinizing the plaint averments, it is the bounden duty of the trial Court to ascertain the materials for cause of action. The cause of action is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff the right to relief against the defendant.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS NO. 1 & 2 PER CONTRA, It has been argued on behalf of defendants no.1 & 2 as follows;
Nature of Suit and Relief Sought by Plaintiffs
110. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking declaration of title of immovable property i.e. Flat No. B-2 on upper ground floor with two sides open (Right side portion) in back side of area of property Bearing No. F-44 of flat measuring 60 sq. yards consisting of two fully furnished bedrooms, one drawing cum dining room, one kitchen, two bathrooms cum toilets, balcony along with one car parking in basement along with alleged right side private stilt parking on ground floor (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property").
Page 73 of 144111. In addition, the Plaintiffs have also sought a decree of Rs. 30,85,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present suit till payment to the Plaintiffs towards alleged damages, against the Defendant No.1 and 2.
SUIT, IF ANY, OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FILED FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE FOR EXECUTION OF SALE DEED
112. That the Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking declaration over the suit property on the basis of the following documents:
a. Agreement to Sell dated 19.08.2021 (Ex. PW-1/7 (Colly). b. Agreement to Sell dated 27.02.2023 (Ex. PW-1/12 (Colly)) c. Affidavit dated 27.02.2023 (Ex. PW-1/13 (Colly)) d. Possession Letter dated 27.02.2023 (Ex. PW-1/14 (Colly)) e. Receipt dated 27.02.2023 (Ex. PW-1/15) f. Will dated 27.02.2023 (Ex. PW-1/16 (Colly)) g. Registered GPA executed on 27.02.2023 registered 28.02.2023 (Ex. PW-1/17 (Colly) (hereinafter collectively referred to as "purchase documents");
113. However, a perusal of the aforementioned purchase documents would reveal that suit, if any, ought to have been filed for specific Page 74 of 144 performance to get the said purchase documents enforced. In this regard, reference may be had to the following clauses of the respective purchase documents:
Clause 8 of Agreement to Sell dated 19.08.2021 (Ex. PW-1/7 (Colly) @pg. 65 of Plaint, which reads as under:
"8. That this Agreement is Irrevocable and any of the Parties failed to complete the transaction, the each party shall get it enforced through Court of Law and the defaulting party shall be liable to pay all expenses, costs, incurred and damage suffered."
Clause 14 of Agreement to Sell dated 27.02.2023 (EX.PW-1/12 (Colly) @pg. 71 of Plaint, which reads as under:
"14. That if the first party infringes the terms and conditions of this agreement the second party shall be entitled to get implementation thereof effected through Court of Law by specific in force at the cost and risks of the first party or may rescind this agreement and in that eventuality, the first party shall be liable and responsible for making good of the losses which may be suffered incurred undergone and/or sustained by the second party as a result thereof."
114. That further, it is a settled law in cases where there exists only an agreement to sell and no sale deed, then the same only enables the Page 75 of 144 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. In this regard, reference may be had to order/judgment dated 01.09.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Ramesh Chand (D) thr. LRS. Vs. Suresh Chand & Anr. 2025" SCC OnLine SC 1879 which reads 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."
PURCHASE DOCUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS DO NOT CONFER A VALID TITLE OVER THE SUIT PROPERTY
115. In addition, it is submitted that the Plaintiffs are seeking declaration over the suit property on the basis of the aforementioned purchase documents such as Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Receipt of Consideration, Will, etc. executed between the Page 76 of 144 Plaintiffs and the answering Defendants. However, there exist no title documents whatsoever in favour of the Plaintiffs qua the suit property and the only documents on the basis of which the Plaintiffs are allegedly seeking title are ATS / GPA/Will.
116. However, it is the respectful submission of the Plaintiffs that it is a settled law that Agreement to Sell/ GPA/ Will transactions neither convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property and that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/ conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Reference may be had to order/ judgement dated 11.10.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) through Director vs. State of Haryana & Anr." (2012) 1 SCC 656 which reads as under:
"23. Therefore, an SA/GPA/will transaction does not convey any title nor creates any interest in an immovable property...."
117. That the aforementioned law has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex in its recent judgment dated 01.09.2025 in "Ramesh Chand (D) thr. LRS. Vs. Suresh Chand & Anr. 2025" SCC OnLine SC 1879 which specifically distinguishes that Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Will and Receipt of Consideration/Affidavit do not confer any valid title on the Plaintiff, as under:
Page 77 of 144"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.
"22. A will is the testament of the testator. It is a posthumous disposition of the estate of the testator directing distribution of his estate upon his death. It is not a transfer inter vivos. The two essential characteristics of a will are that it is intended to come into effect only after the death of the testator and is revocable at any time during the lifetime of the testator. It is said that so long as the testator is alive, a will is not worth the paper on which it is written, as the testator can at any time revoke it. If the testator, who is not married, marries after making the will, by operation of law, the will stands revoked. Registration of a will does not make it any more effective."
118. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances and the Page 78 of 144 settled proposition of law, it is respectfully submitted that on the basis of the said purchase documents, the Plaintiffs can in no manner whatsoever seek declaration over the suit property in the absence of any conveyance document and at best can only seek specific performance for execution of sale deed in the favour of the Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFFS HAVE DELIBERATELY NOT FILED SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SINCE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT OF RS. 16,00,000/- IS PENDING
119. It is submitted that in terms of Agreement to Sell dated 19.08.2021 (EX. PW-1/7 (Colly) @ pg. 61 of the Plaint, the total sale consideration of Flat B-2 on upper ground floor with two sides open (Right side portion) in back side of area of property Bearing No. F-44 of flat measuring 60 sq. yards consisting of two fully furnished bedrooms, one drawing cum dining room, one kitchen, two bathrooms cum toilets, balcony along with one car parking in basement was agreed to be Rs. 76,50,000/-.
120. That out of the said total consideration amount of Rs. 76,50,000/-, it is submitted that the answering Defendants have received only a sum of Rs. 34,10,000/-, which is also evident from Agreement to Sell dated 19.08.2021 (Ex. PW-1/7 (Colly) and Agreement to Sell dated 27.02.2023 (Ex. PW-1/12 (Colly) as under:
Agreement to Sell dated 19.08.2021 (Ex. PW-1/7 (Colly) @ pg. 63 Page 79 of 144 of Plaint S. Cash/Ch.
Date Amount Drawn On
No. No.
18/08/20 Rs.
1 Cash -
21 2,00,000/-
19/08/20 Rs.
2 Cash -
21 2,00,000/-
Ch. No. 23/08/20 Rs. PNB, Sec. 4, R.K.
3
216331 21 3,05,000/- Puram, New Delhi
Agreement to Sell dated 27.02.2023 (Ex. PW-1/12 (Colly)) @ pg. 69 of Plaint S. No. Ch./Cash Date Drawn On Amount 1 216331 23.08.21 PNB Rs. 3,05,000/- 2 216332 - PNB Rs. 5,05,000/-
3 216333 10.09.21 PNB Rs. 2,00,000/- 4 216339 28.10.21 PNB Rs. 7,00,000/- 5 RTGS 01.10.21 IndusInd Bank Rs. 7,00,000/- 6 128 15.11.21 HDFC Bank Rs. 3,00,000/- 7 RTGS 07.04.21 PNB Rs. 3,00,000/-Page 80 of 144
121. That for the balance consideration amount i.e. Rs. 76,50,000/- less Rs. 34,10,000/-, the Plaintiffs issued cheque no. 803736 for a sum of Rs. 26,40,000/- drawn on IndusInd Bank from Bank A/c No. 100000610221 whereas, a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- still remained to be paid by the Plaintiffs, which was promised to be paid later, within a period of 6 months from 27.02.2023.
122. However, it is submitted that the aforesaid cheque no. 803736 for a sum of Rs. 26,40,000/- was dishonoured due to the reason "Payment stopped by Drawer" for which, the Defendant No.1 has also instituted CC NI Act No. 8611/2023 titled as "Mohd. Aslam Zuberi versus Ravi Kumar Malik" (EX. DW-1/3), which is pending before Ld. JMFC (NI ACT), Digital Court-03 (South), Saket Court, Delhi.
123. The fact that the Plaintiffs were bound to pay a sum of Rs. 26,40,000/- towards balance consideration amount is also evident from Affidavit dated 27.02.2023 of the Plaintiffs i.e. EX. DW-1/5, a perusal of which would categorically reveal that the Plaintiffs have admitted that Rs. 26,40,000/- is outstanding towards the total consideration of Rs. 76,50,000/-.
124. That furthermore, it would be pertinent to mention here that it is the case of the Plaintiffs that the said cheque no. 803736 for a sum of Rs. 26,40,000/- was a security cheque. However, the PW-2 in his Cross Examination dated 08.08.2025 (@pg. 4-5) has admitted that he Page 81 of 144 is not aware as to against what security had he issued the cheque in question.
125. That for the balance consideration amount of Rs. 16,00,000/-, the answering Defendants have instituted their counter suit i.e. CSDJ 328/2024 which is pending adjudication before this Court. It is submitted that the said balance of Rs. 16,00,000/- is categorically reflecting in the purchase documents of the Plaintiffs, as detailed in the computation hereinabove.
126. In light of the same, it is the respectful submission of the answering Defendants that the answering Defendants are entitled to the balance consideration amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- from the Plaintiffs and in the absence thereof, the Plaintiffs can in no manner whatsoever claim damages from the answering Defendants when it is the Plaintiffs who are yet to pay the complete consideration amount towards their purchased flat.
PURCHASE DOCUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS DO NOT CONFER ANY TITLE NOR SEEK TO TRANSFER / CONVEY THE STILT OF WING W-1, PLOT F-44
127. It is submitted that notwithstanding the aforesaid, even a bare reading of all the purchase documents of the Plaintiffs would reveal Page 82 of 144 that there exists no whisper of any portion of stilt allegedly being transferred / conveyed by the answering Defendants in favour of the Plaintiffs. Instead, all the purchase documents only reflect that the Plaintiffs have only 1 car parking in the basement of the Wing W-1, Plot F-44.
128. That the relevant clause / recital of the purchase documents of the Plaintiffs is being reproduced as under:
a. Agreement to Sell dated 19.08.2021 (Ex. PW-1/7 (Colly) @pg. 61 of the Plaint:
"AND WHEREAS First Party is the absolute owner/occupier and in possession of Raw Flat on First Floor, Right Side Portion-the flat with two side open, at WING area measuring approx. 60 sq. yds. consisting with Two Bedrooms, One Drawing/Dining, One Kitchen, Two Bath-cum-Toilets, of Property bearing No. F-44, comprised by Khasra No. 62 min, situated at Ber Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delh-110016, alongwith proportionate, undivided, indivisible and privileges, impartible ownership rights in the land, underneath, with all rights of ownership, possession, all rights easements and appurtenances, with all fittings, fixtures, connections, separate overhead water tank of 1000 Ltr., structure standing thereon, with in common entrance, passage, staircase, One Car parking in Page 83 of 144 Basement/parking area, Lift, rights of access through staircase etc. to the top terrace at all reasonable time to get the overhead tank, repaired, cleaned etc., and to install T.V. Antenna and all other common facilities and amenities as are provided in the said building; (hereinafter called the Said Property)"
@pg. 66 of the Plaint:
"from Akanksha Choudhary (UID No. 7651-8280-7056) daughter of Shri Yashpal Singh and wife of Shri Ravi Kumar Malik resident of House NO. sector 5, R.K. Puram, South West Delhi, Delhi-110022, as an advance payment towards the sale of Raw Flat on First Floor, Right Side Portion-the flat with two side open, at WING 2, area measuring approx. 60 sq. yds. consisting with Two Bedrooms, One Drawing/Dining, One Kitchen, Two Bath- cum-Toilets, of Property bearing No. F-44, comprised by Khasra No. 62 min, situated at Ber Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delh-110016, alongwith proportionate, undivided, indivisible and impartible ownership rights in the land underneath, with all rights of ownership, possession, privileges, easements and appurtenances, with all fittings, fixtures, connections, separate overhead water tank of 1000 Ltr., structure standing thereon; with all rights in common Page 84 of 144 entrance, passage, staircase, One Car parking In Basement/parking area, Lift, rights of access through staircase etc..."
Agreement to Sell dated 27.02.2023 (Ex. PW-1/12 (Colly) @pg. 68 of the Plaint "Ground above Whereas executants is the owner of the Private Portion/Unit No.B-2 on Floor stilt Parking with two side Open (Right Side Portion) at WING 2, area measuring 60 Sa. Yds., consisting of two bedrooms, one drawing cum dining room, one kitchen, two bathrooms-cum-toilets, balcony, one Car Parking in Basement, in/of Property bearing No. F-44, falls in Khasra No.62 min, situated in at Village Ber Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. ..."
Affidavit dated 27.02.2023 (Ex. PW-1/13 (Colly) @pg. 74 of the Plaint "That I/we am the lawful owner & Possession of Private Portion/ Unit No.B-2 on Ground Floor above stilt Parking with two side Open (Right Side Portion) at WING 2, area admeasuring 60 sq. Yds., consisting of two bedrooms, one drawing cum dining room, one kitchen, two bathrooms-
Page 85 of 144cum-toilets, balcony, one Car Parking in Basement, in/of Property bearing No. F-44, falls in Khasra No.62 min, situated in at Village Ber Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi...."
Possession Letter dated 27.02.2023 (Ex. PW-1/14 (Colly)) @ pg. 76 of Plaint "PROPERTY UNDER SALE: in respect of the Private Portion/Unit No. B-2 on Ground Floor above stilt Parking with two side Open (Right Side Portion) at WING 2, area measuring 60 Sa. Yds., consisting of two bedrooms, one drawing cum dining room, one kitchen, two bathrooms- cum-toilets, balcony, one Car Parking in Basement, in/of Property bearing No. F-44, falls in Khasra No.62 min, situated in at Village Ber Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi..."
Receipt dated 27.02.2023 (Ex. PW-1/15) @ pg. 78 of Plaint "Private Portion/Unit No.B-2 on Ground Floor above stilt Parking with two side Open the of two (Right Side Portion) at WING 2, area measuring 60 Sa. Yds., consisting bedrooms, one drawing cum dining room, one Kitchen, two Page 86 of 144 bathrooms-cum-toilets, balcony, one Car Parking in Basement, in/of Property bearing No. F-44, falls in Khasra No.62 min, situated in at Village Ber Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi,..."
Will dated 27.02.2023 (Ex. PW-1/16 (Colly)) @ pg. 79 of Plaint "In respect of the Private Portion/Unit No.B-2 on Ground Floor above stilt Parking with two side Open (Right Side Portion) at WING 2, area measuring 60 Sq. Yds., consisting of two bedrooms, one drawing cum dining room, one kitchen, two bathrooms-cum-toilets, balcony, one Car Parking in Basement, in/of Property bearing No. F-44, falls in Khasra No.62 min, situated in at Village Ber Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi,"
Registered GPA executed on 27.02.2023 registered 28.02.2023 (Ex. PW-1/17 (Colly) @ pg. 87 of Plaint "...in respect of Private Portion/Unit No.B-2 on Ground Floor above stilt Parking with two side Open (Right Side Portion) at WING 2, area measuring 60 Sq. Yds., consisting of two bedrooms, one drawing cum dining room, one kitchen, two bathrooms-cum-toilets, balcony, one Car Parking in Basement, in/of Property bearing No. F-44, falls in Khasra No.62 min, situated in at Village Ber Sarai, Page 87 of 144 Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, ..."
129. It is submitted that in none of the aforementioned purchase documents of the Plaintiffs is it appearing that the Plaintiffs are entitled to alleged right side private stilt parking on ground floor or any portion of the stilt. Despite the same, the Plaintiffs vide the present suit have sought declaration over the alleged right side private stilt parking on ground floor, without any valid document in their favour conferring any right over the same in favour of the Plaintiffs.
130. It is submitted that the said fact is also corroborated with Reports of the Local Commissioners appointed by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2024 and 04.02.2025 i.e. Report of LC Sh. Mohit Jolly (Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly)) and Report of LC Sh. Nikhil Sehrawat (Ex. PW-1/5 (Colly)) respectively.
131. In fact, the Report of LC Sh. Mohit Jolly (Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly)) was also categorically noted by this Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 16.05.2024.
PLAINTIFFS IN THEIR CROSS EXAMINATION HAVE ADMITTED THAT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO STILT PORTION
132. That in addition to the aforesaid, it would be most relevant to emphasise that PW-1 Smt. Akanksha Choudhary (Plaintiff No.2 Page 88 of 144 herein) in her Cross Examination dated 23.05.2025 (@pg. 3 and 4) has also categorically admitted and deposed to the effect that in GPA (Ex. PW-1/17 (Colly)), stilt is not mentioned anywhere, except that Flat No.2 is above stilt parking.
133. Further, the PW-1 in her cross examination dated 24.06.2025 @pg. 3-5 has also admitted and deposed that the word stilt is not mentioned in any of the purchase documents.
134. Additionally, the PW-2 / Plaintiff No.1 in his Cross Examination dated 04.08.2025 @pg. 7 has also categorically admitted and deposed to the effect that in GPA (Ex. PW-1/17 (Colly), stilt is not mentioned anywhere.
135. The PW-2 in his Cross Examination dated 04.08.2025 @pg. 9 has further admitted and deposed to the effect that except EX. PW-1/1 i.e. site plan prepared by the Plaintiffs, there is no document on record by virtue of which the Plaintiffs are claiming rights qua private stilt parking.
136. In light of the aforementioned admission of the PW-1 and PW-2 that none of their purchase documents reflect that they are entitle to any portion of the stilt, coupled with the fact that none of the purchase documents of the Plaintiffs even remotely mention that the Plaintiffs are entitled to any space over the stilt, leave alone the averment that Page 89 of 144 the Plaintiffs are allegedly entitled to right side private stilt parking on ground floor, the Plaintiffs can in no manner whatsoever be entitled to any space over the stilt on ground floor of Wing W-1, Plot F-44.
137. Even otherwise, it is a matter of fact and record that the stilt consists of two shops, which the Defendant No.1 has gifted in favour of his sons namely Mohd. Fraz Zuberi, Mohd. Owais Zuberi and Mohd. Bilal Zuberi vide Gift Deed dated 15.09.2023, Affidavit dated 15.09.2023, Possession Letter dated 15.09.2023, Will dated 15.09.2023 and GPA dated 23.09.2023, all of which form part of Report of LC Sh. Nikhil Sehrawat [Ex. PW-1/5 (Colly)].
PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY CALCULATION / EVIDENTIARY PROOF FOR THE ALLEGED DAMAGES OF RS. 30,85,000/- (PRAYER CLAUSE (C))
138. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs have also sought a decree of Rs. 30,85,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present suit till payment to the Plaintiffs towards alleged damages, against the answering Defendants. However, it would be worthwhile to note here that the Plaintiffs have failed to provide any clear computation for the said amount of Rs. 30,85,000/- towards alleged damages and have further failed to establish as to why they are entitled to the same against any documentary evidence / evidentiary Page 90 of 144 proof.
139. That instead, the Plaintiffs have in the most casual and mechanical manner stated in their Plaint that Rs. 15,35,000/- is allegedly towards making the flat and building habitable towards joint contribution with other flat owners, Rs. 15,00,000/- is allegedly towards mental agony, harassment, expenses caused due to delay in getting the flat habitable while Rs. 50,000/- is towards cost of Legal Notice.
140. However, the Plaintiffs have failed to bring on record even a single document /receipt/bill/invoice, etc. to prove the alleged cost allegedly incurred by the Plaintiffs towards making the flat habitable, nor have the Plaintiffs brought to the witness stand any other flat owner of Wing W-1 to corroborate the statement that the Plaintiffs along with other flat owners had paid the said amount towards joint contribution.
141. Furthermore, it would be most pertinent to note herein that in her cross examination dated 24.06.2025 (@pg. 6-9), the PW-1 / Plaintiff No.2 has categorically admitted & deposed to the effect that no such bills have been placed on record by the Plaintiffs. Similar such deposition also exists of PW-2 in his Cross Examination dated 08.08.2025 (@pg.3).
Page 91 of 144142. Despite the same, the said alleged bills were not brought on record by the Plaintiffs during the stage of evidence to corroborate their alleged claims towards the alleged costs incurred by them. This in itself proves that the claims of the Plaintiffs towards damages are unfounded and imaginary and deserve to be dismissed.
PRAYER CLAUSE (B) OF PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION UNFOUNDED
143. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs have sought permanent and mandatory injunction against the Defendants with respect to the suit property that no third party interest can be entertained wherein the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property.
144. However, neither in the Plaint nor in EX. PW-1/A, EX. PW-1/B, EX. PW-1/C and EX. PW-1/D has any statement come on record to corroborate that the answering Defendants have in any manner whatsoever sought to create third party interests on the flat of the Plaintiffs.
HEARD & PERUSED OBSERVATIONS & REASONING Page 92 of 144
145. The Ld. Counsels for the parties have vehemently argued their case at length, along with submitting detailed written submissions coupled by judgments/ precedents of the Hon'ble Superior Courts of the Land.
146. The pleadings, submissions, arguments and the evidence led has been encapsulated as mentioned below;
Possession and Occupation
147. The plaintiffs' possession and occupation of the suit property are established through the depositions and documentary evidence presented during the proceedings. On May 2, 2025, PW-1, Akanksha Choudhary, positively identified the suit property as "B-2 Ground Floor Right Side Portion, Wing-1, Back Side in Plot No. 44, Khasra 62 Min(1-0) North Side Portion Ber Sarai." She further tendered a possession letter dated February 27, 2023 (Ex. PW-1/14 OSR), confirming that she shifted into the property immediately after the execution of the General Power of Attorney (GPA) on February 27, 2023 (Ex. PW-1/17 OSR).
148. In her cross-examination on May 23, 2025, PW-1 reiterated that she moved into the property known as F-44 after defendant no. 1 obtained the signed registered GPA, specifying February 27, 2023, as the date of shifting. She also clarified that her previous residence was Page 93 of 144 at RK Puram Sector 3, where she lived as a tenant.
149. On August 4, 2025, PW-2, Ravi Kumar Malik, described the suit property in similar terms, identifying it as "B-2, Ground Floor, Above Stilt Parking, Right Side Portion Wing 1 Back Side... Plot F-44, Khasra No. 62 Min (1-0)." This corroborates the plaintiffs' occupation of the specific portion of the property in question. The possession of the plaintiffs qua the subject property is an admitted fact.
150. The plaintiffs have also substantiated their continuous occupation and civic responsibility through property tax receipts. EX.PW-1/2 (MCD receipt) and Mark 2 (PW-2) serve as proof of ongoing civic payments by the plaintiffs, further supporting their claim of lawful possession and occupation.
Chain of Title and Defendant's Authority
151. The plaintiffs provided evidence regarding the chain of title and the authority of the defendant to transact in respect of the suit property. On May 2, 2025, the following documents were exhibited:
Collaboration Agreement dated November 16, 2020 (Mark A, executed between D1-D3), Partition Deed dated November 15, 2011 (Mark B), and GPA dated July 14, 2021 (Mark C). The site plan of the suit property (Ex. PW-1/1, pages 30-31) was also produced.Page 94 of 144
152. During the cross-examination dated May 16, 2025, PW-1 stated that defendant no. 1 had shown her the maps, sanctioned plans, and other relevant papers (including copies of the GPA, partition deed, and collaboration deed) as part of the due diligence process at the site, further confirming the defendant's authority and the plaintiffs' reliance on such documents.
Payments and Agreements (Total Consideration Evidenced)
153. The plaintiffs have furnished documentary evidence of payments made towards the total consideration for the suit property. On May 2, 2025, several exhibits were produced, including the Agreement to Sell ("ATS") dated August 19, 2021 (Ex. PW-1/7), various cash receipts (Ex. PW-1/8, Ex. PW-1/9, Ex. PW-1/10, Ex. PW-1/11, Ex. PW-1/15, Ex. PW-1/18, Ex. PW-1/19, Ex. PW-1/20), and legal documents such as the Affidavit (Ex. PW-1/13), Will (Ex. PW-1/16), and Registered GPA (Ex. PW-1/17; registered February 28, 2023). The legal notice dated September 30, 2023 (Ex. PW-1/21) was also exhibited.
154. In her cross-examination on June 24, 2025, PW-1 confirmed that, except for ₹4,00,000 which she personally handed over (as evidenced by Ex. PW-1/7-8), all other payments were made by her father and husband. She further stated that her rights in the property Page 95 of 144 were established through documents executed on February 27, 2023 (Ex. PW-1/14).
155. On September 2, 2025, PW-3, Yashpal Singh, confirmed paying ₹9,05,000 (Ex. PW-1/9) and ₹1,00,000 (Ex. PW-1/10), totaling ₹10,05,000 by arranging funds from friends, relatives, agricultural income, and gold sale. The receipts were filled out by defendant no. 1's son, further substantiating the payments.
Specific Performance of Sale Deed and Amenities
156. During the cross-examination on June 24, 2025, PW-1 detailed the breaches committed by the defendant, including the delivery of the property in a raw structure, substandard and unsafe electrical wiring, lack of installed lift (though space was provided, creating a safety hazard), and absence of individual electricity meters (submeters existed initially; individual meters were only installed in February 2025). Additionally, there was no supply of water from the Delhi Jal Board, and damages of ₹15,00,000 were claimed. PW-1 also offered to produce bills in support of these claims.
Local Commissioner Reports Confirming Possession
157. The plaintiffs' possession of the suit property is further corroborated by reports from court-appointed Local Commissioners.
Page 96 of 144On May 2, 2025, the following reports were exhibited: Ex. PW-1/4 (report by LC Sh. Mohit Jolly), Ex. PW-1/5 (report by LC Sh. Nikhil Sehrawat), and Ex. PW-1/6 (first report by LC Mikhil Sharda, exhibited with consent). These reports provide independent verification of the plaintiffs' possession and remained unrebutted. Witness Corroboration and Loan Efforts
158. On August 4, 2025, PW-2 produced a police complaint (Mark
1) and evidence of electricity payment to D3 (Mark 4). On September 2, 2025, PW-3 confirmed that defendant no. 1 had promised to facilitate a home loan and that the plaintiffs had applied for such a loan via defendant no. 1. PW-4, Om Dutt Gaur, a neighbor residing at B-7 Wing-2, affirmed being "equally aggrieved" by defendant no. 1's failures and confirmed, through his affidavit (Ex. PW-4/A, paragraphs 3-5), that the defendant had not fulfilled the required obligations.
159. These points collectively establish that the plaintiffs are bona fide purchasers who have made full payment and obtained possession as per the Local Commissioner's reports, site plan, and GPA. The breaches by defendant no. 1 (including failure to execute the sale deed and provide promised amenities) underscore the plaintiffs' need for specific relief.
160. The documents exhibited/marked, relied upon during PE also support the claims of the plaintiffs ie;
Page 97 of 144 Exhibit no. Description
Ex. PW-1/A
PW-1 evidence-by-affidavit.
(colly.)
Ex. PW-1/1
Site plan of suit property.
(colly.)
Ex. PW-1/2 MCD property tax receipt.
Ex. PW-1/3
Photographs.
(colly.)
Ex. PW-1/4
LC report Sh. Mohit Jolly.
(colly.)
Ex. PW-1/5
LC report Sh. Nikhil Sehrawat.
(colly.)
Ex. PW-1/6
1st LC report Mikhil Sharda.
(colly.)
Ex. PW-1/7 ATS dated 19.08.2021 by D1.
Page 98 of 144
Exhibit no. Description
(colly.) OSR
Ex. PW-1/8
Receipt 19.08.2021.
OSR
Ex. PW-1/9 Receipt 09.09.2021 (no. 1118).
Ex. PW-1/10 Cash receipt 30.07.2022.
Ex. PW-1/11 Cash receipt 26.02.2023.
Ex. PW-1/12
ATS 27.02.2023.
(colly.) OSR
Ex. PW-1/13
Affidavit 27.02.2023.
(colly.) OSR
Ex. PW-1/14
Possession letter 27.02.2023.
(colly.) OSR
Ex. PW-1/15 Receipt 27.02.2023.
Page 99 of 144
Exhibit no. Description
OSR
Ex. PW-1/16
Will 27.02.2023.
(colly.) OSR
Ex. PW-1/17 Registered GPA 27.02.2023 (reg.
(colly.) OSR 28.02.2023).
Ex. PW-1/18
Cash receipt 22.03.2023.
OSR
Ex. PW-1/19
Cash receipt 27.04.2023.
OSR
Ex. PW-1/20
Cash receipt 22.03.2023.
OSR
Ex. PW-1/21
Legal notice 30.09.2023.
OSR
Ex. PW-2/A PW-2 evidence-by-affidavit.
Page 100 of 144
Exhibit no. Description
(colly.)
Mark 1 Police complaint Kishan Garh.
Mark 2 Property tax receipt.
Mark 3 (colly.) WhatsApp messages.
Mark 4 (colly.) Electricity payment to D3.
Mark 5 (colly.) Bank email communication.
Mark 6/7
PW-2 electronic evidence certificates. (colly.) Ex. PW-3/A PW-3 evidence-by-affidavit.
(colly.)
Ex. PW-4/A
PW-4 evidence-by-affidavit.
(colly.)
Page 101 of 144
Exhibit no. Description
Mark A/B/C Collaboration agreement 16.11.2020;
(colly.) partition deed 15.11.2011; GPA 14.07.2021.
Key Admissions During DW-1 Cross-Examination:
161. During the cross-examination of DW-1 on September 24, 2025, several significant admissions were made regarding various aspects of the case. These admissions pertain to documentation, agreements, construction details, property titles, and the relationships among the parties. The key points are as follows:
Documentary Evidence and GST
162. DW-1 acknowledged that the original GST documents (identified as Mark 1/2) were not initially produced. However, these documents were offered for inspection at a later stage.
Engineering Advice by D4's Husband
163. It was admitted that D4's husband provided engineering advice free of cost after the booking of a flat. No remuneration was given for these services.
Page 102 of 144Collaboration Agreement
164. DW-1 confirmed that Som Dutt Sharma, who is the attorney for D5 and D6, had signed the collaboration agreement. This signature is located at Mark A, page 45, Part A of the documents.
Details of Construction
165. The witness provided details about the construction, stating that there are eight flats, each measuring 60 square yards, along with two shops and a basement office or hall measuring 70 square yards. The basement office/hall is in the possession of the witness. All eight owners were given keys to access the parking area.
Shop Area and Plaintiff's Use
166. Regarding the shop area, DW-1 testified that the plaintiff was temporarily permitted to use the shop, as recorded in Ex. PW-1/1, page 31, Part A, primarily to counter issues with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). However, when it came time for the plaintiff's eviction, it was refused due to an electricity dispute. The witness denied the existence of stilt parking, describing the area as a shop with a toilet. Additionally, the witness expressed gratitude to the plaintiff for protection from D4 to D8.
167. It is apposite to mention that no satisfactory evidence was led by the defendants which could confirm the stilt area as a shop/ shops.
Page 103 of 144No site plan, land usage depicting the stilt parking area (admitted and mentioned in the exhibited documents) as a commercial area/ ready and authorized for commercial usage was filed by the defendants. The defendants cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own mistakes.
168. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed time and again that cities in India, especially NCT of Delhi is plagued with unplanned, unregulated development and construction.
Basement Allocation and Obstruction
169. The basement area was allocated to all eight owners. DW-1 mentioned having visited the basement recently. A video recorded on PW-2's phone was referenced, showing that D3's demolition activities had obstructed access to the basement.
MCD Sanction and Booking Error
170. DW-1 stated that the required MCD sanction was obtained, though a copy was not filed with the records. A booking error, where flat F-44 was overlapped with Anita Pawar's booking, was resolved through legal proceedings documented in EX. DW-1/X1 (High Court Writ Petition 13257/2024) and EX. DW-1/X2 (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum order dated 01/30/2025).
Page 104 of 144Construction Timeline
171. The project, which was originally supposed to be completed in 18 months as per the exhibited/ marked documents admittedly experienced a delay of approximately 7 to 8 months. The delay was attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and related environmental restrictions (GRAP).
Relations with D3 and Adjustments
172. DW-1 clarified that after the handover of 380 square yards, no 'No Objection Certificate (NOC)' was obtained from D3. An amount of ₹80 lakh was adjusted by constructing an extra floor, even though it did not have MCD approval. DW-1 reported recent contact with D3 and mentioned having requested D3's participation in the matter.
Title and Sale Deeds
173. DW-1 claimed title over 120 square yards through Mark C, the General Power of Attorney dated 07/14/2021. He stated that the GPA was irrevocable, though he was unaware of a revocable clause referenced on page 5, paragraph 18, Part A of the document. No sale deed from D3 was produced.
Page 105 of 144174. It is pertinent to observe at this stage that the defense raised by defendants no.1 & 2 to counter the claims of the plaintiffs is on the grounds that the plaintiffs don't have any existing title in their favor apart from a notarized Agreement to sell, registered GPA, registered Will, Possession Letter, Affidavit, Receipts admittedly executed between the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 & 2.
175. On the contrary, the defendants no.1 & 2 (through defendant no.1) are claiming title over the subject land and the suit property on the basis of an ATS, GPA, Will, Affidavit, Possession letter, Receipts.
176. It is pertinent to observe at this juncture that the plea's raised by the defendants no.1 & 2 are contradictory and mutually destructive.
177. On one hand, the defendants no.1 & 2 are acting on the basis of ATS, GPA, Affidavit, Will etc and are entering into transactions with parties, buyers, and even executing registered sale deeds, whilst, simultaneously are opposing the benefits, which the plaintiffs are entitled to, basis the same documents.
178. The defendants no.1 & 2 cannot be permitted to aprobate and reprobate at the same time. The conduct and the actions of the defendants no.1 & 2 are hit be estoppel.
179. The defendants no.1 & 2 have enjoyed the fruits of enrichment Page 106 of 144 by selling properties to buyers basis ATS, GPA, Will, Possession Letter, Affidavit etc, hence they cannot be permitted to oppose the very same documents, and the benefits, recitals, covenants of the said documents which are granting rights in favor of the plaintiffs.
180. The rights of the defendants no.1 & 2 flow from defendant no.3, which they have transferred in favor of the plaintiffs qua the subject property. The documents Mark A(Colly.)- Copy of the Collaboration Agreement 16.11.2020 Mark B(Colly.)- Partition deed dated 15.11.2011 Mark C(Colly)- GPA dated 14.07.2021 confer the very same rights on the defendants no.1 & 2, which they have transferred in favor of plaintiffs in respect of the suit property basis consideration. If the rights of the plaintiffs are non-est, ultra vires the law, then the same law is applicable to the defendants no.1 & 2, who are the builders and sellers of the subject property.
Sales and Receipts
181. DW-1 admitted and reported that there was one registered sale deed: Ex. DW-1/X3, for flat B-8, sold to Vijender Sharma on 06/20/2022 for ₹32 lakh. The original sale deed remains held due to an unpaid balance. For D4 to D8, the witness confirmed that receipts and GPAs were executed, and D8 was fully paid.
Page 107 of 144Affidavit and Prior Statements
182. DW-1 confirmed being fully aware of the contents of Ex. DW-1/A, the evidence affidavit, and explained that any prior denials of his signature were inadvertent.
DE Documents - Complete Tabulation S. Exhibit/ Date Nature Details/Context No. Mark No. Ex. Tendered by DW-1;
22.09.20 Evidence 1 DW-1/A signatures identified;
25 Affidavit
(colly.) contents affirmed
22.09.20 Ex. LC Report Pages 45-46 affidavit; relied
2
25 PW-2/D1 Extract upon in chief
Ex.
24.09.20 CC NI Act Complaint exhibited during
3 DW-1/3
25 861/2023 cross
(colly.)
Ex.
24.09.20 Delhi HC WP(C) 13257/2024; MCD
4 DW-1/X1
25 Order F-44 error resolution
(colly.)
Ex. CG 121/2024 dt.
24.09.20 CGRF
5 DW-1/X2 30.01.2025; electricity
25 Order
(colly.) clearance for Wing-1
Page 108 of 144
B-8 3rd floor to Vijender
Ex.
24.09.20 Sharma/Pushpa Sharma;
6 DW-1/X3 Sale Deed
25 20.06.2022; ₹32L; e-stamp
(colly.)
IN-DL17526274618107U
24.09.20 GST Original not produced;
7 Mark 1/2
25 Certificate offered later
24.09.20 Legal
8 Mark 1/4 Dated 28.08.2023; marked
25 Notice
Collaborati
24.09.20 Mark A Pg. 45 Pt. A (Som Dutt
9 on
25 (colly.) Sharma signature)
Agreement
Registered
24.09.20 Mark C Pg. 5 para 18 Pt. A
10 GPA Dated
25 (colly.) (revocable clause)
14.07.2021
Ex.
24.09.20 Pg. 31 Pt. A (shop denied as
11 PW-1/1 Site Plan
25 stilt)
(colly.)
Video D3 basement gate;
24.09.20 Demolition
12 (PW-2 obstruction admitted;
25 Video
phone) WhatsApp shared
183. Another defense raised on behalf of defendants no.1 & 2 is that Page 109 of 144 the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs of specific performance of the ATS dated 27.02.2023 Ex.PW-1/12 (Colly.) OSR, and all other documents executed between the parties as the plaintiffs have not a specific prayer to the same effect.
184. The plea appears to be misplaced as it is no more res-integra that a relief mentioned in the pleadings, though not specifically prayed for, can be granted by a Court having jurisdiction. Procedures of law are hand maid of justice, and the purpose is to advance justice, and not prevent it.
185. This Court perused the judgments relied upon by the plaintiffs, and has reproduced and encapsulated the ratio as follows;
MRS. AKELLA LALITHA V. SRI KONDA HANUMANTHA RAO & ANR. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6325-6326 OF 2015 Ratio: The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this case, held that pleadings must be read as a whole, and relief may be granted even in the absence of an explicit prayer for specific performance, provided that the pleadings and evidence on record clearly indicate the intention to seek such relief. The Court emphasized that the substance of the pleadings and the evidence should be considered, and technicalities should not defeat substantive justice. If the parties have had the opportunity to address the relevant issues Page 110 of 144 during the trial, the absence of a specific plea or prayer does not preclude the Court from granting appropriate relief. This principle ensures that justice is not denied due to mere technical or formal deficiencies in the pleadings, as long as the essential matters have been addressed and both parties had the opportunity to present their case.
BHAGWATI PRASAD VS SHRI CHANDRAMAUL AIR 1966 SC 735 Ratio: In Bhagwati Prasad vs Shri Chandramaul, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that pleadings should be read as a whole and not in a narrow or technical manner. Relief may be granted by the court even if it is not specifically sought in the prayer clause, provided the necessary facts to support the relief are stated in the pleadings and both parties have had the opportunity to address the relevant issues during the trial. The Court emphasized substance over form, ensuring that justice is not denied due to technical or formal deficiencies in the pleadings if the real issues have been clearly raised and adjudicated.
LATA CONSTRUCTION & ORS. V. DR. RAMESHCHANDRA RAMNIKLAL SHAH, (2000) 1 SCC 586 Page 111 of 144 Ratio: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case clarified that for the grant of specific performance of a contract, a party must demonstrate both readiness and willingness to perform its part of the contract throughout. The decision further held that mere payment of earnest money or partial performance does not, by itself, establish readiness and willingness. The Court emphasized that the intention and conduct of the parties, as revealed through pleadings and evidence, must show continuous readiness and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations. Additionally, the Court reiterated that a subsequent agreement (novation) that is validly entered into can extinguish the original contract, and only the terms of the new agreement would govern the parties' rights and obligations.
UNION OF INDIA V. KISHORILAL GUPTA & BROS., AIR 1959 SC 1362 Ratio: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case held that under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, novation is the substitution of a new contract for the old one, which results in the discharge of the original contract when the parties intend such a substitution. The Court clarified that for novation to be valid, there must be a complete substitution of the old contract by a new agreement, and the intention to extinguish the original contract must be clear from Page 112 of 144 the conduct and terms agreed upon by the parties.
SYED ABDUL KHADER V. RAMI REDDY, (1979) 2 SCC 601 Ratio: The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a principal is bound by the acts of its agent if the agent acts within the scope of their authority. When an agent enters into a contract on behalf of the principal, the principal is obligated to perform the contract, and the agent's actions are deemed to be those of the principal. This principle applies even if the agent acts under a revocable power of attorney, provided the agent's actions are within the authority granted and are in furtherance of the principal's interests.
DORAB CAWASJI WARDEN V. COOMI SORAB WARDEN, (1990) 2 SCC 117 Ratio: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden laid down the principles governing the grant of temporary injunctions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court held that an interim injunction may be granted when the plaintiff demonstrates a prima facie case, the balance of convenience lies in their favor, and irreparable injury would result if the injunction is not granted. Additionally, the Court emphasized that possession in the face of breach can justify Page 113 of 144 the grant of injunctions and other protective orders, and that possession-related relief is a recognized remedy, especially where the plaintiff seeks to prevent interference or dispossession by the defendant.
PIONEER URBAN LAND & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. V. GOVINDAN RAGHAVAN, (2019) 5 SCC 667 Ratio Decidendi: The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a builder cannot compel a buyer to take possession of property if the construction is delayed and the buyer is unwilling to accept possession due to the delay. The Court emphasized that buyers have a right to seek refund and compensation for delayed possession, and that unreasonable delay by the builder constitutes deficiency in service. The judgment strengthens the protection of homebuyers' rights, asserting that contractual obligations must be performed within a reasonable time and that developers are liable for delays and must refund the money with interest if the buyer opts out due to such delays.
OTHER JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON:
Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By Lrs vs BishnU Narain Inter College Page 114 of 144 & Ors 1987 AIR 1242;
Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors vs Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1828 Sughar Singh vs Hari Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Civil Appeal No. 5110 OF 2021 Punit Beriwala -Versus Bhai Manjit Singh Huf & Ors. CS(OS) 598 of 2021 High Court of Delhi at New Delhi JUDGMENTS FILED BY DEFENDANTS NO.1 & 2 SURAJ LAMP AND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED (2) THROUGH DIRECTOR VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. (2012) 1 SCC 656 Ratio: The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that transactions involving sale agreements (SA), general power of attorney (GPA), and wills do not convey any valid title or create any interest in immovable property. The Supreme Court clarified that only a registered deed of conveyance executed in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act can confer valid title to immovable Page 115 of 144 property. Thus, SA/GPA/will transactions are insufficient for transferring ownership, and parties relying solely on these documents do not acquire legal title over the property.
RAMESH CHAND (D) THR. LRS. VS. SURESH CHAND & ANR. 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1879 Ratio: The Hon'ble Supreme Court An Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Will, and Receipt of Consideration/Affidavit do not confer any valid title or create any interest or charge on the suit property. These documents, in the absence of a registered deed of conveyance, only enable the plaintiff to seek specific performance for the execution of a sale deed and cannot be relied upon to claim ownership or title over the property. This principle is supported by the text of the judgment, which clarifies that such documents are not deeds of conveyance under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore do not convey valid title to the plaintiff.
186. The evidence on record conclusively establishes that the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the subject property. The plaintiff has remained in continuous, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession since 27.02.2023 as corroborated by evidence led. The Local Commissioner's report further confirms settled possession, permanent Page 116 of 144 structures and the status of the plaintiff, which is admitted by the parties.
187. The issue between the parties herein is primarily two fold ie I. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any rights qua the stilt parking area/ ground floor/ vacant shop beneath the subject property. Was the same a part of the understanding, subject matter of transaction, agreement between the parties &;
II. The price/ sale consideration of the subject property ie whether the same is Rs 30,10,000/-, or Rs 64, 15,000/- or Rs 76,50,000/-.
188. Admittedly, the first ATS dated 19.08.2021 Ex.PW-1/7(Colly.) OSR is for Rs 76,50,000/- for Private Portion/Unit No.B-2 on Ground Floor above stilt Parking with two side Open (Right Side Portion) at WING 2, area measuring 60 Sq. Yds., consisting of two bedrooms, one drawing cum dining room, one kitchen, two bathrooms cum- toilets, balcony, one Car Parking in Basement, in/of Property bearing No. F-44, falls in Khasra No.62 min, situated in at Village Ber Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, alongwith proportionate, undivided, indivisible and impartible ownership rights in the land underneath, with all rights of ownership, possession, privileges, easements and Page 117 of 144 appurtenances, with all fittings, fixtures, connections, separate overhead water tank of 1000 Ltrs., structure standing thereon, with all rights in common entrances, passage, staircase, Lift, rights of access through staircase etc. to the top terrace at all reasonable time to get the overhead tank, repaired, cleaned etc. and to install T.V. Antenna and all other common facilities and amenities as are provided in the said building.
189. Evidently, the parties entered into another Agreement to Sell dated 27.02.2023 Ex.PW-1/12 (Colly.) OSR for Rs 30,10,000/- for Private Portion/Unit No.B-2 on Ground Floor above stilt Parking with two side Open (Right Side Portion) at WING 2, area measuring 60 Sq. Yds., consisting of two bedrooms, one drawing cum dining room, one kitchen, two bathrooms cum- toilets, balcony, one Car Parking in Basement, in/of Property bearing No. F-44, falls in Khasra No.62 min, situated in at Village Ber Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi, alongwith proportionate, undivided, indivisible and impartible ownership rights in the land underneath, with all rights of ownership, possession, privileges, easements and appurtenances, with all fittings, fixtures, connections, separate overhead water tank of 1000 Ltrs., structure standing thereon, with all rights in common entrances, passage, staircase, Lift, rights of access through staircase etc. to the top terrace at all reasonable time to get the overhead tank, repaired, cleaned etc. and to install T.V. Antenna and all other common facilities and Page 118 of 144 amenities as are provided in the said building.
190. It is unfathomable to imagine that the same parties, their privies will enter into two separate agreements to sell and purchase in respect of the same property, surprisingly for a higher price in the year 2021, and for a lower price in the year 2023 (less than 50%). Evidently the agreements were novated and the parties acted upon the same.
191. The plaintiffs have paid an amount of Rs 64,15,000/- through cheque, rtgs, cash as detailed in the preceding paragraphs. The transactions and the cash receipts stand admitted by Defendant no.1/DW-1.
192. In juxtaposition, the defendant no.1 has submitted that he has received an amount of Rs 34,10,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs 76,50,000/- as per the per first Agreement to Sell. The defence raised has not been supported by satisfactory evidence. The 2nd ATS is still in existence, and has not been declared as null and void by any competent Court.
193. It is difficult to perceive that whilst there are two different agreements in existence, legal validity and weight would be given to an agreement executed prior to the second agreement. The logic is against all canons of legal prudence and defeat the intention of entering into a second/ subsequent agreement.
Page 119 of 144194. The admission of cash receipts is glaring in the face of parties, and cannot be skirted around or ignored by this Court. Evidently and admittedly, the defendant no.1 has sold/ transferred other flats in the same building for amounts ranging between Rs 25,00,000/- to Rs 41,55,000/-.
Signature Admissions - Repeated Reversals (Fatal to Credibility) Final Initial Counsel Admiss Docume Denial Consultat Date ion Legal Impact nt (22.09. ion (24.09.
2025) Effect
2025)
"Signa Reversal: Perjury risk;
ture at "Inadv
"Signatur deliberate
A does es belong ertently
falsehood
09.0 NOT denied
Ex.PW-1 to me, exposed by
9.20 belong --
/9 OSR however counsel
21 to me. signatu
deny consultation
Deny res are
contents. LC-22.09.20
exhibit mine."
" 25.doc
ed
Page 120 of 144
Final
Initial Counsel
Admiss
Docume Denial Consultat
Date ion Legal Impact
nt (22.09. ion
(24.09.
2025) Effect
2025)
docum
ent."
(Origi
nal
#118
shown.
)
"Signa "Inadv Pattern of
tures ertently evasion;
EX.PW- at A denied repeated
1/11 N/A don't N/A -- under-oath
OSR belong signatu lies
to res are LC-22.09.20
me." mine." 25.doc
(Origi
Page 121 of 144
Final
Initial Counsel
Admiss
Docume Denial Consultat
Date ion Legal Impact
nt (22.09. ion
(24.09.
2025) Effect
2025)
nal/blu
e pen
shown.
)
"Signa
tures
at A "Inadv Credibility
don't ertently destroyed--
EX.PW- belong denied triple flip-
1/18 N/A to N/A -- flop proves
OSR me." signatu unreliability
(Origi res are LC-22.09.20
nal/blu mine." 25.doc
e pen
shown.
Page 122 of 144
Final
Initial Counsel
Admiss
Docume Denial Consultat
Date ion Legal Impact
nt (22.09. ion
(24.09.
2025) Effect
2025)
)
195. Witness lied under oath, reversed only after consulting counsel mid cross examination. Later retracted and used the an excuse on the ground of "inadvertence."
196. It is settled law that inconsistent depositions and testimonies warrant complete disbelief (Bhim Singh v. Kan Singh, AIR 1980 SC
727).
Ex.DW-1/4 (Legal Notice 28.08.2023): was de-exhibited and marked as Mark-14.
Evasive on D4-D8 Documents (Having Same Counsel)
197. The witness was shown GPA/ATS filed by D4-D8 (by the same counsel Sh. S.D. Sharma). The witness repeatedly evaded the question by answering--"Not filed by me... cannot confirm/deny signature...
Page 123 of 144don't want to say."
198. Evidently, the witness was evading accountability for identical documents executed via same counsel.
Shop vs. Stilt Parking Flip-Flop Ex.PW-11 Colly pg.31 (Point A):
199. The witness initially submitted that he "permitted plaintiff to park to avoid MCD." Later, the witness deposed that "Plaintiff saved my shop from D4-D8 grabbers; thank him."
200. Claims the area as "not stilt but shop with toilet." The same is in contravention of the admitted exhibited/ executed documents which do not refer to the stilt/ ground floor parking area as 'shops'. This Court is at liberty to disbelieve the deposition of the witness in its entirety. (Om Prakash v. State, 2004 SCC 546).
201. Accordingly, no reason, evidence and/or justification has been put forward by defendants no.1 & 2 for amounts charged from the plaintiffs ie Rs 64,15,000/- (admitted by way of cheques, transfers, cash) or of Rs 76,50,000/- (as mentioned by the defendants no.1 &
2).
202. The plea raised by the defendants no.1 & 2 that the documents Page 124 of 144 executed between the parties do not mention the sale of the stilt area/ ground floor portion admeasuring 773 sq ft.
203. Evidently, the defendants no.1 & 2 have stated in their written statement at para 15 that the defendants no.1 & 2 constructed two balconies for the plaintiffs, which is also not forming a part of the recitals/ exhibited-marked documents. As such, it is not difficult to believe that there existed private understanding between the parties, and the extra amount over and above Rs 30,10,000/- might have been paid for the stilt/ ground floor area.
204. The fact that defendant No.1 has taken more than Rs. 60,00,000/- from only two of his buyers one is the Plaintiff and the other is PW-4 to whom he has also provided the flat and another shop on the ground floor.
205. Om Dutt Gaur PW4 has also filed a suit No. CSDJ/45/2025 and vide order dated 03-09-2025 the concerned Coordinate Court has granted him status quo with regards to the flat and shop/ stilt space with toilet on ground floor of area about 588 sq feet. Hence, this Court needs to draw parity between the facts of the both the cases especially taking into consideration the fact that defendant no.1 has transferred a similar flat and a shop to PW-4 in the same building, residential project.
Page 125 of 144206. In addition to the unassailable documentary and on-site evidence supporting the plaintiff's right of title and possession, there is a complete lack of any credible material produced by the defendants to challenge or dispute these facts. The cumulative effect is that the plaintiff's rights--rooted in valid allotment transfer, long-standing possession, and clear revenue recognition--stand fully affirmed.
207. The defendants 3 to 8 failed to file any written statement or lead evidence, despite repeated opportunities. Their right stood closed and the matter proceeded ex parte. As per Badat & Co. v. East India Trading Co., AIR 1964 SC 538, uncontroverted pleadings and unrebutted evidence are deemed admitted. The Supreme Court in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, AIR 1960 SC 100 and Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, (1999) 3 SCC 573 held that unrebutted evidence must be accepted as true, and adverse inference can be drawn against a party withholding evidence.
208. These judgments demand that the Court draw appropriate inferences from non-participation and absence of proof, thereby further strengthening the plaintiff's entitlement to the reliefs sought.
OPINION AND CONCLUSION
209. The submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs Page 126 of 144 strongly support the view that rights granted by the documents tendered, exhibited and marked are robust, continuing interests not extinguished simply by non-execution of registered sale deeds.
210. The case of the plaintiffs supported by the facts, pleadings, circumstances, report of the Ld. LC and the citations promote the doctrine that judicial interference on fact-finding should be exceptional.
211. Overall, the submissions made by the plaintiff have convinced this Court to observe and hold rights as legal and robust interests unless conclusively shown to be extinguished by law or agreement.
DECISION:
At this juncture, it is imperative to go back the basic tenets of the law.
Essentials of pleadings A pleading should
(a) state material facts and not the evidence on which the party seeks to rely on,
(b) state such facts in a concise form, and
(c) provide all particulars where they are required.Page 127 of 144
212. These conditions are contained in Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC, and the requirement to state all material facts has time and again been emphasized by the Supreme Court. For instance, in Udhav Singh v Madhav Rao Scindia AIR 1976 SC 744, wherein it was clarified that all the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are material facts.
213. The failure to disclose material facts can even attract the grave consequence of the suit being dismissed in its entirety, making the observations of the Supreme Court in Virender Nath v. Satpal Singh 2007 (3) SCC 617 pivotal:
"...it is however absolutely essential that all basic and primary facts which must be proved at the trial by the party to establish existence of a cause of action or defence are material facts and must be stated in the pleadings by the party."
UDHAV SINGH V. MADHAV RAO SCINDIA AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 744 "28. All the primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action or his defence, are "material facts". In the context of a charge Page 128 of 144 of corrupt practice, "material facts" would mean all the basic facts constituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice alleged, which the petitioner is bound to substantiate before he can succeed on that charge. Whether in an election-petition, a particular fact is material or not, and as such required to be pleaded is a question which depends on the nature of the charge leveled, the ground relied upon and the special circumstances of the case. In short, all those facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action, are "material facts" which must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of sec. 83(1)(a). "Particulars", on the other hand, are "the details of the case set up by the party". "Material particulars" within the contemplation of clause (b) of s. 83(i) would therefore mean all the details which are necessary to amplify, refine and embellish the material facts already pleaded in the petition in compliance with the requirements of clause (a). Particulars serve the purpose of finishing touches to the basic contours of a picture already drawn, to make it full, more detailed and more informative.
29. The distinction between material facts and material Page 129 of 144 particulars" was pointed out by this Court in several cases, three of which have been cited at the bar. It is not necessary to refer to all of them. It will be sufficient to close the discussion by extracting what A. N. Ray J. (as he then was) said on this point in Hardwari Lals case (supra):
"It is therefore vital that the corrupt practice charged against the respondent should be a full and complete statement of material facts to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action and to give an equal and full opportunity to the respondent to meet the case and to de fend the charges. Merely, alleging that the respondent obtained or procured or attempted to obtain or procure assistance are extracting words from the statute which will have no meaning unless and until facts are stated to show what that assistance is and how the prospect of election is furthered by such assistance. In the present case, it was not even alleged that the assistance obtained or procured was other than the giving of vote. It was said by counsel for the respondent that because the statute did not render the giving of vote a corrupt practice the words "any assistance" were full statement of material fact. The submission is fallacious for the simple reason that the manner of assistance, the measure of assistance are all various aspects of fact to clothe the Page 130 of 144 petition with a cause of action which will call for an answer. Material facts are facts which if established would give the petitioner the relief asked for. If the respondent had not appeared, could the court have given a verdict in favour of the election petitioner. The answer is in the negative because the allegations in the petition did not disclose any cause of action."
214. Facta probanda or the facts required to be proved, are the foundational elements of any legal claim or defense. These are the material facts upon which a party bases their case. In simple terms, these are the "what" of the case ie the core allegations or assertions that a party needs to establish to succeed.
215. For example, based on the facts of the present case, in a breach of contract claim, the facta probanda might include:
The existence of a contract.
The obligations stipulated by the contract.
The breach of those obligations by the opposing party.
The resultant damages incurred due to the breach.
216. The facts are to be proved in accordance with the provisions of The Indian Evidence Act (as amended upto date/ BSA 2023) which Page 131 of 144 have been reproduced herein;
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (BSA 2023) Relevant Provisions:
101. Burden of proof.
Whoever desires any Court to give judgement as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
Illustrations
(a)A desires a Court to give judgement that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.
(b)A desires a Court to give judgement that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B, by reason of facts which he asserts and which B denies, to be true. A must prove the existence of those facts.
102. On whom burden of proof lies.
The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
Page 132 of 144Illustrations
(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B's father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession. Therefore the burden of proof is on A.
103. Burden of proof as to any particular fact.
The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
104. Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible.
The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence.
Illustrations
(a)A wishes to prove a dying declaration by B. A must prove B's death.
(b)A wishes to prove, by secondary evidence, the contents of a lost document. A must prove that the document has been lost.
Page 133 of 144106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Illustrations
(a)When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b)A is charged with travelling in a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
xxxxxxx
217. It is apposite to observe that the documents strongly support the plaintiff's case of declaration, injunction, coupled with specific performance, and restraining the defendants, and injuncting them from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs.
218. The plaintiffs have also led satisfactory evidence, and have discharged their burden/ onus.
219. Having heard the parties and perused the pleadings, evidence, and documents on record, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs have Page 134 of 144 successfully established their case on the preponderance of probabilities. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated their lawful possession and occupation of the suit property through credible oral depositions and documentary evidence, including the affidavit, registered GPA, registered will, possession letter, property tax receipts, and supporting exhibits. The chain of title and the authority of the Defendants to transact in respect of the suit property stand proved through the production and exhibition of relevant agreements, deeds, and site plans during the proceedings which have already been acted upon, and cannot be resiled from.
220. The Plaintiffs have also furnished evidence of payments made towards the total consideration for the suit property, as reflected in the Agreement to Sell, cash receipts, and other legal documents exhibited before this Court. The Defendants have failed to rebut the Plaintiffs' claims or to produce any cogent evidence suggesting the creation of third-party interests in the suit property, nor have they challenged the Plaintiffs' continuous possession and occupation.
221. Regarding the claim for damages, while the computation of the sum claimed has been questioned, this Court finds that the Plaintiffs have suffered mental agony, harassment, and expenses due to the delay in making the flat habitable. The absence of receipts or bills is not fatal to their claim in the circumstances of this case, as the facts and Page 135 of 144 circumstances, coupled with the oral testimony, sufficiently establish that such expenditures were incurred and that the Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages of declaration, injunction, and right to use the subject property to the exclusion of others.
222. The suit of the plaintiff presents a persuasive case for this Courts intervention to restore the rule of law, protect property rights, and provide amenable remedies for the grievous wrongs alleged.
223. After a careful perusal of the facts, circumstances of the matter coupled with the pleadings, evidence, submissions and the corresponding law relied upon by the parties, this Court is inclined to give its issue wise findings as follows:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of declaration against the defendants thereby declaring the title of suit property in the joint names of plaintiffs? OPP Issue no. 1 is conclusively decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendants no. 1 to 3. It is hereby declared that the plaintiffs, along with its associates, agents, employees, and members, have been lawfully allotted the 'subject property' bearing No.B2, Ground Floor above stilt parking, right side portion, back side, in plot no.F44, Khasra No.62 Min (10) Ber Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi 16 of area measuring 60 sq yards consisting with fully furnished two bed rooms, one Page 136 of 144 drawing/dinning, one kitchen, two bath cum toilets, car parking in the basement, (except for the ground floor/ stilt area/ alleged shops), and have remained in possession of the same The property in question is described as suit property bearing No.B2, Ground Floor above stilt parking, right side portion, back side, in plot no.F44, Khasra No.62 Min (10) Ber Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi 16 of area measuring 60 sq yards consisting with fully furnished two bed rooms, one drawing/dinning, one kitchen, two bath cum toilets, car parking (basement) and the plaintiff has held possession since the date of allotment ie 27.02.2023. The plaintiff's title and possession have been substantiated by cogent documentary evidence. Furthermore, as held in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi (AIR 1960 SC
100), long and continuous possession raises a presumption of ownership, and as reiterated in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu (2004) 1 SCC 769, settled possession is protected even against a person with a better title.
224. In light of these precedents, the plaintiff has clearly discharged the onus regarding this issue, and the Court accordingly answers Issue no. 1 in favor of the plaintiff.
225. The plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as owners/ title holders of the subject property bearing No.B2, Ground Floor above stilt Page 137 of 144 parking, right side portion, back side, in plot no.F44, Khasra No.62 Min (10) Ber Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi 16 of area measuring 60 sq yards consisting with fully furnished two bed rooms, one drawing/dinning, one kitchen, two bath cum toilets, car parking (basement). The defendants no.1 to 3 are hereby ordered to execute the necessary documents, registered title deeds in favor of the plaintiffs within a period of three (3) months from the date of this judgment basis the ATS, registered GPA, Will, Affidavit, Possession Letter, Cash Receipts executed in the year 2023.
226. The pleadings, and the issues pertaining to the amount of Rs 34,05,000/- evidently appears to be based on a personal/ private/ oral understanding between the parties which was disturbed by subsequent events. The plaintiffs are in possession of the ground floor area beneath/ under the suit property ie the stilt area/ ground floor/ alleged shops, however, no satisfactory evidence has been led by the plaintiffs to the effect of proving the ground floor area as a part of the subject property.
227. On the other hand no satisfactory evidence/ reasons/ justification have been advanced on behalf of defendants no.1 & 2 for taking an amount of Rs 34,05,000/- over and above the sale consideration price of Rs 30,10,000/. Evidently the agreement to sell dated 27.02.2023 has been breached on several counts. It is settled law Page 138 of 144 that Courts of competent jurisdiction are not merely post offices, and cannot turn 'a blind eye and a deaf ear' to such acts. The Courts have been vested with jurisdiction to take cognizance of such acts, and adjudicate upon them in order to serve and deliver substantial justice. The Hon'ble Superior Courts have held in a catena of judgements that Courts can deliver substantial justice even in the absence of specific pleadings and prayers if parties have led cogent evidence on the issues. The soul of the pleadings and the ancillary/ incidental issues arising out of them are to be identified by Courts whilst legal issues between the parties. [Mrs. Akella Lalitha (supra)], [Bhagwati Prasad(supra)]
228. Accordingly defendants no. 1-2 are also directed to refund the excess amount of Rs 34,05,000/- to the plaintiffs, along with 12% simple interest w.e.f. 23.03.2023 till its actual realization;
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants qua the suit property, as prayed for? OPP Issue no. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The plaintiffs have convincingly established their lawful possession and entitlement to title, rights over the 'suit property' through comprehensive oral and documentary evidence, including the agreement to sell, GPA, will, possession letter, Page 139 of 144 receipts, payment records. The defendants have failed to rebut the plaintiffs' claims or to produce any evidence disputing the plaintiffs' continuous and settled possession or challenging the right to title. The documents and oral testimony on record demonstrate that the plaintiffs' rights to the property are well- founded and have not been lawfully disturbed by the defendants. The law is settled that a person in settled and lawful possession is entitled to protection by way of injunction against any unauthorised interference, even by a party alleging a better title until due process of law is followed (Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, AIR 1960 SC 100; Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769). The plaintiffs, having discharged their burden, are thus entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, employees, or any person claiming through them, from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 'suit property', common property, common amenities and common services forming the subject matter of the ATS dated 27.02.2023.
229. In addition, the circumstances warrant the grant of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restrain from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs, their rights. The defendants no.1 to 3 are also injuncted from creating any liens, encumbrances, third party interests qua the suit property either directly or indirectly, and to take Page 140 of 144 all necessary steps to ensure that the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the suit property remains undisturbed. The Court, therefore, grants the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction as prayed for by the plaintiffs.
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree of recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.30,85,000/- along with interest against the defendants, as prayed for? OPP Issue no.3 is decided and answered partially in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants no.1 to 3. The plaintiffs have not led any calculation/ satisfactory tabulation in respect of the total damages as claimed, however the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs has filed a calculation of the legal costs, and fees which have been incurred by the plaintiffs supported by invoices/ memo of fee ie totalling Rs 11,78,700/- inclusive of Court Fee of Rs 96,200/-, Costs of Local Commissioner Inspection proceedings of Rs 57,500/-, and costs of evidence proceedings held before the Local Commissioner of Rs 45,000/-.
230. This Court finds that the plaintiff are entitled to reimbursement of costs by way of damages amounting to Rs 11,78,700/- as claimed from the date of the judgment, along with future interest @ 9% per annum till its realization.
Page 141 of 144231. The plaintiffs are also entitled to comprehensive compensatory costs of Rs 5,00,000/- on account of harassment, sufferance, admitted delay (May 2022-February 2023) caused in construction, and handing possession of the subject property due to construction/ MCD related issues; from the date of judgment, along with future interest @ 9% per annum, till its realization.
4. Relief.
Issue no.4 is answered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants no.1 to 3. In view of the pleadings, unrebutted oral and documentary evidence, the Local Commissioner's report, and the above precedents, the above stated issues stand proved in favour of the plaintiffs.
232. The plaintiffs are entitled to a decree in respect of the suit property bearing No.B2, Ground Floor above stilt parking, right side portion, back side, in plot no.F44, Khasra No.62 Min (10) Ber Sarai, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi-16 of area measuring 60 sq yards consisting with fully furnished two bed rooms, one drawing/dinning, one kitchen, two bath cum toilets, car parking (basement/ common); i. declaring the plaintiffs as joint lawful owners and having legal, possessory rights over the suit property, and common services, common areas within the residential project;
Page 142 of 144ii. directing the defendants no.1 to 3 to execute the necessary documents, registered sale deed jointly in favor of the plaintiffs, within a period of three (3) months from the date of the judgment. It is clarified that the costs of registration/ stamp duty/ incidentals/ fees shall be borne by the plaintiffs;
iii. Directing the defendants no. 1 to 2 to return and refund the excess amount of Rs .34,05,000/- to the plaintiffs along with 12% simple interest w.e.f. 23.03.2023, till its actual realization by way of a money decree;
iv. permanently restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession, and rights of the plaintiff, and/or creating hindrances or third party interests in the subject property either directly or indirectly, with the interim order dated 06.04.2024 made absolute, save in accordance with the law.
v. Reimbursement of costs/ expenses totaling Rs.11,78,000/-
and Rs. 5,00,000/- compensatory damages from the date of judgment, along with future interest @ 9% per annum till its realization, by way of a money decree.
233. Decreed and disposed of in the above terms.
234. Cost is also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
Page 143 of 144235. Decree sheet be drawn up upon payment of deficit court fees, if any as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court on 09.01.2026.
(Sunil Beniwal) Digitally signed by District Judge-06(South), Saket Courts, New Delhi Sunil Sunil beniwal beniwal Date:
2026.01.09 16:46:46 +0530 Page 144 of 144