Delhi District Court
Sh. Ahindra Kumar Mohanta vs Parmod Kumar And Anr on 30 April, 2026
DLST010002422020
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUL VARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CS DJ. 23/2020
Filing No. 133/2020
CNR No. DLST01-0002422020
In the matter of
Sh Ahindra Kumar Mohanta
S/o. Mr Surender Chandra Mohanty
R/o. House no A -26, Gali no 4, Phase 5
Behind Durge Mandir,
Aayanagar, New Delhi -47 ......Plaintiff
VERSUS
Shri Parmod Kumar,
S/o. Shri Ved Prakash
R/o H No 9302, DD LIG Flats
B-9 Vasant Kunj, New Delhi
Also At
Sector A, Pocket-C
Flat no 1325, Second Floor,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi
Shri Asgar Ali
R/o G-122/B-3, Ram Colony
Behind Chattarpur, Mandir
New Delhi-30 .......Defendants
CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 1 of 22
Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors
Digitally signed
Arul by Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.04.30
17:32:12 +0530
Date of Institution : 13.01.2020
Date of reserving the judgment : 30.04.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2026
Decision Dismissed
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Index to the Judgment
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF..................................................4
II. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT...............................................6
III. ISSUES FRAMED........................................................................................ 8
IV. EVIDENCE LED BY PLAINTIFF...............................................................9
V. EVIDENCE LED BY DEFENDANT...........................................................11
VI. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES..............................12
VII. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO...............................16
i. Issue no 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific
performance of the contract dated 28.11.2018 as prayed for or in
alternate a decree for refund of the amount paid by the plaintiff as prayed
for ?...........................................................................................................16
ii. Issue no 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent
injunction as prayed for ?......................................................................... 21
iii. Issue no 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest as prayed for?21
iv. Issue no 4: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not valued properly for
the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees? If yes, what is the correct
valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees?........22
v. Issue no 5: Whether the plaintiff has not paid proper court fees? If yes,
what is the correct court fees to be paid by the plaintiff?.........................22
CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 2 of 22
Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors
Digitally signed
Arul byDate:Arul Varma
Varma 2026.04.30
17:32:22 +0530
vi. Issue no 6: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its
present form?............................................................................................ 22
VIII. RELIEF.....................................................................................................22
CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 3 of 22
Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors
Arul Digitally signed
by Arul Varma
Date: 2026.04.30
Varma 17:32:26 +0530
I. BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF
1.The facts as asseverated by the Plaintiff are hereby succinctly recapitulated:
(a) It was asserted that the Defendant No.1, was the owner of
2 BHK flat forming part and parcel of house No. B-323, Khasra No.1869, Revenue Estate Aaya Nagar, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi and Defendant No.2 was the Contractor of the said property.
(b) It was alleged that the Plaintiff herein and defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell in respect of 2 BHK flat on the first floor, measuring 60 square yards, against the total sale consideration of Rs.12 lacs. It was alleged that the plaintiff paid part payment of Rs.2 lacs on 28.11.20018 itself, against a receipt. It was further averred that balance Rs.10 lacs was to be paid within one month, subject to condition that the property is ready to move in, together with fixtures and fittings and electricity and water connections.
(c) It was contended that plaintiff approached the defendant in first week of November, 2018, to make the balance payment, but found that the property was not ready to move in and there was no water/electricity connection. However on the request of the defendant, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1 lacs to defendant No.2 on 30.11.2018. A CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 4 of 22 Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.04.30
17:32:30
sum of Rs.3 lacs was to be paid later on 10.12.2018. It was also alleged that the plaintiff herein visited the property on 26.05.2019, along with the balance sale consideration, but he found that there was no improvement in the said flat, and that the plaintiff contacted the defendant No.1 & 2, but the said defendants avoided/ neglected the same. Thereafter, a Legal notice dated 01.11.2019 was served following by the legal notice dated 02.12.2019. Hence, being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 28.11.2018, with the following prayers:
1. That the suit be decreed in for Specific Performance of the Contract dated 28 Nov 2018, entered into between the plaintiff and Defendant no1 by accepting the remaining payment and conveying the said flat & the plaintiff be permitted to deposit the balance of consideration in this Court.
2. That a decree for Refund of the amount paid along with interest and along with compensation,in lieu of the decree of Specific Performance as claimed for hereinabove, be passed.
3. That this Court by its order and Injunction be restrained the defendant, their servants, agents or anybody acting through defendant from dealing with disposing of, alienating, encumbering, parting with possession or creating third party rights, of any nature whatsoever, in respect of the suit property.
4. That the defendant be ordered to pay compensation for mental harassment, loss of earnings, and cost of this litigation along with damage.
5. That the Court by exercising powers u/s 75 and Order 26 of CPC, 1908, may appoint a court commissioner, so as to carry out local investigation of the suit property .
6. Other relief as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of case.Digitally signed CS DJ 23/2020
Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Page. 5 of 22 Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.04.30 17:32:33 +0530 II. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT
2. In the Written Statement filed on behalf of the Defendant, all allegations leveled in the plaint were categorically denied.
The Defendant submitted that the present suit filed against the defendant is bad for mis-joinder for parties, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
3. It was also submitted that the plaintiff is seeking compensation and damages, but he did not specify the amount of compensation and damages in plaint, which is vague as the plaintiff has to pay advalorem Court fee on the compensation and damages sought in the prayer clause of suit, and therefore the plaint is liable to be dismissed for paying the deficient court fee on the amount compensation as well as damages claimed against the defendant no.1. of
4. It was contended that the present suit is based on unregistered documents i.e. agreement to sell, which does not create any right or title qua the immovable property, as the same can be transferred by valid registered title documents, therefore, the agreement to sell dated 28/11/2018 being unregistered document has no value in the eyes of law and such the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. It was stated that the defendant had executed an agreement to sell on 28/11/2018 with the plaintiff qua his built up and well furnished 2 BHK Flat, which is the suit property in the present case for a total consideration amount of Rs.
CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 6 of 22
Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Digitally signed
by Arul Varma
Arul Date:
Varma 2026.04.30
17:32:36
+0530
12,00,000/- out of which the plaintiff paid only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. However, as per the clause no.2 & 3 of the said agreement, the plaintiff had to pay the balance consideration amount within a period of one month i.e. upto 27/12/2018 and thereafter the defendant would execute the registered title deed in favor of the plaintiff after receipt of the entire consideration amount within the said stipulated period. However, the plaintiff failed to perform his part of agreement as he did not arrange the balance consideration amount of Rs.10,00,000/- within the said prescribed period despite repeated request by the defendant and therefore, the earnest money paid by the plaintiff stood forfeited due non performance of his part of promise within the stipulated period as per the terms and condition of the said agreement to sale.
6. It was contended that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant no.2 to extort unlawful money from the defendant even after expiration of the prescribed period to which the plaintiff had failed to pay the balance consideration to the defendant no.1 as per the specific clause mentioned in the Agreement to Sell dated 28/11/2018, therefore, the plaintiff has no locus standi to get specific performance of the said agreement, as he failed to perform his part of promise, hence the suit is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected.
CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 7 of 22 Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
2026.04.30 Varma 17:32:39 +0530
7. Replication on behalf of plaintiff to the written statement was also filed by the defendant no 1, wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him by the defendant.
III. ISSUES FRAMED
8. Vide order dated 07.07.2022 following issues were framed:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance of the contract dated 28.11.2018 as prayed for or in alternate a decree for refund of the amount paid by the plaintiff as prayed for ?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not valued properly for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees? If yes, what is the correct valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees? Onus on both parties.
5. Whether the plaintiff has not paid proper court fees? If yes, what is the correct court fees to be paid by the plaintiff? Onus on both parties.
6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
7. Relief."
CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 8 of 22 Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2026.04.30 17:32:42 +0530 IV. EVIDENCE LED BY PLAINTIFF
9. In the proceeding only two witnesses were examined by plaintiff, succinct testimonies whereof are as follows:
10.PW-1 Sh Ahindra Kumar Mohanta He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as PW1/A. He relied upon following documents:
(a) Agreement to Sell dated 28.11.2018: Ex.P-1.
(b) Cash receipt for Rs.3,00,000/- dated 12.12.2018: Ex.P-2.
(c) Cash receipt for Rs.2,00,000/- dated 28.11.2018: Ex.P-3 and cash receipt of Rs.1,00,000/- (written/received on back side of the receipt Ex.P-3): Ex.P-4.
(d) Legal notice dated 01.11.2019: Ex.P-5.
(e) Legal notice dated 02.12.2019 along with speed post receipts: Ex.P-6.
(f) Tracking report of legal notice dated 02.12.2019: Ex.P-7
11.- PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld Counsel for defendant.
12. PW-2 Brijesh Kumar Sharma: He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as PW2/A. He relied upon the documents which are already exhibited as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. He deposed in his evidence filed by way of affidavit that That the defendant no 01 was a the owner and possession of 2- BHK flat on first floor, area measuring approx. 60 sq. yds. consisting with 2 bedroom 1- drawing room/dinning. 1- kitchen, 2- bathroom cum toilet along with 1-balcony of property bearing House No B-3/23 forming part of khasra no CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 9 of 22 Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.04.30
17:32:45
1869, situated in the Revenue Estate Of Village Ayanagar, now colony known as B Block phase-IV, Ayanagar, tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi -47 in a semi constructed condition, wherein the electricity and water connection were yet to be made along with furniture and fixtures.
13.He further deposed that defendant no 02 was the contractor of the said property and was doing the construction work of the said property. It was averred that on dated 28th day of November 2018 the defendant no 01 for his bonafide needs and requirements entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff shri Ahindra Kumar Mohanta to sell the 2 BHK Flat on first floor area measuring approx 60 sq yds consisting with 2- bedroom 1-drawing room/dinning, 1-kitchen, 2- bathroom cum toilet along with 1 -balcony of property bearing House No B-3/23 forming part of khasra no 1869, situated in the Revenue Estate Of Village Ayanagar, along with 1- separate overhead water tank along with proportionate, undivided, indivisible and impartible ownership rights in the freehold land underneath, with all rights of ownership possession, privileges, easements and appurtenances with all fittings and fixtures connections, structures standing thereon, with all rights in common entrance, passage, staircase, one bike parking and all other common facilities and amenities as are provided in the said building.
CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 10 of 22 Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2026.04.30 Varma 17:32:48 +0530
14.It was further deposed that the said flat even after considerable time, was in a semi-finished conditions without electricity and water connection, wherein the furniture and fixture work was yet to be completed and the water and electricity connection were yet to be installed & applied by the defendant no 01, and that the aid property was not yet ready to move and was not in a habitable condition. This witness was cross-examined by Ld Counsel for defendant.
V. EVIDENCE LED BY DEFENDANT
15.In the proceeding only one witness was examined by defendant, succinct testimony whereof is as follows:
16.DW1: Sh Pramod Kumar- He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW1/A. He deposed in her evidence filed by way of affidavit that the property was duly constructed by the defendant within a period of 2 months soon after its purchase from the previous owner Smt Urmila and therefore the flat in question was already furnished and complete in all respect.
17. He further deposed that the plaintiff failed to perform his part of agreement, as he was not able to arrange the balance consideration amount of Rs 10,00,000/- within the said stipulated period despite repeated reminders by the defendant and therefore the earnest money paid by the plaintiff stand forfeited due to non performance of his part of promise within CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 11 of 22 Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2026.04.30 17:32:51 +0530 the stipulated period as per the terms and condition of the said agreement to sale. This witness was also cross-examined by Ld Counsel for plaintiff.
VI. ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
18. Ld Counsel for plaintiff submitted that he has filed the present suit for specific performance to get a sale deed executed qua an Agreement to Sell dated 28.11.2018, executed between the plaintiff Ahindra Kumar Mohanty and defendant Pramod Kumar.
19.It was submitted that the defendant Pramod Kumar was the owner and was in possession of the suit property and plaintiff Ahindra Kumar had agreed to purchase the same for a total consideration amount of Rs 12 Lakhs. It was submitted that towards the payment of amount of Rs 12 Lakhs, Rs 6 Lakhs have already been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant against proper receipt.
20.Ld Counsel further submitted that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the remaining amount but did not do so as the property was not in a habitable condition inasmuch as there was no water or electricity connection.
21.Ld Counsel has stated that even today he is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration, or in the alternative, the defendant ought to refund the amount already paid with interest to the plaintiff. To substantiate his contention, Ld CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 12 of 22 Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Varma Arul Date:
Varma 2026.04.30 17:32:55 +0530 Counsel for plaintiff invited the Court's attention to cross- examination of PW-1 Pramod Kumar, wherein on 06.04.2024 witness admitted the receipt of Rs 2 Lakhs as advanced money. Ld Counsel for plaintiff further submitted that Agreement to Sell was also not denied by the defendant.
22.Per contra, Ld Counsel for defendant submitted that a perusal of Agreement to Sell dated 28.11.2018 would reveal that the entire payment towards the sale consideration was to be made within one month from 28.11.2018. It was submitted that the payment was not so made within the said period. Further, Ld Counsel invited the Court's attention to Agreement to Sell to contend that the property had all the fittings, fixtures and connections etc, and Agreement to Sell was entered into between the parties only after the plaintiff had seen the flat.
23.Ld Counsel further contended that only an amount of Rs 2,00,000/- has been paid towards the sale consideration and the plaintiff never came forward the pay the remaining amount of Rs 10,00,000/- and therefore the amount of Rs 2 Lakhs stand forfeited. However, Ld Counsel for conceded that the clause of forfeiture is not mentioned in the Agreement to Sell.
24.Ld Counsel for defendant invited the Court's attention to plaintiff to contend that the plaintiff has added a false plea that the flat was in semi furnished condition without electricity and water connection and furniture and fixture CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 13 of 22 Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.04.30 17:32:58 +0530 work was yet to be completed. Ld Counsel submitted that this plea is contradictory to the contents of the Agreement to Sell.
25.Ld Counsel for defendant submitted that the plaintiff was unable to prove the factum of payment of Rs 1 Lakhs as well as Rs 3 Lakhs as averred by him in the plaint. Ld Counsel invited the Court's attention to the plaint to contend that it is the admission of the plaintiff himself that Rs 1 Lakh was paid to Asghar Ali and not defendant no 1. Further, the plaintiff had averred in his plaint that the sum of Rs 3 Lakhs was paid to DH on 10.12.2018. However, a perusal of receipt i.e. Ex P2 would reveal that date of receipt is not 10.12.2018, rather it is 12.12.2018.
26.It was further contended that as per the Agreement to Sell, the entire payment was to be made by December, 2018. However, in this case, a legal notice was sent by the plaintiff to defendant only on 01.11.2019 i.e. a year later than the date of expire of performance of the contract. This, according to Ld Counsel for defendant, demonstrates that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Ld Counsel for defendant has also assailed the financial capacity of plaintiff to perform his part of contract.
27.To assail the financial capacity of the plaintiff, Ld Counsel for defendant invited the Court's attention to cross-examination of PW-1 Ahindra Kumar Mohanty to contend that the witness has given contrasting stance with respect to his vocation. At CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 14 of 22 Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Digitally signed Arul byDate:Arul Varma Varma 2026.04.30 17:33:02 +0530 times, he said he is an auto rickshaw driver, sometimes, he is selling clothes, sometimes he has a grocery store. It was further submitted that the witness could not produce any receipt of purchase of an Auto Rickshaw, nor could he file any income tax return. Further, since the witness has averred that he had suffered paralysis about 6 to 7 years ago, and therefore he had no source of income.
28.Ld. Counsel further contended that the plaintiff had admitted that the handwriting at Ex P4 did not belong to defendant no
1. It was further submitted by Ld Counsel for defendant that the plaintiff has admitted in his cross-examination that the receipt was not prepared in the presence of defendant no 1. Further, the signatures of PW-2 Brijesh Kumar Sharma was also not on Ex P2 i.e. receipt of Rs 3 Lakhs. Ld Counsel lastly contended that the plaintiff could not establish the relationship between the defendant no 1 and defendant no 2 as partners.
29. In rebuttal, Ld Counsel for plaintiff conceded that Ex P2 i.e. receipt of Rs 3 Lakhs and Ex P4 have not been proved as per law as neither witnesses have been adduced on record to establish this fact.
CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 15 of 22
Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Digitally
signed by
Arul Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.04.30
17:33:09
+0530
VII. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO i. Issue no 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance of the contract dated 28.11.2018 as prayed for or in alternate a decree for refund of the amount paid by the plaintiff as prayed for ?
30. The present suit has been filed seeking a decree for Specific Performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 28.11.2018. The plaintiff has prayed for a relief to direct defendant no 1 to accept the remaining payment and convey the suit property to him. In this context, it would be apt to refer to Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 2018 "16. Personal bars to relief.
(c) who fails to prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms of the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.
Explanation.--For the purposes of clause (c),--
(i) where a contract involves the payment of money, it is not essential for the plaintiff to actually tender to the defendant or to deposit in court any money except when so directed by the court;
(ii) the plaintiff must prove performance of, or readiness and willingness to perform, the contract according to its true construction."
31. The law in this regard has further been exposited in PYDI Ramana @ Ramulu Vs Davarsety Manmadha Rao Civil Appeal 434/2013:
CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 16 of 22
Digitally
Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors signed by
Arul Arul Varma
Date:
Varma 2026.04.30
17:33:13
+0530
"13. In order to obtain a decree for specific performance, the plaintiff must aver and prove that he has performed his part of the contract and has always been ready and willing to perform the terms of the contract which are to be performed by him. Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act mandates 'readiness and willingness' of the plaintiff to be averred and proved and it is a condition precedent to obtain the relief of specific performance.
14.There is a distinction between the terms 'readiness' and 'willingness'.3 'Readiness' is the capacity of the plaintiff to perform the contract which includes his financial position to pay the sale consideration. 'Willingness' is the conduct of the party.
32. The above provision of law and verdict make it abundantly explicit that to succeed in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff has to prove that he has performed or is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The two ingredients readiness and willingness are distinct. Readiness presupposes that the plaintiff had the financial capacity to perform his part of the Agreement. In this case, the performance by the plaintiff entailed paying the remaining amount of consideration to defendant no 1 vendor. To establish readiness, the financial capacity of the plaintiff is to be ascertained. In this context, as pointed out by Ld Counsel for defendant no1, it would be apt to peruse the following extracts of cross-examination of PW-1 Ahindra Kumar Mohanty, who averred as thus:
"1. I do not remember the registration number of two Auto Rikshaws (TSRs), which I purchased.
CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 17 of 22 Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.04.30 17:33:17 +0530 However, I do not remember the registration number and year of purchase of those Auto Rikshaw (TSRs). One Auto Rikshaw was in the name of one Broker. The name of Broker I do not know. I do not get transferred the said Auto Rikshaw in my name. I sold the said Auto Rikshaw to the same Broker, from which I purchased it, about 4-5 years back. I have receipt regarding the sale purchase of Auto Rikshaw, which I purchased from the Broker, and same can be produced.
2. I have not produced the receipt of one Auto Rikshaw which I purchased in my name. It is wrong to suggest that I had not purchased any Auto Rikshaw at any point of time and therefore I do not have any document to prove the same.
3. I am doing business of selling cloths since last 25 years. Again said I was doing business of selling clothes from a rented shop, which I closed about 6/7 years ago. (Vol. I was also working as a Tailor and also as Watch Repairing Work). I got paralysis about six years ago and therefore I had to stop those works. I had started a grocery shop after one year and a half from the date of paralysis, however, I do not remember the exact date and year. I had run the said business for about one year. I am not doing any work or business after closing of grocery shop. I am not an income tax assessee and I have never filed any income tax return. I have bank account with Indian Bank, Katwaria Sarai Branch, New Delhi since about 1988. (Vol. I do not remember the exact date and year). I can produce my bank statement for the period 2017-2019, if required."
33. The above extracts of the cross-examination would make it explicit that the plaintiff had multiple vocations ranging from being an auto driver, selling clothes and running a grocery store. The plaintiff claimed purchasing of two auto rickshaw TSR, however, he did not remember their registration number CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 18 of 22 Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.04.30 17:33:20 +0530 neither did he remember the name of the broker in whose name one of the Autos was registered. He did not produce the receipt of one Auto Rickshaw purchased in his name. He himself averred that he was also simultaneously selling clothes from a rented shop which he closed 6 to 7 years ago from the date of his deposition in 2023. However, he had suffered paralysis about 6 years ago from the date of his deposition, and he had stopped working since then. Therefore, from the year around 2016-2017, it can be infered that the plaintiff did not have any source of income. He could not even produce an income tax return as he submitted that he was not an income assesse.
34. The above leads to an inference that the plaintiff did not have the requisite means to perform his part of contract and therefore the plaintiff could not his readiness to perform the contract.
35. As far as willingness to perform his part of contract is concerned, no document has been adduced on record to demonstrate that the plaintiff had approached the defendant no 1 expressing his willingness to perform his part of the contract. Only a legal notice has been sent to defendant no 1 in this regard. However, a rightly pointed out by Ld Counsel for defendant no 1, the contract was to be performed within one month from the date of Agreement to Sell i.e. within 27.12.2018. However, the legal notice was sent a year later on CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 19 of 22 Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.04.30 17:33:25 +0530 01.11.2019, after the expiry of time prescribed in the Agreement for performance. Thus, the plaintiff could not prove willingness to perform the part of his contract.
36. De hors the above, this Court finds force in the submissions of Ld Counsel for defendant that the plaintiff could not establish that he paid an amount of Rs 6 Lakhs to defendant no 1 in his discharge towards payment of part consideration.
Defendant no 2 had admitted to receiving of Rs 2 Lakhs from the plaintiff, however, he disputed the receipt of remaining amount of Rs 4 Lakhs. A perusal of record would reveal that the plaintiff had admitted in his cross-examination that Rs 1 Lakh, out of the above-mentioned Rs 4 Lakhs, was paid to Asghr Ali, and not to defendant no 1.
37. As far as the remaining amount of Rs 3 Lakhs is concerned, there is a discrepancy in the contents of the plaint as well as in the documents adduced on record. In the plaint, plaintiff has mentioned that he received an amount of Rs 3 Lakhs on 10.12.2018. However, a perusal of Ex P2 i.e. purported receipt, would reveal that the receipt is dated 12.12.2018. Furthermore, the receipt Ex P2 has not been proved as per law inasmuch as not only has defendant no 1 denied his signatures thereon, none of the attesting witnesses namely Asghar Ali and Mohd Azad have been examined. Nothing stopped the plaintiff from insisting his friend PW-2 Brijesh Kumar Sharma, being a witness to the receipt of Rs 3 Lakhs CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 20 of 22 Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Varma Date: 2026.04.30 17:33:30 +0530 inasmuch as PW-2 Brijesh Kumar Sharma was a witness to the earlier receipt of cash of Rs 2 Lakhs on 28.11.2018 as well as being a witness to the impugned Agreement to Sell The plaintiff could have got Ex P2 examined by handwriting expert to establish that it bore the signature of defendant no 1 Pramod Kumar. However, no steps were taken by the plaintiff in this regard by the plaintiff. Thus, Ex P2 could not be proved and therefore the plaintiff has been unable to prove that he gave Rs 4 Lakhs, in addition to Rs 2 Lakhs admitted, to defendant no 2. Consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree of apecific performance. However, the plaintiff is entitled in alternate for a decree of refund of the amount paid by him i.e. an amount of Rs 2 Lakhs with interest. Hence, the issue no 1 is decided partly against the plaintiff and partly in favour of defendant no 1.
ii. Issue no 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for ?
iii. Issue no 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest as prayed for?
CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 21 of 22 Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
2026.04.30 Varma 17:33:34 +0530 iv. Issue no 4: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not valued properly for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees? If yes, what is the correct valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees?
v. Issue no 5: Whether the plaintiff has not paid proper court fees? If yes, what is the correct court fees to be paid by the plaintiff?
vi. Issue no 6: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form?
38. In view of the decision qua issue no 1, issue no 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant.
VIII. RELIEF.
39. Ergo, in view of the above in extenso discussion, the suit is partly decreed in favour of plaintiff, and he is entitled for a decree of refund of the amount paid by him i.e. an amount of Rs 2 Lakhs with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of Agreement to Sell till payment.
40. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signedPronounced in the open Court on this 30th April, 2026 Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.04.30 17:33:39 +0530 (ARUL VARMA) DISTRICT JUDGE-02/SOUTH, SAKET COURTS/NEW DELHI CS DJ 23/2020 Page. 22 of 22 Ahindra Kumar Mohanta Vs Pramod Kumar & Ors