Delhi District Court
Rajesh Giri vs Krishna Veni on 20 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. GOMATI MANOCHA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-2, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 416/2016
CNR No. DLNE01-002278-2016
In the matter of:
Rajesh Giri
S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam Giri
R/o C-8/168, Ground Floor,
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. .....Plaintiff
Versus
Krishna Veni
W/o Late S.R. Iyer
R/o C-8/168, 1st Floor,
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. .... Defendant
Date of Institution : 03.02.2014
Date of Final Arguments : 20.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 20.12.2025
Final Decision : Decreed
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction.
CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 1 of 29
2. Plaint:
The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that vide agreement to sell dated 14.08.2013, the defendant had agreed to sell ground floor portion consisting of drawing room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom, latrine and bathroom ad-measuring 70 sq. meter and the roof rights of the first floor with right of construction to the last storey of the property no. C-8/168, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi, for a total consideration amount of Rs. 40 lakhs. The defendant had received a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs as earnest money on 14.08.2013 i.e. at the time of execution of agreement to sell. It was agreed between the parties that the balance consideration amount of Rs. 25 lakhs shall be paid by the plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale deed in his favour and the last date for execution of sale documents and payment of the balance consideration amount was fixed as 30.09.2013. Since, the plaintiff was already in physical possession of the ground floor portion of the property (in his capacity as tenant), it was agreed that the defendant shall hand over the physical and vacant possession of the roof of the first floor alongwith the original previous chain of documents to the plaintiff at the time of the execution of documents of sale in favour of the plaintiff. On 30.09.2013, the plaintiff approached the defendant for the payment of the remaining sale consideration amount as well as for the execution of the sale deed in his favour, however, the defendant avoided the same on the pretext that her daughter Smt. Hemlata and son-in-law are against the sale of any portion of the property and she sought 15 days time from the plaintiff to convince them. Accordingly, the date of execution of the documents as well as for payment of the remaining consideration CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 2 of 29 amount was extended by mutual understanding for 15 days. Thereafter, the defendant started avoiding to perform her part of contract on one pretext or the other. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to serve a legal notice dated 25.10.2013 which was duly served upon the defendant. After the service of the legal notice, the defendant alongwith one person contacted the plaintiff on 31.10.2013 and sought the extension of time for about 1 ½ months.
Considering the good relations between the parties, the plaintiff agreed to extend the time till 16.12.2013. An undertaking was also given by the defendant to the plaintiff in writing in this regard, vide which the defendant had duly mentioned that in case, she would not be able to perform her part of contract till 16.12.2013, the plaintiff would be free to get the sale deed executed through the Court of law.
On 16.12.2013, the plaintiff visited the office of concerned Sub-Registrar alongwith the balance consideration amount but the defendant failed to reach there and failed to perform her part of the contract. Thereafter, on 18.12.2013, the daughter of the defendant, Smt. Hemlata and her son Mr. Jay came to the residence of the plaintiff and started abusing and threatening the plaintiff to cancel the agreement to sell dated 14.08.2013.
On 30.12.2013, the said Mr. Jay again visited the residence of the plaintiff alongwith 15-20 anti-social elements and threatened to kill the plaintiff if the agreement dated 14.08.2013 is not cancelled. Due to this conduct of the family members of the defendant, the plaintiff lodged a complaint to the Commissioner of Police dated 13.01.2014, the copies of which were sent to the DCP and the SHO CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 3 of 29 concerned. It is stated that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 14.08.2013 and for execution of the sale deed in respect of the suit property. He has also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff and his family members from the ground floor portion of the suit property.
3. Written Statement:
In the written statement filed by the defendant, the defendant has reserved the right to file an appropriate counter claim seeking the possession of the ground floor of the suit property in which the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant and is now allegedly in unauthorized occupation of the same. It is stated that the defendant never agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. It is denied that the defendant ever entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff. It is also stated that the defendant never received any consideration amount whatsoever. The plaintiff asked the defendant to sign on 4-5 blank papers stating that the same were required to be given in 4-5 different offices for rectifying the problem of the water meter/rectification of excessive water bills. The defendant in good faith put his signatures on 4-5 blank papers. It is further stated that the suit has been filed on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell. It is stated that the defendant had let out the ground floor of the suit property to the plaintiff on 29.06.2012 on a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/-. Since then the plaintiff has been residing on the ground CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 4 of 29 floor and the defendant has been residing on the first floor. The plaintiff used to assist the defendant in various odd jobs including the deposit of electricity and water bills. Even otherwise, the plaintiff extended respect to the defendant and maintained that the defendant was like her mother. Thus, the plaintiff and the defendant had very cordial relations between them. In these circumstances, when the plaintiff asked the defendant to sign on 4-5 blank papers stating that the same were required to be given in different offices for rectifying the water meter and the problem of excessive water bills, the defendant in good faith signed the same.
The defendant being a heart patient was advised by the doctor not to climb stairs and therefore, the defendant requested the plaintiff in October 2013 to vacate the ground floor of the suit premises as the defendant was desirous of shifting to the ground floor.
On 30.11.2013, when the defendant demanded rent from the plaintiff, the plaintiff asked the defendant to adjust the advance paid by the plaintiff against the rent outstanding. Again in December 2013, when the defendant called upon the plaintiff to pay the rent, the plaintiff flatly refused to pay the same. Thereafter, the plaintiff showed certain forged documents to the defendant thereby suggesting that the suit property had been agreed to be sold by the defendant to the plaintiff. On 19.12.2013, the defendant requested the plaintiff to return the blank signed papers which were obtained by the plaintiff by misguiding the defendant, but the plaintiff refused.
The defendant made a written complaint to the SHO PS CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 5 of 29 Bhajanpura on 20.12.2013 and to the DCP concerned on 21.12.2013, but no action was taken. Thereafter, the defendant made a complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. against the plaintiff seeking registration of an FIR. The proceedings before the concerned Magistrate are still pending. It is denied that a total sale consideration amount of Rs. 40 lakhs was agreed between the parties or that a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs was given as earnest money on 14.08.2013. It is averred that the agreement to sell is a forged document. Denying the rest of the contents of the plaint, the defendant has sought dismissal of the suit.
4. Replication:
Replication to the written statement of defendant was filed by plaintiff which is essentially a reiteration of the averments in the plaint and denial of contentions in the written statement. It is submitted that there could not be any occasion or requirement to obtain the signature of the defendant for any purpose or for rectification of water bills as the water connection in the suit property is not in the name of the defendant. The said connection is in the name of one Sh. Isman Kurshi. Thus, the story of signing on blank papers is a concocted story just to wriggle out of the agreement to sell dated 14.08.2013.
5. Issues:
From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 6 of 29 specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 14.08.2013, as prayed for? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
(iii) Whether the agreement to sell dated 14.08.2013 is a forged and fabricated document and is unenforceable against the defendant? OPD
(iv) Relief.
6. Plaintiff Evidence:
Thereafter, plaintiff led his evidence.
PW1: Plaintiff got himself examined as PW1. He reiterated the facts as are mentioned by him in his plaint. Thereafter, he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents: Ex.PW1/1 is the site plan of the property in question, Ex.PW1/2 is the agreement to sell dated 14.08.2013, Ex.PW1/3 is the legal notice dated 25.10.2013, Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5 are the postal slip and the counter receipt respectively, Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7 are the tracking/delivery report of the Indian Postal Department and Blaze Flash Courier, Ex.PW1/8 is the delivery certificate dated 08.10.2014 alongwith delivery sheet dated 29.10.2013, Ex.PW1/9 is the undertaking of the defendant dated 31.10.2013, Ex.PW1/10 is the receipt of the office of Sub-Registrar dated 16.12.2013, Ex.PW1/11, Ex.PW1/12 & Ex.PW1/13 are three complaints dated 13.01.2014 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, with copies to the DCP (North East) and to the SHO PS Bhajanpura, Ex.PW1/14 is the original water bill of the CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 7 of 29 suit property showing the name of the consumer as Mohd. Isman Kurshi and Mark A is the copy of complaint/statement of the defendant.
PW1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the defendant. In his cross-examination, he stated that he is doing the business of clothes in the name of Tirupati Fashion, Unique Collection and Unique Creation at Katra Neel, Chandi Chowk, Delhi. He stated that in the year 2012, he had not paid the Income Tax nor filed the ITR. He has filed Income Tax Return for the aforementioned proprietorship concern except Tirupati Fashion. He admitted that he was inducted as a tenant in the suit property in June 2012 by the defendant. He admitted that no rent agreement was executed between himself and the defendant. He stated that he has three bank accounts and he is an Income Tax Assessee. He earns about 2-3 lakhs per annum and accordingly pays the Income Tax. At the time of execution of agreement to sell dated 14.08.2013, he did not get the suit property valued from any approved architect or valuer. He never sent any draft of the sale deed to the defendant, for her approval. He has not purchased the stamp papers, till date for execution of the sale deed. The witnesses Dinesh and Deepak Giri were called by him telephonically, one day prior to the execution of agreement to sell, dated 14.08.2013. He reached Karkardooma Court on 14.08.2013 at 3:30-4:00 pm. He admitted that prior to 14.08.2013, he had very good relations with the defendant. He stated that no other party had accompanied him on 30.09.2013. He had not lodged any complaint against the defendant after refusal on 30.09.2013 as she had sought some more time to execute the sale CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 8 of 29 documents in his favour. He stated that he has no knowledge that the defendant cannot read or write Hindi Language. He stated that the defendant and her family members had lodged various complaints against him at PS Bhajanpura, DCP, Seelampur. She had also filed a complaint under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against him. He came to know about this fact as the same was mentioned by the defendant in her previous suit filed against him. The said suit was withdrawn by her. He denied the suggestion that the defendant had not executed agreement to sell dated 14.08.2013 or document Ex.PW1/9. He also denied that he had obtained signature of the defendant on blank papers on the pretext of getting the water charges rectified from Delhi Jal Board. He stated that on 18.12.2013 he had not lodged any complaint to the police authority. However, he had called the police on 100 number. He had also not lodged any complaint on 30.12.2013. He stated that the signatures of the defendant were not taken on the register of the notary on 14.08.2013. However, the agreement to sell Ex.PW1/2 was attested in her presence. Witness Dinesh Kumar Gupta used to visit his residence and therefore, meetings had taken place between him and the defendant. He stated that no separate receipt for acceptance of earnest money was executed. He stated that the same was mentioned in the agreement to sell.
PW2: Head Constable Anil Kumar P.S. Bhajanpura, Delhi was summoned and examined as PW2. He proved the complaint dated 13.01.2014 which is Ex.PW2/1 (OSR). He also proved the copies of the DD entries no. 12A dated 16.02.2014 and 34A dated CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 9 of 29 16.02.2014 which are Ex. PW2/2. In his cross-examination, he stated that no FIR was registered in pursuance to complaint dated Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2. He admitted that Smt. Krishna Veni had also filed police complaints against the plaintiff. The complaints of the parties have been investigated but no case has been registered.
PW3: Sh. Niraj Kumar, Postal Assistant, Department of posts, Seelampur, Delhi was summoned and examined as PW3. He proved the record pertaining to delivery of postal article booked vide receipt no. RD053176503IN dated 25.10.2013 delivered on 29.10.2013 as well as certificate dated 08.10.2014. The same are Ex.PW1/8 (colly.). In his cross-examination, he stated that the envelope was delivered to the addressee. He cannot say what were the contents of the envelope.
PW4: Sh. Wassiullah, ZRO (NE-II), Delhi, Jal Board, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi was examined as PW4. He brought the record pertaining to water connection no. 1310650000 which is in the name of Sh. Mohd. Isman Kureshi installed at property no. C-8/168, Yamuna Vihar. The copy of record is Ex.PW4/1. The water connection is in the name of Sh. Mohd. Isman Qureshi, till date. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the bills are issued in the name of the person in whose name the connection was sanctioned. He admitted that the bill payment can be done by anybody. He admitted that if there is change in ownership of property, unless DJB is informed in writing alongwith proof, the bill will continue to be raised in the name of the person in whose name the connection was CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 10 of 29 sanctioned.
PW5: Sh. Sushil Kumar Kala, Judicial Assistant from RKD (Original) Branch, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi was examined as PW5. He brought the original record of CS (OS) 416/2016 titled as Benett Coleman & Companies Vs. Play Shack School. Since, the witness had brought the record of some other case therefore, his further examination was deferred.
PW6: Sh. Ankit Kumar, Assistant Ahlmad was examined as PW6. He had brought the summoned record of complaint case no. 01/14 titled as Krishna Veni Vs. Rajesh Giri. The copy of the complaint lodged by Smt. Krishna Veni dated 21.12.2013 with DCP is Ex.PW6/A. The copy of application moved by Smt. Krishna Beni on 12.01.2015 regarding return of original documents is Ex.PW6/B. The copy of envelope addressed to Smt. Krishna Beni bearing the acknowledgment and stamp of the postal department is Ex.PW6/C. At this stage, the Court observed that the original of complaint Ex.PW6/A and envelope Ex.PW6/C are not on record in case file CC No. 01/14.
PW7: Sh. Dinesh Kumar Gupta appeared as PW7. He tendered his evidence in affidavit Ex.PW7/A. He relied upon the document already exhibited as Ex.PW1/2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he knows the plaintiff for about 22-23 years as they are friends. He knows the defendant for the last 8 years. He met the defendant for the first time at the residence of the plaintiff in the CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 11 of 29 year 2012. The witness correctly identified the defendant sitting in the Court by pointing at her. He stated that the agreement Ex.PW1/2 was executed in his presence and at that time, Sh. Deepak Giri, plaintiff and the defendant and one more person was known to the defendant, were present. He denied the suggestion that he had not signed agreement Ex.PW1/2 on 14.08.2013 and that it has been forged and fabricated by the plaintiff later on. The payment was made by the plaintiff in his presence to the defendant to the defendant in the denomination of currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/-. The payment was made by the plaintiff to the defendant at Karkardooma Courts where the agreement Ex.PW1/2 was prepared. He stated that when he signed agreement Ex.PW1/2, it had already been prepared.
Thereafter, PE was closed.
7. Defendant Evidence:
After closing of plaintiff evidence, defendant led her evidence.
DW1: The defendant appeared as DW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/1.
In her cross-examination, she stated that she can read and write English as well as Tamil languages. She cannot read and write Hindi Language. However, she can speak Hindi Language a little bit. She stated that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in the suit property in the month of July 2012. The said agreement was prepared by the plaintiff and she had put her signature over the same. She denied the suggestion that no rent agreement was CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 12 of 29 executed between the parties and that is why she has not placed it on record. She stated that there are two electricity and water meters installed in the property. Both the electricity connections are in her name. However, only one water connection is installed in her name. The other water connection is in the name of allottee. She admitted that the water meter is in the name of Mohd. Isman Kurshi. She admitted water bill Ex.PW1/4 as correct. She stated that initially there was only one water meter in the suit property till the year 2017. The said connection is in the name of Mohd. Isman Kurshi. She stated that the plaintiff was using excessive water and she being a single lady still had to share 50% of the said water bill. She, however, stated that there was no issue with the water department. She stated that she lastly received rent prior to 05.08.2013. She had received the rent for the month of August 2013 thereafter no payment towards rent was made by the plaintiff. She stated that it is wrongly mentioned in her affidavit that the plaintiff is in arrears of rent since December 2013. She did not remember whether she had got any notice issued through her advocate Sh. Sudhir K. Makkar to the plaintiff on 10.11.2014. She admitted that in the year 2014, Sh. Sudhir K. Makkar was her advocate in the present case. The said notice is Mark D1. She also did not remember whether she had got any notice issued to the plaintiff on 23.04.2016 through her advocate Ms. Meenakshi Singh. The said notice is Mark D2. She admitted that Ms. Meenakshi Singh was her advocate at that time being an associate of Sh. Sudhir K. Makkar. She denied that the plaintiff had made payment of rent till 14.08.2013 at the time of execution of agreement to sell Ex.PW1/2. She denied that the CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 13 of 29 landlord and tenant relationship had come to an end with the execution of the agreement to sell Ex.PW1/2. She denied that she had acknowledged the surrender of tenancy on 14.08.2013 by accepting rent till 14.08.2013. She does not have any document to prove the existence of landlord and tenant relationship between the parties after 14.08.2013. She stated that on being questioned that there was no issue with the water department then for what purpose had she signed the blank papers. She responded by saying that the plaintiff had obtained her signatures on blank papers on the pretext of making complaint to the water department. On being questioned that since the water connection was not in her name but in the name of Mohd. Isman Kurshi then why her signatures were required, she stated that since the plaintiff was her tenant, he had asked her to sign on blank papers for making complaint to water department. She was not aware as to how many departments, the complaints were required to be forwarded. She had signed on 5 papers on 05.08.2013. She admitted that she had filed a complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. against the plaintiff. The witness is shown the certified copy of the complaint Ex.D1/X in which it is mentioned that the plaintiff had obtained her signature on 4-5 papers on 03.08.2013. She denied the suggestion that in the complaint dated 21.12.2013 filed alongwith the said complaint case, she has stated that the plaintiff had obtained her signatures on blank papers on 15.08.2013. She stated that she has lodged a complaint dated 16.02.2014 to SHO PS Bhajanpura. The copy of complaint is Ex.DW1/X1. She denied the suggestion that she has mentioned different dates and number of papers in her complaint case as well CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 14 of 29 as it's complaints since the plaintiff had never obtained her signatures on any blank paper. She stated that she knows the plaintiff since July 2012 i.e. day when he was inducted as a tenant.
She has never given any blank signed papers to anybody except the plaintiff. She admitted that she had instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction bearing suit no. 209/16 seeking declaration in respect of blank signed papers allegedly obtained by the plaintiff from her on 05.08.2013. However, she has withdrawn the said case under Order XXIII Rule 1 C.P.C. She admitted that the said suit was allowed to be withdrawn on 22.04.2017 without any liberty to file another suit on the same cause of action. The suit as well as application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., application for withdrawal of suit and order dated 22.04.2017 are Ex.DW1/X2 (colly). As regards legal notice dated 25.10.2013, she stated that she had received two envelopes on 30.10.2013 containing waste papers of a judgment of Punjab & Haryana Court. She denied having received the legal notice dated 25.10.2013 sent by the plaintiff. She denied that on 31.10.2013 she had contacted the plaintiff and time for execution of sale deed was extended till 16.12.2013. She, however, identified her signature on Ex.PW1/9. She admitted that she had not lodged any complaint with the police in writing prior to December 2013. She denied that she lodged a complaint after the expiry of date of execution of sale deed in order to create a false defence.
DW2 (wrongly mentioned as DW3): Sh. Hari Om Aggarwal appeared as DW3. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 15 of 29 Ex.DW3/1. He stated that he knows the plaintiff since the day he was inducted as a tenant in the year 2012. He stated that a rent agreement was executed in Court Complex but he does not remember the exact complex where it was executed. The said rent agreement was signed by him and Sh. R.N. Sharma as a witness. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had signed the rent agreement in his presence. He stated that the plaintiff never paid rent in his presence. He stated that on one occasion, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was given as advance in his presence, at the time of induction of the plaintiff as a tenant. He stated that the plaintiff had not obtained the signature of the defendant on any paper in his presence. He stated that the defendant Krishna Veni had informed him about water dispute with regard to water meter and in this context, the plaintiff had obtained the signature of defendant on few papers. He could not tell in whose name water meter was installed in the property. He stated that the plaintiff had not obtained the signature on blank paper in his presence on the pretext of correction of water meter. He stated that in his presence, no agreement to sell was executed between the parties. He denied that he was deposing falsely as the defendant is known to him for a very long time.
8. Arguments:
I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and perused the case file carefully.
9. Issue no. 1 & 2: These are being taken up together as being inter-connected. The onus to prove these issues was on the plaintiff. CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 16 of 29 In a suit for specific performance, the Court can grant this equitable relief only when the execution of contract or agreement is duly proved and the plaintiff is able to show his continuous bonafide or readiness or willingness to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff has placed on record original agreement to sell Ex.PW1/2. He has also placed on record the undertaking dated 31.10.2013 allegedly signed by the defendant which is Ex.PW1/9. In the said undertaking, the defendant has admitted having received Rs. 15 lakhs as earnest money. It is mentioned in the undertaking that on 30.09.2013, the defendant could not get the sale deed executed but she shall get the same done on 16.12.2013 on payment of the remaining sale consideration.
The agreement dated 14.08.2013 has also been proved by PW7 who has testified that the same was executed in his presence. He has stated that he had signed the said agreement Ex.PW1/2 on 14.08.2013 and the payment was made by the plaintiff in his presence to the defendant in the denomination of currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 500/-. The payment was made by the plaintiff to the defendant at Karkardooma Court where the agreement Ex.PW1/2 was prepared. He has stated that when he had signed the agreement Ex.PW1/2, the same had already been prepared.
Per contra, the defendant has stated that the plaintiff had got her signatures on certain blank papers on the pretext of getting the excess water bills rectified. She has not denied her signature on agreement to sell Ex.PW1/2 or the undertaking Ex.PW1/9. As regards signed documents, once the signature is admitted the law presumes that the document was consciously executed and the CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 17 of 29 contents were known to the signatory. Mere plea of "blank papers"
does not rebut this presumption. A bald plea that signatures were obtained on blank papers is not sufficient. Reliance is placed upon S. Kala Devi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram (2010) SCC 401.
Since, the plaintiff has discharged the initial burden of proving the execution of agreement, the burden shifted on the defendant to prove that there was fraud played upon her or that there was misuse of blank signed papers. That burden of proof has not been properly discharged by the defendant.
Burden of proof as mentioned in Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is that whoever desires any Court to give judgment 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. Section 102 provides upon whom burden of proof lies. It has been provided that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail, if no evidence at all was given on either side. Section 103 of the Act provides that 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, and lastly Section 104 of the Act provides that the burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence. Therefore, the total effect of evidence is determined at the end of a proceeding not merely by considering the general duties CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 18 of 29 imposed by Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act but also the special or particular ones imposed by other provisions such as Sections 103 and 106 of the Evidence Act. Reliance is placed upon A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC 136 and R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr, (2003) 8 SCC 752.
Since, the defendant has alleged fraud/misuse of blank papers, the onus to prove the same was on the defendant. This onus has not been properly discharged. There are several inconsistencies in the statement of the defendant herself regarding the number of papers as well as the date of obtaining the signatures of the defendant on blank papers. In the present case, she has alleged that her signature was obtained on five blank papers on 05.08.2013, whereas in her complaint Ex.DW1/X, she has stated that her signatures were obtained on 4-5 blank papers on 03.08.2013.
Further, the defendant has stated that these signatures were taken on blank papers on the pretext of getting the water bills rectified. The copy of the water bill dated 27.12.2013 has been placed on record by the plaintiff. The same is Ex.PW1/14. The water bill can be seen to have been raised in the name of Mohd. Isman Kurshi. Also, PW4 has proved that water connection in the suit property existed in the name of one Mohd. Isman Qureshi. In her cross-examination, the defendant has also admitted that there was only one water meter in the suit property till the year 2017 and the same existed in the name of Mohd. Isman Kurshi. Though, she has stated that the water bills were excessive and she had to pay 50% of the share of the water bill but she has also stated that there was no CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 19 of 29 issue with the water department. Since, as per her own statement that there was no issue with the water department then it is not understandable as to why the defendant had allegedly signed on blank papers. Thus, the reason given by the defendant that she had signed on blank papers to get the water bills rectified, appears implausible.
Also, the defendant has stated that she got to know the plaintiff only in the month of July 2012. She has also stated that she had never given any blank signed papers to anybody except the plaintiff. It is not understandable as to why a prudent person would sign on blank papers which are capable of misuse, and give it to anyone whom he/she has known only for about a year. The conduct of the defendant inconsistent with normal human behaviour discredits her plea that she had signed on blank papers. Reliance can be placed upon Raghavamma Vs. A.Chenchamma, AIR 1964 SC
136. Further, as per the agreement to sell, the execution of sale deed had to be effected on or before 30.09.2013. Since, the same was not executed, the plaintiff has stated that he sent a legal notice dated 25.10.2013 to the defendant. To prove the service of legal notice, the plaintiff has placed on record the copy of legal notice Ex.PW1/3, postal receipt Ex.PW1/4, courier receipt Ex.PW1/5 and tracking report regarding due service Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7 and certificate Ex.PW1/8. He has also examined PW3 from the Postal Department to prove delivery of the legal notice. The defendant has only stated that she had received certain envelopes containing irrelevant documents. This plea appears to be an eye wash.
CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 20 of 29 Also, the defendant has nowhere stated that as to when did she get to know about the misuse of the "blank papers" by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has stated that after he sent the legal notice to the defendant on 25.10.2013. Thereafter, the defendant had executed the undertaking on 31.10.2013 which is Ex.PW1/9 seeking extension of time till 16.12.2013. The stand taken by the plaintiff that the defendant had sought extension of time till 16.12.2013 vide undertaking dated 31.10.2013 appears to be plausible whereas, the plea taken by the defendant that there was misuse of blank papers signed by the defendant seems to be imaginary and an afterthought as the defendant has not been able to prove as to when did she discover about "misuse of blank papers" by the plaintiff and what led to her filing of complaints dated 20.12.2013 and 21.12.2013. On the other hand, the story of the plaintiff that after the expiry of extension of time on 16.12.2013, the defendant intentionally filed frivolous complaints against him appears credible.
Further, a mere perusal of the agreement to sell Ex.PW1/2 shows the document to be coherent and containing clear terms regarding the description of property, terms regarding receipt of earnest money as well as payment of balance amount on 30.09.2013. The said agreement bears signatures of the witnesses as well as the plaintiff and the defendant. Also, the agreement has been printed on a stamp paper. The signature of the defendant appears superimposed on the side boundary of the stamp paper. The agreement in question is also notarized. A mere look at the agreement shows no reason to suspect the execution of the same or to doubt it to have been prepared subsequently after obtaining CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 21 of 29 signatures on blank paper.
It has been contended by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the agreement to sell is unregistered. It is settled law that an unregistered agreement to sell can be the foundation of a suit for specific performance, subject to proof of execution and other statutory requirements. An agreement to sell does not create or transfer any right, title or interest in the immovable property and is only a contract to transfer in future. Therefore, section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 does not mandate registration and unregistered agreement is valid and admissible in evidence. Reliance is placed upon Aloka Bose Vs. Parmatma Devi (2009) 2SCC 582. Even the proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act allows an unregistered document to be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.
Conduct of the parties:
The plaintiff has contended that he was tenant inducted by the defendant on the ground floor of the property. He has stated that it was an oral tenancy and that he was paying rent to the defendant till the time of execution of the agreement to sell. The defendant has also admitted that the plaintiff was a tenant on the ground floor of the suit property. In her cross-examination, the defendant has stated that she had lastly received rent from the plaintiff prior to 05.08.2013. She had received the rent for the month of August 2013 and thereafter, no payment towards rent was made by the plaintiff.
She stated that she has wrongly mentioned in her affidavit that the plaintiff is in arrears of rent since December 2013. She has admitted that Sh. Sudhir K. Makkar and Ms. Meenakshi Singh were her CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 22 of 29 advocates at the relevant time but she could not remember whether they had sent any notice Mark D1 and D2 to the plaintiff, on her behalf. As per the notices Mark D1 and Mark D2, the plaintiff had discontinued payment of rent to the defendant from 04.08.2013 on the premise that she had agreed to sell the ground floor as well as the roof rights of the property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 40 lakhs. This averment in the legal notices Mark D1 and Mark D2 is in contradiction to the averment of the defendant in her affidavit. Further, this fact lends credence to the story of the plaintiff that he discontinued to pay rent to the defendant after agreement to sell dated 14.08.2013 was executed between them.
Readiness and willingness to perform the contract One of the most essential requirements in case of specific performance suit is readiness and willingness. For this section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 needs to be read alongwith section 16
(c) of this Act.
Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as under:-
"The specific performance of a contract shall be enforced by the court subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 11, section 14 and section 16."
Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as under:-
"Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person-
(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 the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant."
CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 23 of 29 Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 mandates the presence of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff being necessary condition for obtaining the relief under this Act. It is observed that in a suit for specific performance, plaintiff must allege and prove a continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract on his part from the date of contract. The readiness and willingness has to be determined from the entirety of the facts and the circumstances alongwith relevant intention and the conduct of the party concerned. Reliance is placed upon M/s. J.P. Builders & Anr. vs. A. Ramadas Rao & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 9821-9822 (arising out of S.L.P. (C ) Nos. 14985-14986 of 2010) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 22.11.2010, N.P. Thirugnanam vs. Dr. R Jagan Mohan Raov & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 115, P. D'Souza vs. Shondrilo Naidu, (2004) 6 SCC 649.
In a suit for specific performance "readiness and willingness"
is a core statutory requirement that the plaintiff must continuously prove to obtain the decree. Readiness essentially means financial capacity i.e. the ability to pay the balance consideration. The plaintiff must explain that he had the necessary funds to honour the contract. Reliance is placed upon N.P. Thirugnanam Vs. Dr. R. Jaganmohan Rao (1995) 5SCC 115.
In this case, the payment of the consideration amount of Rs.
15 lakhs has been proved by the plaintiff through his testimony as well as by documents Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/9. Also, PW7 has testified that payment of the earnest money of Rs. 15 lakhs was made by the plaintiff to the defendant in his presence. As regards, CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 24 of 29 the outstanding amount of Rs. 25 lakhs, the plaintiff has stated that he had sufficient funds with him to pay the said amount. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had reached the spot alongwith balance sale consideration for execution of the sale deed. The defendant, on the other hand, has not contradicted the stand of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has also relied upon order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in this case, whereby the plaintiff was permitted to place on record the certified copies of judicial record and the same were allowed to be exhibited. The judicial record sought to be placed on record were the certified copies of proceedings in CS (OS) 1958/2011 and CS No. 209/2016. One of these documents is a settlement deed as per which one Poonam Ahuja had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 16.50 lakhs to Sh. Rajesh Giri (plaintiff). As per the said settlement it was agreed between the parties that out of the said amount of Rs. 16.50 lakhs, the second party (Ms. Poonam Ahuja) had already handed over fabric to the tune of Rs. 11.50 lakhs to the plaintiff on 30.07.2012 and had agreed to pay the remaining sum of Rs. 5 lakhs by way of Demand Draft before the Hon'ble Court. The plaintiff has stated that he had thus, acquired the necessary funds to honour the contract with the defendant.
As regards willingness to perform the contract, the plaintiff has contended that his intention to perform the contract can be seen from his conduct. On 14.08.2013, the agreement to sell was executed between the parties to get the sale deed registered on 30.09.2013. It is stated that on 30.09.2013, the defendant sought CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 25 of 29 some time to get the sale deed registered. Thereafter, on 25.10.2013 the plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the defendant. The defendant on 31.10.2013 executed an undertaking Ex.PW1/9 seeking extension of time till 16.12.2013. On 16.12.2013, the plaintiff visited the office of Sub-Registrar for registration of the sale deed. The same has been proved by the cash receipt issued by the office of the Sub-Registrar dated 16.12.2013, in the name of the plaintiff, which is Ex.PW1/10. Since, the defendant failed to appear before the office of Sub-Registrar, plaintiff made a complaint to the Commissioner of Police on 13.01.2014 which is Ex.PW2/1. The plaintiff also proved DD entries no. 12 dated 16.02.2014 and 34A dated 16.02.2014 which are Ex.PW2/2. The same have also been duly proved by the testimony of PW2. Thus, it can be seen that the plaintiff all along sought the performance of the contract dated 14.08.2013. There has been a continuous desire on the part of the plaintiff to perform the contract and his conduct is consistent with the said desire. He has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On the other hand, the defendant has breached the terms of the contract as can be seen from the conduct of the defendant as well as from the surrounding circumstances. Thus, these issues are decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 3: The onus to prove this issue was on the defendant. The defendant has denied the execution of the agreement and has claimed that she had signed on blank papers. The plaintiff as well as PW7 has alleged execution of agreement dated 14.08.2013. PW7 is the alleged witness to the execution of agreement to sell CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 26 of 29 dated 14.08.2013. He has deposed that on the request of the plaintiff, he had reached the Karkardooma Court on 14.08.2013 where the defendant was present. He proved the execution of agreement Ex.PW1/2. During his cross-examination, he identified the defendant sitting in the Court by pointing at her. He stated that the agreement Ex.PW1/2 was executed in his presence and at that time, Sh. Deepak Giri, the plaintiff, defendant and one more person who was known to the defendant were present. He denied the suggestion that he had not signed the agreement Ex.PW1/2 on 14.08.2013 or that it was forged by the plaintiff later on. He stated that the payment was made by the plaintiff in his presence to the defendant in the denomination of currency notes of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/-. The payment was made by the plaintiff at Karkardooma Courts where the agreement Ex.PW1/2 was prepared. He stated that when he signed the agreement, it had already been prepared. However, the defendant has not been able to refute the above facts or to prove the allegations of forgery or misuse of documents as alleged by her.
Section 92 of the Evidence Act excludes evidence of oral agreement. It states that no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from it's terms:
Proviso (1): Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law.
The general rule is he who alleges fraud must prove it. Burden lies on the party alleging fraud to prove it. Fraud is not to be CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 27 of 29 presumed, it must be proved. Reliance is placed upon A.V. Papayya Sastry Vs. Govt. of A.P. (2007) 4SCC 221. When signature is admitted, presumption of valid execution of document arises. The burden becomes heavier on the person alleging fraud. Degree of proof required to be proved is higher and clear, cogent and convincing evidence is required to prove the allegations of fraud. Also, contemporaneous conduct is required to prove fraud. Self serving oral statement alone is not sufficient.
In this case, as already discussed above, the onus to prove fraud has not been properly discharged by the defendant. Since, the defendant has failed to prove the allegations of fraud, her defence fails. Hence, this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
10. Relief:
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed and a decree of specific performance is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the Ground Floor portion consisting of drawing room, dining room, kitchen, bedroom, latrine and bathroom ad-measuring 70 sq. meter as well as roof rights of the first floor of the suit property with right of construction to the last storey (only as per MCD norms), in respect of suit property no. C-8/168, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi -110053, on receipt of the balance sale consideration. Also, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 28 of 29 and his family members from the ground floor of the suit property. Parties to bear their own cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
11. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Dictated and announced in (Gomati Manocha)
open Court on 20.12.2025 District Judge-02/North-East,
KKD Courts, Delhi/20.12.2025
CS No. 416/2016 Rajesh Giri Vs. Krishna Veni Page no. 29 of 29