Delhi District Court
Rama Goel vs Moti Gupta on 17 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-08 WEST, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
Civ DJ 612227/16
CNR Number: DLWT01-000228-2009
In the matter of:
Smt. Rama Goel
R/o A-67, Munirka,
New Delhi ..... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Shri Moti Gupta
R/o 42-B, 43m Ashoka Park,
Rampura, Delhi
Legal heirs of defendant no. 2 Smt. Panpori Jain (since deceased)
2. Shri Ram Bhaj Jain (Husband)
R/o 677- R, Model Town
Panipat Harayna.
3. Shri Sanjay Jain (Son)
S/o Shri Ram Bhaj Jain
R/o 677- R, Model Town
Panipat Harayna.
3. Shri Ajay Kumar Jain (Son)
R/o 677- R, Model Town
Panipat Harayna.
4. Mrs. Neeta @ Anita Gupta (Daughter)
W/o Moti Gupta (Defendant no.1)
R/o G Tower - 7, Flat No. 216,
Omax Green Ambala, Haryana.
5. Mrs. Sangeeta Goel (Daughter)
W/o Shri Subhash Goel
Kothi No. 4254 - P, Sector 23
Gurugram, Haryana ..... Defendants
Date of institution : 27.10.2009
Date of reserved for judgment : 07.01.2026
Date of judgment : 17.01.2026
Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 1 of 23
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.17
18:18:27 +0530
Suit for declaration, permanent injunction, restoration of possession,
recovery of mesne profits and damages.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
1. This suit is initiated by Smt. Rama Goel (hereinafter, "the Plaintiff"), a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) residing in Dubai, against Shri Moti Gupta (hereinafter, "Defendant No. 1"), also an NRI, and Smt. Panpori Jain (hereinafter, "Defendant No. 2"), defendant No. 1's mother- in-law. The suit is concerning the ownership and possession of Flat No. A-48, 2nd Floor, Gujranwala Cooperative Group Housing Society, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018 (hereinafter, "the Suit Property"). The plaintiff seeks a declaration that certain agreements are void, cancellation of powers of attorney, permanent injunction, restoration of possession, recovery of mesne profits, and damages for stolen household items. The gravamen of the plaintiff's case is an alleged conspiracy of fraud, non- payment of consideration, and collusion between the defendants to unlawfully dispossess her.
Plaintiff's case
2. The plaintiff asserts absolute ownership of the Suit Property, acquired in 1988 from the original allottee, Mr. Mohan Lal, through an Agreement to Sell, receipt of full payment, affidavit of possession, a registered Will, and a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of her husband. She claims continuous possession until her relocation to Dubai in 1997, meticulously paying property taxes, society dues, and utility bills.
Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 2 of 23
Digitally signed
SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.17
18:18:31 +0530
3. The dispute arose from an alleged fraudulent transaction in 2008, where defendant No. 1 purportedly induced the plaintiff to sign an undated Agreement to Sell the flat for Rs. 50 lakhs and a GPA. The plaintiff vehemently contends that no consideration was ever received, nor was possession handed over. She further asserts that these documents were neither properly stamped nor registered under Indian law, nor did they comply with RBI/FEMA regulations for NRI transactions. Consequently, the plaintiff claims these documents are void ab initio.
4. Upon discovering the alleged fraud, the plaintiff claims to have rescinded the GPA through a cancellation deed, public notices, and communications to defendant No. 1. She further alleges that, despite this, defendant No. 1, using the purportedly cancelled GPA, executed a registered Agreement to Sell on December 22, 2008, transferring the Suit Property to defendant No. 2 for a significantly undervalued sum of Rs. 13 lakhs, without specifying the mode of payment. Defendant No. 2 thereafter forcibly took possession of the Suit Property. The plaintiff highlights a prior suit, CS(OS) No. 1916/2009, where a status quo order was issued, which she alleges was violated by defendant No. 2. Subsequent administrative actions, including the Sub-Registrar's cancellation of the December 22, 2008 documents for fraud and an ongoing criminal trial (FIR No. 391/2011), are presented as corroborating the plaintiff's narrative of fraud and collusion. Defendant's case
5. Both defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, through their respective Written Statements and cross-examinations, largely adopted a common Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 3 of 23 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.17
18:18:35 +0530
defence. They primarily contended that the plaintiff approached the Court with "unclean hands" by suppressing material facts, specifically the valid sale of the Suit Property to defendant No. 1 on August 21, 2008, via an Agreement to Sell, Irrevocable GPA, and Indemnity Bond, all attested in Dubai by the Indian Consulate. They assert that defendant No. 1 duly stamped the GPA and subsequently sold the property to defendant No. 2 via a registered Agreement to Sell on December 22, 2008, with possession being handed over to defendant No. 2. The Defendants argue that the plaintiff has no subsisting right, title, or interest in the Suit Property post-sale, rendering the suit infructuous and devoid of a cause of action.
6. Defendant No. 1 specifically claimed that the Rs. 50 lakh consideration was received/adjusted against business dues owed by the plaintiff's husband. He asserted that the GPA was irrevocable and could not be unilaterally cancelled. defendant No. 2 maintained that she acquired the property legitimately, paid stamp duty, and has been in physical possession since December 22, 2008, paying all dues. They denied any fraud, collusion, or mala fides, stating that the plaintiff received full payment and the sale to defendant No. 2 was a legitimate transaction.
Replication by plaintiff.
7. The plaintiff's replications vehemently denied the defendants' assertions, reiterating that the August 21, 2008, GPA and Agreement to Sell were void for lack of consideration and were duly cancelled. She alleged that the December 22, 2008, transaction between defendant No. 1 Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 4 of 23 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.17 DAGAR 18:18:40 +0530 and defendant No. 2 was fraudulent, executed post-GPA cancellation, undervalued to evade taxes, lacked proper payment channels (violating RBI/FEMA norms), and involved forged signatures/thumb impressions. The plaintiff emphasized that she never relinquished physical possession to defendant No. 1 and that society records and utility connections confirmed her continued control. She relied on the Sub-Registrar's cancellation of the December 22, 2008 documents and the ongoing criminal proceedings as conclusive proof of the defendants' fraudulent conduct.
Issue for determination
8. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for adjudication:
1. Whether the agreement to sell and GPA both dated 21.08.2008 executed between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 with respect to the suit property is not valid and therefore not binding upon the plaintiff? If so, its effect? OPP
2. Whether or not defendant no. 1 paid the sale consideration under the agreement to sell dated 21.08.2008 with respect to the suit property to the plaintiff? OPD1
3. Whether the agreement to sell dated 22.12.2008 executed between the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 with respect to the suit property is not valid and null and void? If so, its effect? OPD (the onus is on plaintiff).
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be restored with the possession of the suit property? OPP Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 5 of 23 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.17 DAGAR 18:18:43 +0530
5. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed material facts? OPD-1
9. Thereafter application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed and additional issues were framed on 10.05.2023. Issue no. 6 Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 7,20,000/- alongwith interest against defendant no. 1 and 2 on account of mesne profit as prayed for in prayer clause (D-1) of amended plaint? OPP Issue no. 7 Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- alongwith interest as damages as prayed for in prayer clause (D-2) of amended plaint?OPP Evidence adduced Plaintiff's Evidence (PW1-PW5):
10. PW1 Smt. Rama Goel (Plaintiff) tendered her affidavit Ex. PW1/A and PW1/A1 and relied on numerous documents. She admitted executing the August 21, 2008, documents in Dubai but denied receiving Rs. 50 lakhs consideration, claiming the documents stated full receipt due to "good faith" and an alleged "adjustment myth." She asserted cancellation of the GPA and denied handing over possession. She produced her passport, voter ID, property acquisition documents Ex. PW1/4 to PW1/7, MCD assessment/receipts Ex. PW1/6, PW1/7 Colly, utility bills Ex. PW1/8, society receipts Ex. PW1/9 Colly, the disputed Agreement to Sell and GPA dated August 21, 2008 Ex. PW1/10, PW1/11, bank passbooks Ex. PW1/13 Colly, RBI letter Ex. PW1/14, Sub-Registrar letter Ex. PW1/12, public notice Mark 'E', High Court orders Ex. PW1/18, certified copy of Charge-sheet Ex. PW1/21, and the December 22, 2008 Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 6 of 23 SUSHEEL Digitally signed by SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2026.01.17 DAGAR 18:18:48 +0530 Agreement to Sell Ex. PW1/19. Her cross-examination revealed that the 1988 purchase documents were unregistered. She maintained that the cancellation of the GPA was due to non-payment and confirmed her articles were in the flat until about 2009.
11. PW2 Shri Jai Bhagwan /Plaintiff's Husband tendered his affidavit Ex. PW2/A and supported the plaintiff's claims of non-payment and cancellation. He denied any business partnership or debt to defendant No. 1, explaining cheques issued to Defendant No. 1 were for materials never received. He confirmed the GPA cancellation process.
12. PW3 Mr. Ajay Rawal/SDM Patel Nagar, Collector of Stamps testified based on office records. He confirmed that no GPA dated August 21, 2008, was presented on December 16, 2008, for authentication in his office Ex. PW3/A Colly, PW3/B. He produced the Sub-Registrar's report regarding the December 22, 2008, sale and the plaintiff's complaint Ex. PW3/C. He also produced the notice issued to defendants Ex. PW3/D and the subsequent recommendation for an FIR Ex. PW3/G. His cross- examination clarified that authentication could be done by SDM (HQ) and that information is not automatically shared between district offices. He was unaware of a GPA stamped at SDM (HQ) on December 16, 2008.
13. PW4 Shri Krishan Kumar/LDC, Sub-Registrar-II, Janakpuri produced original documents, including show cause notices Ex. PW4/J and PW4/K, RTI reply Ex. PW4/L, letters from Sub-Registrar to plaintiff Ex. PW4/M to PW4/P, letter to SDM-II (HQ) Ex. PW4/Q, circular order Ex. PW4/R, and certified copies of the December 22, 2008 Agreement to Sell and GPA with the Sub-Registrar's order dated March 9, 2012 Ex.
Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 7 of 23
Digitally signed
by SUSHEEL
SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA Date:
2026.01.17
DAGAR 18:18:53
+0530
PW4/S, PW4/T. He stated he had no personal knowledge of the dispute, only produced summoned records.
14. PW5 Sh. Dheeraj/Record Keeper, Session, THC produced the complete record of the original suit no. 1916/2009 Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/7, including the judgment and decree dated May 23, 2014, by the Delhi High Court Ex.PW5/1, and letters concerning GPA cancellation Ex.PW5/3, PW5/4, PW5/7.
Defendant's Evidence
15. DW1 Shri Moti Gupta/Defendant No. 1 tendered his affidavit Ex. DW-1/A and relied on certified copies of the Indemnity Bond dated August 21, 2008 Mark A, Receipt Mark B, authentication of GPA stamping Mark C, Agreement to Sell dated December 22, 2008 Mark D, and Local Commissioner Report dated September 15, 2010 Mark E. In cross-examination, he admitted to being an NRI, not filing Indian ITRs during his Dubai stay. He claimed full Rs. 50 lakhs payment to the plaintiff through adjustment of her husband's debt and two instalments, but could not recall amounts or produce records. He admitted no TDS was paid. He claimed possession was handed over in Dubai and that he first visited the property in December 2008. He admitted that the December 22, 2008, Agreement to Sell for Rs. 13 lakhs to his mother-in- law listed the Suit Property as his residence, and that the plaintiff was not present. He also admitted to prior Dubai convictions/imprisonment and a money decree against him in India.
Arguments of Ld. Counsel Plaintiff's Counsel:
Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 8 of 23 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.17
18:18:57 +0530
16. Shri Udayan Jain argued that the plaintiff was defrauded by defendant No. 1. He emphasized that the August 21, 2008, transaction lacked consideration, which is a fundamental requirement for a valid contract, rendering it void as per Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. He highlighted the non-compliance with FEMA/RBI regulations i.e. FEMA Notification 6/RB-2000 dated May 3, 2000, and RBI Master Circular 2006-07/108 dated August 18, 2006, regarding NRI transactions requiring banking channels, stating that no payment was routed through NRE/NRO accounts, as confirmed by PW1 Ex. PW1/13-14 and the FIR investigation Ex. PW1/21.
17. He further contended that the documents required proper stamping under Section 18 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, which were not met for the August 21, 2008, Agreement to Sell. The GPA, even if stamped on December 16, 2008, was fraudulently re-presented post-cancellation. Ld. Counsel stressed that the plaintiff had duly cancelled these documents through letters Ex. PW5/3-4, which was upheld by the Delhi High Court's ex-parte decree Ex. PW5/1.
18. Regarding the December 22, 2008, transaction between defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2, he argued it was a sham, executed post-GPA cancellation, grossly undervalued (Rs. 13 lakhs vs. Rs. 50 lakhs), and involved defendant No. 1 falsely representing the plaintiff's presence and forging her signatures. He relied on DW1's cross-examination admissions August 29, 2025/September 4, 2025 and the Sub-Registrar's subsequent cancellation of these documents Ex. PW4/S, PW4/T, PW5/6, which was Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 9 of 23 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.17
18:19:02
+0530
not challenged by defendant No. 2 as her writ petition was withdrawn Ex.
PW1/20. The ongoing FIR and charge-sheet Ex. PW1/21 further substantiate the fraud.
19. Ld. Counsel asserted that no title can be transferred through unregistered GPAs or agreements to sell without a registered sale deed, relying on established legal principles. He also pointed out the mandatory requirement for stamp duty on GPAs for alienation post-April 16, 2004 Ex. PW4/R. The plaintiff's Counsel asserted that the defendants trespassed and stole household goods, for which the plaintiff is entitled to damages and mesne profits. He meticulously detailed defendant No. 1's contradictions during cross-examination, undermining his credibility. He dismissed the Order II Rule 2 CPC objection as unpleaded and inapplicable, noting that such an objection must be specifically raised and proved.
Defendants' Counsel:
20. Shri Vinod Sehrawat, Ld. Counsel for the defendants, largely focused on procedural bars and the plaintiff's alleged lack of clean hands. He argued that the suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC, as the plaintiff was aware of the alleged misuse of documents and defendant No. 2's possession by October 6, 2009, and could have sought all reliefs in the prior suit CS(OS) 1916/2009. He contended that the question of law regarding Order II Rule 2 can be raised at any stage.
21. He further argued that the plaintiff cannot claim title or seek possession/injunction based on unregistered documents of 1988. He asserted that the plaintiff's claim of non-payment and fraud was false, Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 10 of 23 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.17 DAGAR 18:19:06 +0530 pointing to the Indemnity Bond Mark A as evidence of the transaction. He referred to the IO's reply in FIR 391/2011 which allegedly stated that the plaintiff gave constructive possession to defendant No. 1 and that physical handover was made by the plaintiff's brother. He also cited FSL reports which purportedly confirmed the plaintiff's genuine signatures on receipts/possession letters, thereby contradicting her claims. He lastly contended that there was no evidence for mesne profits or damages. Analysis and Findings Issue No. 5: Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed material facts? OPD-1
22. The onus to prove that the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands and suppressed material facts rested squarely on defendant No. 1. The essence of this defence was that the plaintiff concealed the valid sale to defendant No. 1 on August 21, 2008, and the subsequent transfer to Defendant No. 2, as well as defendant No. 2's possession.
23. However, the evidence on record overwhelmingly contradicts this assertion. The plaintiff, in her pleadings and evidence, has consistently detailed the execution of the August 21, 2008, documents, her subsequent cancellation thereof, and the alleged fraudulent transactions orchestrated by the defendants. The prior suit, CS(OS) 1916/2009, was also disclosed. The defendants' own evidence, particularly DW1's cross-examination, revealed significant contradictions and admissions that undermine their credibility, rather than establishing the plaintiff's lack of clean hands. DW1 admitted to not paying TDS, being unaware of payment specifics, and the plaintiff's absence during the December 22, 2008, transaction.
Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 11 of 23 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA BALA DAGAR DAGAR Date:
2026.01.17 18:19:11 +0530
24. Furthermore, the subsequent actions of the Sub-Registrar in cancelling the December 22, 2008, documents Ex. PW4/S, PW4/T, PW5/6 for fraud and undervaluation, coupled with the criminal proceedings FIR No. 391/2011, Ex. PW1/21, strongly suggest that the plaintiff's allegations of fraud are not baseless but are being actively investigated and confirmed by statutory authorities. The withdrawal of defendant No. 2's writ petition challenging the Sub-Registrar's order also points to the validity of the plaintiff's claims.
25. The defendants failed to discharge their burden of proving suppression of material facts. Instead, their own conduct and evidence adduced reveal a pattern of questionable dealings.
Accordingly, Issue No. 5 is decided against defendant No. 1 and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 1: Whether the agreement to sell and GPA both dated 21.08.2008 executed between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 with respect to the suit property is not valid and therefore not binding upon the plaintiff? If so, its effect? OPD
26. The onus to prove the invalidity of these documents rested on the plaintiff. The Plaintiff's primary arguments for invalidity are lack of consideration, non-compliance with FEMA/RBI regulations, and improper stamping/registration.
27. Lack of Consideration: The plaintiff/PW1 consistently stated that she never received the Rs. 50 lakhs consideration for the August 21, 2008, Agreement to Sell. While the document itself Ex. PW1/10 may have contained a recital of receipt, this is a common practice even when Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 12 of 23 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.17 18:19:17 +0530 actual payment is deferred or not made. defendant No. 1 (DW1) claimed full payment through adjustment of business dues and two installments but failed to provide any concrete evidence such as bank statements, receipts, ITRs etc. to substantiate his bald assertion. His testimony was vague, contradictory, and he admitted to not recalling specific amounts or producing records from 18 years ago, despite the transaction being more recent. A contract without consideration is void under Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
28. FEMA/RBI Compliance: Both plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are NRIs. Transactions involving immovable property between NRIs are subject to strict regulations under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), and RBI guidelines. Specifically, FEMA Notification 6/RB-2000 dated May 3, 2000, and RBI Master Circular 2006-07/108 dated August 18, 2006, mandate that payments for such transactions must be made through proper banking channels i.e. NRE/NRO accounts. The plaintiff /PW1 produced her bank passbooks Ex. PW1/13 which did not show any such large transaction. Defendant No. 1 /DW1 failed to provide any evidence of payment through banking channels or compliance with FEMA/RBI norms. The absence of such crucial compliance further undermines the validity of the transaction.
29. Stamping and Registration: The August 21, 2008, Agreement to Sell and GPA were executed in Dubai. While the GPA was allegedly stamped on December 16, 2008, PW3/SDM, Collector of Stamps confirmed that no such GPA was presented in his office on that date Ex. PW3/A, PW3/B. Even if stamped at SDM (HQ), DW1's testimony Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 13 of 23 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.17 18:19:21 +0530 regarding its stamping was hazy. Crucially, post-April 16, 2004, a GPA for alienation of immovable property other than to a blood relative for natural love and affection is required to be stamped as a conveyance and registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. This was not done for the August 21, 2008, GPA. An Agreement to Sell, by itself, does not convey title, particularly when unregistered.
30. Effect of Cancellation: The plaintiff produced evidence of cancellation of the GPA through letters Ex. PW5/3-4 and a cancellation deed Ex. PW5/7. The High Court's ex-parte decree in CS(OS) 1916/2009 Ex. PW5/1 also implicitly upheld the plaintiff's position regarding the fraud and cancellation.
31. Considering the cumulative effect of non-payment of consideration, non-compliance with FEMA/RBI regulations, and the lack of proper stamping and registration for conveying title, the Agreement to Sell and GPA dated August 21, 2008, cannot be deemed valid or binding on the plaintiff for the purpose of transferring title. The effect is that these documents did not confer any valid right, title, or interest in the Suit Property upon defendant No. 1.
Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 2: Whether or not defendant no. 1 paid the sale consideration under the agreement to sell dated 21.08.2008 with respect to the suit property to the plaintiff? OPD1
32. The burden of proving payment of consideration rested upon defendant No. 1. As discussed under Issue No. 1, Defendant No. 1 (DW1) utterly failed to provide any credible evidence of having paid the Rs. 50 Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 14 of 23 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.17 DAGAR 18:19:25 +0530 lakhs consideration to the plaintiff. His claims of adjustment against business dues and two installments were vague, unsupported by any documentation such as bank statements, receipts, or ITRs, and contradicted by his admission of not recalling specific amounts. The plaintiff /PW1 consistently denied receiving payment, and her bank records Ex. PW1/13 corroborated this version. The FIR investigation Ex. PW1/21 also noted zero payment. The absence of TDS payment further strengthens the inference of non-payment.
Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is decided against defendant No. 1 and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No. 3: Whether the agreement to sell dated 22.12.2008 executed between the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 with respect to the suit property is not valid and null and void? If so, its effect? OPD
33. The plaintiff has successfully demonstrated that the August 21, 2008, GPA, which was the basis for defendant No. 1 to act on behalf of the plaintiff, was invalid due to lack of consideration and non-compliance with legal formalities, and was subsequently cancelled. Therefore, defendant No. 1 had no authority or title to transfer the Suit Property to Defendant No. 2 on December 22, 2008.
34. Furthermore, the December 22, 2008, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW1/19, PW4/S itself was riddled with fraudulent aspects. DW1 admitted that the plaintiff was not present during its execution and that he falsely listed the Suit Property as his residence. The transaction was for a significantly undervalued amount of Rs. 13 lakhs, raising suspicions of tax evasion and benami transaction, especially given the relationship Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 15 of 23 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.17 DAGAR 18:19:33 +0530 between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 i.e. his mother-in-law.
35. Most critically, the Sub-Registrar, after inquiry, cancelled the registration of the December 22, 2008, documents on March 9, 2012 Ex. PW4/S, PW4/T, PW5/6, citing fraud and undervaluation. Defendant No. 2's subsequent withdrawal of her writ petition challenging this cancellation Ex. PW1/20 renders the Sub-Registrar's order conclusive. An order of a statutory authority which is unchallenged, stands.
36. Therefore, the Agreement to Sell dated December 22, 2008, is null and void, having been executed by a person without lawful authority i.e. defendant No. 1 and being tainted by fraud. The effect is that the Agreement to Sell dated December 22, 2008, conferred no right, title, or interest upon defendant No. 2, and the plaintiff's ownership remains unaffected by this document.
Accordingly, Issue No. 3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 4: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be restored with the possession of the suit property? OPP
37. Given the findings on Issues No. 1, 2, and 3, it is established that the plaintiff remains the rightful owner of the suit property. The alleged transactions with defendant No. 1 and subsequently with defendant No. 2 have been found to be invalid, void, and fraudulent.
38. The plaintiff/PW1 maintained that she never voluntarily handed over physical possession to defendant No. 1. While defendant No. 1 claimed constructive possession, he admitted visiting the property only in December 2008. The Local Commissioner's report Mark E, relied upon by defendant No. 1 confirmed defendant No. 2's possession post-October Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 16 of 23 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.17 DAGAR 18:19:37 +0530 14, 2009. The plaintiff's case is that defendant No. 2 trespassed and forcibly took possession, which is supported by the fact that society records and utility connections remained in the plaintiff's name until defendant No. 2 fraudulently got them mutated.
39. Since the plaintiff's title has been upheld and the defendants' claims to title and possession have been found to be based on invalid and fraudulent documents, the plaintiff is entitled to be restored to possession of her property. Any possession by the defendants, subsequent to the declaration of invalidity of their documents, is unlawful.
Accordingly, Issue No. 4 is decided in favour of the plaintiff. Order II Rule 2 CPC Objection:
40. The defendants' contention that the suit is barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC, requires careful consideration. Order II Rule 2 CPC mandates that a plaintiff must include the whole of the claim which he is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action. If he omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he cannot afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished.
41. However, for Order II Rule 2 CPC to apply, two conditions must be met:
1. The second suit must be based on the same cause of action as the first suit.
2. The reliefs claimed in the second suit must have been available to the plaintiff in the first suit.
42. In the present case, the prior suit, CS(OS) 1916/2009, was primarily for status quo regarding title/possession against the society and Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 17 of 23 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.17
18:19:41
+0530
defendant No. 2, when the full extent of the fraudulent transactions by defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 was not fully known to the plaintiff. It was only upon the filing of the Written Statement by defendant No. 2 in that suit i.e. on January 15, 2011 that the plaintiff became fully aware of the December 22, 2008, Agreement to Sell and the complete chain of alleged fraud. The present suit was filed on October 27, 2009 later re- numbered CS 61227/2016, after the society's reply September 5, 2009 revealed defendant No. 2's claim, but before the full disclosure in defendant No. 2's WS.
43. An objection under Order II Rule 2 CPC must be specifically pleaded and proved. The defendants were required to produce the pleadings of the former suit and show that the causes of action were identical. The cause of action for a declaration of invalidity of the December 22, 2008, documents and for recovery of possession against defendant No. 2 became fully clear only after the discovery of the December 22, 2008, documents and defendant No. 2's assertion of possession, which developed over time. The reliefs sought in the present suit are distinct and arose from a continuing cause of action of fraud and unlawful dispossession. The plaintiff could not have sought reliefs based on facts she was not fully aware of at the time of filing the first suit.
Therefore, the objection under Order II Rule 2 CPC is not sustainable.
Issue no. 6 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 7,20,000/- along with interest against defendant No. 1 and 2 on account of mesne profits as prayed for in prayer clause (D-1) of the amended plaint? OPP Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 18 of 23 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.17 18:19:47 +0530
44. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month for the period from 09.11.2009 to 08.11.2012, aggregating to Rs. 7,20,000/-, along with future mesne profits and interest. The foundation of this claim is that the defendants wrongfully dispossessed her from the Suit Property and continued in illegal occupation thereof, thereby depriving her of the lawful use and enjoyment of the property.
45. It is settled law that a claim for mesne profits under Section 2(12) CPC, requires the plaintiff to establish: (i) her lawful possession or entitlement to possession of the property; (ii) wrongful dispossession or unlawful occupation by the defendants; and (iii) the quantum of profits that the defendants actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received from such property.
46. In the present case, while the plaintiff has consistently asserted that she never handed over possession of the suit property to defendant No. 1 and that defendant No. 2 forcibly took possession, the evidentiary record does not satisfactorily establish the precise manner or date of dispossession. The Local Commissioner's report dated 15.09.2010 reflects that defendant No. 2 was in possession of the suit property at that time, and utility and society records indicate her name in connection with certain services after the relevant period.
47. The plaintiff, in her cross-examination, admitted that the Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 21.08.2008 contained recitals regarding transfer of possession. Although she disputes the correctness of those recitals and alleges fraud, the mere existence of such recitals casts doubt Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 19 of 23 Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
2026.01.17 DAGAR 18:19:51 +0530 on her assertion of continuous physical control. Furthermore, while the plaintiff has relied upon certain society and utility records to suggest her continued connection with the property, the same are not conclusive proof of physical possession, particularly when she admittedly shifted to Dubai in 1997 and was residing abroad.
48. More importantly, even assuming for the sake of arguments that the defendants' possession was wrongful, the plaintiff has led no cogent evidence to establish the prevailing market rent of the suit property during the claimed period. No independent valuation report, no lease deeds of comparable properties, nor any expert testimony has been produced to substantiate the claim of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The claim appears to be based solely on the plaintiff's assertion in her affidavit. It is trite that mesne profits cannot be granted on conjectures or surmises. The Court must have a reasonable evidentiary basis to determine the quantum. In the absence of reliable evidence establishing the rate at which the property could have been let out during the relevant period, the claim for Rs. 7,20,000/- remains speculative. The plaintiff has thus failed to discharge the burden cast upon her. The plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of Rs. 7,20,000/- or any amount towards mesne profits or interest thereon.
Accordingly, Issue No. 6 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Issue no. 7 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- along with interest as damages as prayed for in prayer clause (D-2) of the amended plaint? OPP Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 20 of 23 Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
DAGAR 2026.01.17 18:19:56 +0530
49. The onus to prove this issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs. 2,25,000/- on account of alleged theft and loss of household articles from the suit property, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from November 2009 onwards. She has placed on record a list of articles allegedly lying in the flat and has asserted that upon dispossession, she was deprived of the same.
50. It is a settled principle of law that a claim for damages must be proved by clear and cogent evidence. The plaintiff is required to establish: (i) the existence and ownership of the articles; (ii) their presence in the suit property at the relevant time; (iii) unlawful removal or misappropriation attributable to the defendants; and (iv) the valuation of such articles.
51. In the present case, apart from her self-serving affidavit and the list of articles, no independent evidence has been produced to corroborate the existence, condition, or value of the alleged items. No purchase invoices, photographs, insurance documents, valuation certificates, or testimony of independent witnesses have been filed. Though reference has been made to criminal proceedings, no recovery memo or conclusive finding regarding specific household articles has been proved before this Court.
52. During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that she had shifted to Dubai in 1997. There is no satisfactory evidence demonstrating that the listed household items remained in the suit property continuously until the alleged dispossession. The plaintiff has also not proved the precise date on which she discovered the alleged loss, nor has she established a direct causal link between the defendants' acts and the alleged Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 21 of 23 SUSHEEL Digitally by SUSHEEL signed BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2026.01.17 DAGAR 18:20:00 +0530 disappearance of the articles.
53. Furthermore, the quantification of damages at Rs. 2,25,000/- appears arbitrary and unsupported by any documentary basis. In the absence of proof of both liability and quantum, the Court cannot grant damages merely on the basis of uncorroborated assertions. Consequently, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof on this issue. The plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of Rs. 2,25,000/- or any interest thereon.
Accordingly, Issue No. 7 is also decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
54. Reliefs A. Declaration:
Based on the findings on Issues No. 1, 2, and 3, the plaintiff is entitled to the following declarations:
1. It is declared that the Agreement to Sell and General Power of Attorney, both dated August 21, 2008, executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 with respect to Flat No. A-48, 2nd Floor, Gujranwala Cooperative Group Housing Society, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018, are invalid, void, and not binding upon the plaintiff due to lack of consideration and non-compliance with legal formalities. The General Power of Attorney dated August 21, 2008, executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1, is hereby cancelled and declared to be of no legal effect. The Sub Registrar concerned is directed to make appropriate entries in their records reflecting this cancellation.
Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 22 of 23 SUSHEEL Digitally by SUSHEEL signed BALA BALA DAGAR Date: 2026.01.17 DAGAR 18:20:05 +0530
2. It is declared that the Agreement to Sell dated December 22, 2008, executed between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 with respect to the suit property is invalid, null, and void, having been executed by defendant No. 1 without lawful authority and being tainted by fraud. B. Permanent Injunction:
A decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants, their assigns, transferees, legal heirs and representatives from allotting, selling transferring, alienating in any manner whatsoever the said Flat No. A-48, 2nd Floor, Gujranwala Cooperative Group Housing Society, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018 to any person.
C. Possession A decree of possession of the suit property is passed in favour of the plaintiff and direct the defendants to restore the possession of the said suit property to the plaintiff.
D. Costs
55. The defendants are directed to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each to the plaintiff within 60 days, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of judgment till realization. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. SUSHEEL by Digitally signed SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR BALA Date:
File be consigned to Record Room.
DAGAR 2026.01.17 18:20:09 +0530 Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar) on 07th Day of January 2026 District Judge-08, West Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(This judgment contains 23 pages.) Civ DJ 612227/16 Rama Goel v. Moti Gupta Page no. 23 of 23