Delhi District Court
Khem Chand Etc vs Amar Bahadur on 18 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF VIKAS GARG, DISTRICT
JUDGE-05 (EAST),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
CS No. 299/2016
CNR No. DLET01-000954-2015
1. Shri Khem Chand (since Deceased)
Through his LRs:
i. Smt. Sushila Devi
ii. Sh. Pawan S/o Late Sh. Khem Chand
iii. Sh. Deepak S/o Late Sh. Khem Chand
All Residents of:
Plot No. 158, K-5/158, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059
iv. Smt. Laxmi W/o Sh. Varun Mehta
R/o H. No. A 35, Rashid Market,
New Govindpura, Delhi-110051,
2. Smt. Sushila Devi
W/o Late Shri Khem Chand
R/o Plot No. 158, K-5/158,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059. ...........Plaintiffs.
Versus
1. Shri Amar Bahadur
S/o Shri Ram Lal
R/o C-75, South Ganesh Nagar,
Pandav Nagar Complex, Delhi-110092.
2. Shri Vikram Singh
Proprietor, Shri Balaji
Properties, C-63, South Ganesh Nagar,
Patparganj Road, Delhi-110092.
Digitally signed
CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 1 / 31 by VIKAS
VIKAS GARG
Date:
GARG 2025.11.18
16:15:02
+0530
3. Shri Nazir
S/o Mohd. Idrees
R/O B-139, Welcome,
Seelampur, Delhi-110053. ............Defendants
Date of Institution Suit 30.06.2015
Date of Final Arguments 15.05.2025
Date of Decision 18.11.2025
Final Decision of the suit Decreed
INDEX
S. No. Particulars Pages
1. Scope of the suit 3
2. Impleadment, amendments, and substitution of legal 3-4
representatives
3. Case of the plaintiff as per plaint (amended) 4-10
4. • Case of the defendant no. 1 and 2 as per 10-12
written statement
• Case of the defendant no. 3 as per written 13-15
statement
5. Replication 15
6. Issues 15-17
7. Plaintiff's evidence 17
8. Defendants' evidence 18
9. Arguments 18-24
• Plaintiffs' Arguments 18
• Defendant no. 1 and 2's Arguments 18-22
• Arguments on behalf of defendant no. 3 22-24
10. Consideration of arguments and evaluation of record 24
11. Analysis and findings 24-30
12. Relief 30-31
CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 2 / 31
Digitally signed
VIKAS by VIKAS GARG
Date:
GARG 2025.11.18
16:15:23 +0530
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, RECOVERY OF POSSESSION
& MESNE PROFITS & FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION &
FOR RECOVERY OF RS.25,000/- ALONG WITH
PENDENTE-LITE & FUTURE INTEREST
JUDGMENT
1. Scope of the suit:-
This judgment pertains to a suit instituted for declaration, recovery of possession, mesne profits, and mandatory injunction, as well as for recovery of ₹25,000/- along with pendente lite and future interest.
2. Impleadment, Amendments, and Substitution of Legal Representatives:-
The present suit was initially instituted against two defendants, namely Sh. Amar Bahadur (Defendant No. 1) and Sh. Vikram Singh (Defendant No. 2). Subsequently, by order dated 19.05.2017, Defendant No. 3 was impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Consequent to the impleadment, the plaint was amended, and Defendant No. 3 filed a written statement to the amended plaint. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 continued to rely upon their previously filed written statement.
During the pendency of the suit, Plaintiff No. 1, Sh. Khem Chand, expired, and by order dated 28.10.2021, his legal heirs were brought on record, including Smt. Sushila Devi, who was already arrayed as Plaintiff No. 2. Thereafter, upon the demise of one of the legal CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 3 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.18 16:15:31 +0530 representatives of Smt. Promila, her name was deleted from the array of parties by order dated 27.02.2025.
Accordingly, any reference to the "plaintiff" or "plaintiffs" herein shall be construed to include the legal representatives of Plaintiff No. 1, wherever applicable and contextually appropriate.
3. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS AS PER PLAINT (AMENDED):-
Briefly, the essential facts and averments required for a fair adjudication of the present suit, as presented in the plaint, are as follows:
The plaintiffs were the owners and in possession of a built-up flat situated on the first floor, without any roof rights, constructed over an area of 50 square yards, forming part of property bearing No. 11/419, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. The said property was equipped with electrical and water fittings, each having separate meters.
In March 2012, Defendant No. 1 approached the plaintiffs through Defendant No. 2, expressing his intention to purchase the aforesaid flat. The plaintiffs, being willing to sell the property, entered into an Agreement to Sell and Purchase with Defendant No. 1 on 25 March 2012. Under this agreement, the plaintiffs agreed to sell, and Defendant No. 1 agreed to purchase, the said flat for a total consideration of ₹12,50,000/-. A sum of ₹50,000/- was paid by Defendant No. 1 to the plaintiffs as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement, while the balance amount of CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 4 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.18 16:15:38 +0530 ₹12,00,000/- was agreed to be paid on or before 30 June 2012.
Clause 8 of the said agreement stipulated that the plaintiffs would register the property in favour of Defendant No. 1 or his nominee within the period specified in Clause 3, i.e., by 30 June 2012. It was further provided that in case Defendant No. 1 failed to arrange payment of the balance amount within the stipulated period, the transaction would stand cancelled and the earnest money would be forfeited. Clause 9 of the agreement recorded that the transaction had been negotiated through Defendant No. 2 and that both parties were liable to pay 2% commission each to him. In case of default, the defaulting party was to bear the entire commission, i.e., 4%.
Pursuant to the agreement, Defendant No. 1, instead of paying the balance amount of ₹12,00,000/-, paid only ₹11,50,000/- in two instalments during May 2012 to Defendant No. 2, the property dealer, for onward payment to the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 represented that the remaining ₹50,000/- would be paid at the time of registration, as sale deeds in the locality were not being registered at that time. Defendant No. 2, after deducting his 2% commission, paid the plaintiffs ₹11,25,000/-. Thus, the plaintiffs received ₹11,25,000/- out of the total sale consideration.
Subsequently, after registration of sale deeds in the area became permissible, the plaintiffs repeatedly requested the defendants to complete registration of the documents and pay the remaining amount. However, Defendant No. 1 continuously avoided compliance on one pretext or another. Under the Indian Registration CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 5 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.18 16:15:46 +0530 Act, registration of instruments transferring rights in immovable property is mandatory, yet Defendant No. 1 failed to act accordingly. About a month before issuance of the legal notice, the plaintiffs again approached Defendant No. 1 demanding payment of the remaining ₹50,000/-, but he refused.
As per Clause 8 of the agreement dated 25 March 2012, failure on the part of Defendant No. 1 to arrange the balance payment by 30 June 2012 rendered the transaction cancelled, with forfeiture of the earnest money. Defendant No. 2, being the broker and witness to the transaction, was fully aware of this clause. Consequently, the transaction stood cancelled due to non-payment within the stipulated time, and the earnest money of ₹50,000/- stood forfeited. Without prejudice to the above, since the plaintiffs were not paid the full sale consideration, they were entitled under law to cancel the transaction. The plaintiffs had been deceived through fraud and misrepresentation, as their consent to sell for ₹12,50,000/- had been obtained without full payment of the agreed amount.
Finding no alternative, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice dated 22 June 2015 through their counsel to both defendants by speed post (No. ED223431945IN & ED223431959IN). Through this notice, they formally cancelled the transaction and called upon Defendant No. 1 to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said flat immediately, as his continued possession was unauthorized after cancellation. The notice also stated that failure to vacate would render his possession illegal and he would be liable for damages/mesne profits at prevailing market rent rates until CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 6 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.18 16:16:08 +0530 possession was restored.
In good faith, the plaintiffs offered to refund ₹11,25,000/-, being the part payment received, while maintaining forfeiture of the ₹50,000/- earnest money under Clause 8. The plaintiffs stipulated that Defendant No. 1 could claim refund of ₹11,25,000/- within two months of receiving the notice, after giving one week's prior intimation; failing which, the said amount would also stand forfeited. The notice further stated that since the transaction had been cancelled, Defendant No. 2 was not entitled to any commission. The deduction of ₹25,000/- by him from the payment made to the plaintiffs was illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified, and he was liable to refund the same within one week of receipt of the notice, failing which interest @18% per annum would be claimed from the expiry of that period until realization.
The legal notice was duly served upon Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1, however, evaded service--though residing at the given address--by ensuring the speed post was returned with the remark "Poochhtachh par prapt karta nahin mila." Nevertheless, on 26 June 2015, a person named Mohd. Rafiq Khan called the plaintiffs from mobile number 9213207544, claiming to represent Defendant No. 1 and offering to settle the matter. Despite repeated calls, no settlement was reached since the transaction had already been cancelled. This clearly demonstrated Defendant No. 1's knowledge of the legal notice. Thereafter, the plaintiffs re-sent the legal notice on 29 June 2015 through courier and also pasted a copy at Defendant No. 1's address, thereby ensuring due service.
CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 7 / 31
Digitally signed
VIKAS by VIKAS GARG
Date:
GARG 2025.11.18
16:16:16 +0530
Despite such service, Defendant No. 1 neither vacated the premises nor handed over possession, and Defendant No. 2 failed to refund ₹25,000/-. Neither defendant responded to or complied with the notice. The conduct of both defendants was illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified. The plaintiffs had always been ready and willing to execute the sale deed and had even signed requisite papers and handed over original title documents to Defendant No. 1. However, registration could not take place due to his default in paying the full consideration. The plaintiffs made repeated requests, including about a month before the legal notice, yet Defendant No. 1 refused to make payment or complete registration.
As per Clause 8 of the agreement, the transaction stood cancelled on 30 June 2012 due to non-payment of the balance amount, and such cancellation was duly communicated through the notice dated 22 June 2015. Consequently, Defendant No. 1 has no right to continue in possession of the flat. His occupation is wholly unauthorized, illegal, and unjustified, making him liable for damages/mesne profits at current market rent rates until possession is restored. He is also bound to return the original title documents, as the sale documents executed in his favour became null and void upon cancellation. The plaintiffs reiterated their willingness to refund ₹11,25,000/- within the stipulated period while maintaining forfeiture of the earnest money.
If the property were let out at the time of filing this suit, it would fetch a monthly rent of ₹12,000/- exclusive of electricity and water charges. Accordingly, Defendant No. 1 is liable to pay CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 8 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.18 16:16:24 +0530 damages/mesne profits at ₹12,000/- per month for unauthorized occupation. Furthermore, since the transaction stood cancelled, Defendant No. 2 is not entitled to any commission and must refund ₹25,000/- wrongfully deducted. The plaintiffs are under no liability to pay such commission, which, under Clause 9, is recoverable only from the defaulting party, i.e., Defendant No. 1, at 4%.
The plaintiffs have also learned that Defendant No. 1, in collusion with Defendant No. 2, is attempting to sell, transfer, or create third- party interest in the property, possibly using the documents earlier signed by the plaintiffs. There is an imminent risk of alienation to frustrate the plaintiffs' rights; therefore, the defendants must be restrained from doing so. During the pendency of the case, Defendants No. 1 and 2 purportedly sold and handed over possession of the flat to Defendant No. 3, filing copies of unregistered documents in this regard. These documents, allegedly executed in favour of Sh. Nazir S/o Mohd. Idrees, are illegal, invalid, mala fide, and unsustainable in law. Since the original transaction with Defendant No. 1 stood cancelled, no valid title could pass to Defendant No. 3 or any subsequent transferee. Moreover, none of these documents were registered, as required under the Registration Act; hence, no legal title could be conveyed to any party.
It is prayed that the Agreement to Sell dated 25 March 2012 executed between the plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 be declared cancelled and all documents executed pursuant thereto be declared null and void; that any subsequent sale or transfer in favour of CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 9 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.18 16:16:32 +0530 Defendant No. 3 or any other person be declared illegal, invalid, and unsustainable in law; that Defendants No. 1 and 3 be directed to return the original title deeds and documents to the plaintiffs and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the flat forthwith; that damages/mesne profits at the rate of ₹12,000/- per month along with interest @18% per annum, or at such rate as deemed appropriate, be awarded for unauthorized occupation until possession is delivered; that Defendant No. 2 be directed to refund ₹25,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of notice till realization; that the plaintiffs be awarded the costs of the suit; and that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant any other relief deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. CASE OF THE DEFENDANT NO. 1 AND 2 AS PER WRITTEN STATEMENT:-
Briefly, the essential facts and averments required for a fair adjudication of the present suit, as presented in the Written Statement, are as follows:
The suit filed by the plaintiff is a sheer abuse of the process of law and is wholly groundless, frivolous, false, and vexatious. It discloses no cause of action or right to sue against the defendants and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold in light of the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The plaintiff, by instituting such a false and fabricated suit, has not only misused the judicial process but is also liable to be prosecuted for filing a false and frivolous case. The present suit, as framed, is not maintainable as the plaintiffs lack CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 10 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.18 16:16:40 +0530 locus standi to file it. The defendant No. 1 purchased the suit property from the plaintiffs for a lawful sale consideration, after execution of all title documents and upon taking peaceful and vacant possession thereof. By operation of law, the defendant No. 1 became the absolute owner of the property. The plaintiffs, having received the full consideration, have no right, title, or interest remaining in the said property. It is evident that the suit has been filed only with an intent to harass the defendants and to unlawfully grab the property once again, and hence it merits outright dismissal with heavy costs.
The suit is further barred as it suffers from misjoinder and non- joinder of necessary parties, improper valuation for court fees and jurisdiction, and concealment of material facts. The plaintiffs have suppressed vital documents, particularly the title documents duly executed in favour of the defendant No. 1, after receiving the full and final sale consideration and delivering peaceful possession. The entire suit is based on incomplete and misleading facts and is thus neither maintainable nor sustainable in law.
It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands. They have suppressed material facts and presented false and fabricated claims, making them liable for perjury under Section 340 read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. The true facts are that the plaintiffs received full and final sale consideration from the defendant No. 1 and executed title documents, namely the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, Affidavit, and Receipt, duly notarized on 20.09.2012, after which vacant CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 11 / 31 VIKAS Digitally signed by VIKAS GARG Date: 2025.11.18 GARG 16:16:49 +0530 possession of the property was handed over. Subsequently, the defendant No. 1 became the lawful owner of the property.
After receiving the entire sale consideration and completing the transaction, the plaintiffs developed malafide intentions and filed the present false suit to serve their ulterior motives. The defendant No. 1 has, in fact, already sold the property to one Mr. Nazir on 29.09.2012, who has been in exclusive possession thereof ever since. The plaintiffs' allegations regarding non-payment of consideration or refusal to register the sale deed are entirely baseless. The defendant No. 1 made all payments--₹50,000/- on 23.02.2012, ₹8,00,000/- on 02.05.2012, ₹3,75,000/- on 03.05.2012, and another ₹50,000/- at the time of execution of the title documents on 20.09.2012. The plaintiffs themselves acknowledged in the Agreement to Sell that they had received the full and final sale consideration and handed over possession.
The remaining allegations in the plaint are wholly false, concocted, and denied in their entirety. The plaintiffs' claims of fraud, non- payment, or illegal withholding of possession are unsupported and contrary to the documentary evidence. There has been no default or breach on the part of the defendants. The plaintiffs' attempt to reassert ownership over the property already sold and delivered is dishonest and untenable in law. The suit, being devoid of any cause of action and filed merely to harass the defendants, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. It is prayed that the present suit be dismissed with costs.
CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 12 / 31
Digitally signed
VIKAS by VIKAS GARG
Date:
GARG 2025.11.18
16:16:57 +0530
CASE OF THE DEFENDANT NO. 3 AS PER WRITTEN
STATEMENT:-
Briefly, the essential facts and averments required for a fair adjudication of the present suit, as presented in the Written Statement, are as follows:
The present suit, as framed and filed by the plaintiffs, is a gross abuse and misuse of the process of law and legal machinery. It has been instituted with mala fide intent, containing false and frivolous allegations, and therefore deserves to be dismissed with costs. The plaintiffs have no cause of action against the answering defendant no. 3, and the suit, being devoid of any legal basis, merits outright rejection. The plaintiffs have approached this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands, having deliberately concealed true and material facts, and thus are not entitled to any relief whatsoever. The suit is also bad for misjoinder of parties, as defendant no. 2 has been unnecessarily and improperly impleaded. It is evident that the present litigation has been filed with the ulterior motive of harassing and humiliating the answering defendant no. 3, as well as to extort money. The answering defendant no. 3 is the bona fide purchaser, rightful owner, and lawful possessor of the suit property, having acquired it through valid and complete sale transactions. Therefore, the suit is not only baseless but also vexatious, and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Furthermore, the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs have failed to pay the appropriate court fees. The plaintiffs also lack locus standi to institute the present proceedings, CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 13 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.18 16:17:06 +0530 as they are neither the owners, landlords, nor in possession of the property in question in any manner whatsoever.
On merits, it is submitted that the contents of paragraph 1 of the plaint are a matter of record. The contents of paragraph 2 are not related to the answering defendant no. 3; however, it is pertinent to submit that the plaintiffs had already sold the suit property to defendant no. 1 after receiving full and final sale consideration. They had executed all necessary title documents, including the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, Affidavit, and Receipt, duly notarized on 20.12.2016, and handed over peaceful and vacant possession of the property to defendant no. 1. Thereafter, on 30.09.2012, defendant no. 3 purchased the property from defendant no. 1 after paying the full and final sale consideration, upon which defendant no. 1 executed all requisite documents-- namely the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Possession Letter, Receipt, Will, and Affidavit--in favour of defendant no. 3, and delivered physical, peaceful, and vacant possession of the property on the spot. Since then, defendant no. 3 has been the rightful owner and in continuous possession of the property.
The allegations made against defendant no. 3 are wholly false, frivolous, and baseless. Defendant no. 3 has never received any alleged notice from the plaintiffs, and therefore the question of replying to any such notice does not arise. It is reiterated that the plaintiffs, having already sold the property to defendant no. 1, have no subsisting right, title, or interest in the same, and their present claim is nothing but an attempt to misuse the process of law.
CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 14 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.18 16:17:17 +0530 The assertions that the subsequent sale executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 3 is illegal, arbitrary, or mala fide are categorically denied. The plaintiffs' contention that no legal and valid title could have been conveyed to defendant no. 3 or that registration was mandatory under the Registration Act is misconceived and incorrect. Defendant no. 3, being the bona fide purchaser, is the rightful owner and possessor of the suit property, and is fully entitled to use, enjoy, occupy, or even transfer it as per his discretion.
It is further denied that any cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiffs or against defendant no. 3 on any date, including 01.07.2012, 30.06.2012, or 22.06.2015, as alleged in the plaint. The plaintiffs have also failed to properly value the suit and pay the appropriate court fees, rendering the suit legally unsustainable. The so-called prayer clause of the plaint is completely baseless, false, and misconceived. It is prayed that the present suit be dismissed with costs.
5. REPLICATION:-
The plaintiffs have filed two separate replications--one to the written statement of defendants no. 1 and 2, and another to the written statement of defendant no. 3--wherein they have denied the averments made by the defendants and have reaffirmed and reiterated the contents of the plaint in their entirety.
6. ISSUES:-
Upon completion of pleadings, the following issues were CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 15 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.18 16:17:27 +0530 framed for trial on 20.11.2018.
1. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary party?OPD
2. Whether the suit is without cause of action as the plaintiff has taken full and final amount of the total sale consideration and have not executed the sale documents OPD
3. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of payment of proper court fees?OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled of recovery of possession of suit property and mandatory injunction? OPP
5. Relief.
No other issues were raised or pressed, and the onus of proof was settled accordingly at that stage.
Additional issues were also framed for trial on 31.07.2009.
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration that the deal/transaction dt. 25.03.2012 is cancelled? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs. 25,000/- as prayed for against defendant no. 2 together with interest thereon and if so at what rate of interest and for what period? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of damages/mesne profits against D-1 and D-3 CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 16 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.18 16:17:36 +0530 together with interest and if so, at what rate of interest and for what period? OPP
4. Relief.
No other issues were raised or pressed, and the onus of proof was settled accordingly at that stage.
7. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:-
During the plaintiff's evidence, Smt. Sushila Devi (plaintiff no. 2 and one of the LRs of the plaintiff no. 1) testified as PW-1 and submitted her affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), reiterating the contents of the plaint. She relied on following documents:
1) Copy of agreement to sell & Purchase dated 25.03.2012 as Ex. PW1/1.
2) Copy of the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC dated 14.10.2019 as Ex. PW1/2 and Postal receipts as Ex. PW1/3 to PW1/7.
3) Tracking reports as Ex. PW1/8 to Ex. PW1/12.
4) Copy of legal demand notice dated 22.06.2015 as Ex. PW1/13 and postal receipts as Ex. PW1/14 & Ex. PW1/15 and Tracking report of the same is Ex. PW1/15.
5) Returned envelop is Ex. PW1/17.
6) Courier receipt is Ex. PW1/18.
7) Photograph of affixation of the demand legal notice is Ex. PW1/19.
She was extensively cross-examined by the defendants' counsel.
CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 17 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.18 16:17:46 +0530
8. Defendants' Evidence:-
No evidence has been led on behalf of any of the defendants, despite having been afforded adequate opportunities.
9. ARGUMENTS:-
Plaintiffs' Arguments:
Ld. counsel for the plaintiff argued in line with the averments made in the plaint. He submitted that an Agreement to Sell dated 25.03.2012 was executed between the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1.
He further submitted that defendant no. 1 never came forward for execution and registration of the sale deed. He contended that, in view of the defendant's failure to pay the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/-, the said agreement stood cancelled in terms of Clause 8 of the Agreement to Sell, which he also read in court. He further argued that upon cancellation of the agreement, the possession of the defendant became unauthorized and illegal, and therefore the defendants are liable to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. He also submitted that the GPA and other documents relied upon by the defendants are forged and fabricated, drawing the Court's attention to various discrepancies in the documents, including dates, seals, and other features.
Ld. counsel for the plaintiff accordingly prayed that the suit be decreed.
Defendant no. 1 and 2's Arguments:
It is argued by the counsel for the defendant no. 1 and 2 that the plaintiffs have already received the full and final sale CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 18 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.18 16:17:56 +0530 consideration amount from Defendant No. 1. Upon receipt of the total sale consideration, the plaintiffs executed the title documents, namely the General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, Affidavit, and Receipt, all duly notarized on 20.09.2012, and simultaneously handed over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property to Defendant No. 1. It is further submitted that, due to a typographical error, the date was inadvertently mentioned as 20.09.2012 instead of 30.09.2012 in the reply to the plaintiff's legal notice.
At the time of execution of the aforesaid documents, the plaintiffs themselves requested Defendant No. 1 to record the total sale consideration as ₹10,00,000/- instead of ₹12,50,000/-, and further requested that no separate receipt for ₹50,000/- be issued since that amount had already been received by them at the time of execution of the title documents. The plaintiffs assured Defendant No. 1 that the Agreement already contained a recital acknowledging full and final receipt of the sale consideration and promised their cooperation for registration of the sale documents whenever required. However, despite repeated requests by Defendant No. 1 for registration of the sale deed, the plaintiffs deliberately avoided doing so on one pretext or another.
The conduct of the plaintiffs clearly reveals their mala fide and dishonest intent. Having received the entire sale consideration, executed all relevant title documents, and handed over possession of the suit property, the plaintiffs have now filed the present false and frivolous suit with ulterior motives to harass the defendants and CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 19 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.18 16:18:04 +0530 derive undue advantage. Therefore, the present suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
The defendant respectfully submits that the payment details are as follows: ₹50,000/- was paid at the time of execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 23.02.2012; ₹8,00,000/- was paid on 02.05.2012; ₹3,75,000/- on 03.05.2012; and an additional ₹50,000/- was paid at the time of execution of the title documents on 20.09.2012. As per page 2 of the Agreement to Sell, Defendant No. 1 was entitled to realize all profits from the said property from the date of execution of the Agreement, and the plaintiffs had relinquished any right to demand any further amount. The plaintiffs, after receiving the full consideration, delivered vacant and peaceful possession of the property to Defendant No. 1 on the spot, leaving no surviving claim.
It is further submitted that Defendant No. 1, being the lawful owner, has already sold the suit property to Defendant No. 3, Sh. Nazir, S/o Mohd. Idrees, R/o H. No. B-139, Welcome, Seelampur, Delhi - 110053, on 30.09.2012, against valid sale consideration. Consequently, Defendant No. 3 is the rightful owner and in possession of the suit property.
The present suit is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law. It is baseless, frivolous, and vexatious, and does not disclose any cause of action or right to sue. Hence, in light of the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present litigation CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 20 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.18 16:18:12 +0530 deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. The plaintiffs are further liable to be prosecuted for filing a false and frivolous suit.
The plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute the present proceedings. Having received the entire consideration and executed the title documents while handing over possession, ownership of the suit property vested in Defendant No. 1 by operation of law. The plaintiffs have filed this false suit merely to extort money or to wrongfully regain possession of the property, which they have already sold. Hence, the suit deserves outright dismissal with exemplary costs.
The suit, as filed, discloses no cause of action against the answering defendants and is therefore liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Furthermore, the suit suffers from misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. Therefore, it is not maintainable in the eyes of law.
The plaintiffs have deliberately concealed material documents and facts. Having executed title documents and transferred possession to Defendant No. 1, they have now approached this Hon'ble Court with unclean hands. The suit is a calculated attempt to mislead the Court, harass the defendants, and usurp the property. It is thus liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
The plaintiffs are guilty of suppression of material facts and have acted with mala fide intention, thereby committing perjury. They are liable to be dealt with under Section 340 read with Section 195 CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 21 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.18 16:18:23 +0530 Cr.P.C. for filing false and fabricated documents and statements before this Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 concluded his arguments and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
Arguments on behalf of defendant no. 3:
It is argued on behalf of Defendant No. 3 that the plaintiffs themselves have categorically stated in the plaint that Defendant No. 1 purchased the suit property from them for a total sale consideration of ₹12,50,000/-, out of which ₹50,000/- was paid as earnest money and the remaining ₹12,00,000/- was agreed to be paid on or before 30.06.2012. It is also stated in the plaint that ₹11,50,000/- was received by the plaintiffs, and the remaining ₹50,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the documents. However, Defendant No. 3 deducted his commission of ₹25,000/-, and thus, the plaintiffs received ₹11,25,000/- in total. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs received a sum of ₹11,75,000/-, including the earnest money, and voluntarily executed the Agreement to Sell, Possession Letter, General Power of Attorney, and Receipt, all dated 20.09.2012, in favour of Defendant No. 1.
The plaintiffs also voluntarily handed over peaceful possession of the property after receiving full and final payment. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no right to seek possession again, and the present suit is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
This Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 20.11.2018, framed issues regarding non-joinder of necessary parties, absence of cause of action, payment of proper court fees, and entitlement to possession and injunction. The plaintiffs have utterly failed to discharge their CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 22 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.18 16:18:42 +0530 burden of proof and could not establish any of their claims on record. In light of this, the suit deserves dismissal with exemplary costs.
It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands. During her cross-examination dated 01.06.2024, the plaintiff was confronted with documents marked as Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex. PW1/D6, and she unequivocally admitted her own signatures as well as those of her deceased husband on all these documents. She also admitted the photographs of herself and her husband appearing thereon. Although she attempted to claim that her signatures were obtained on blank papers, this contention is wholly baseless since all the documents are executed on printed stamp papers, and both the plaintiff and her husband even signed on the revenue stamps affixed thereto. This clearly demonstrates that the documents were executed voluntarily and with full knowledge.
The plaintiff's own version shows that the sale and purchase agreement was executed on 12.03.2012, and the balance amount was to be paid by 30.06.2012. However, instead of raising any grievance immediately thereafter, the plaintiff sent a legal notice only on 22.06.2015--after an unreasonable delay of nearly three years. Such inaction clearly indicates that the suit is barred by limitation. Furthermore, the belated notice itself demonstrates the plaintiff's mala fide intent, as any genuine party would have acted promptly in 2012 if there had been a real dispute.
CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 23 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.18 16:18:50 +0530 The conduct of the plaintiff further reveals that after the value of the property increased, she became dishonest and attempted to renege on her own commitments. Having already received full and final sale consideration and executed all relevant title documents, the plaintiff cannot now claim any relief. Moreover, the defendants had repeatedly approached the plaintiffs for registration of the sale deed, but the plaintiffs deliberately avoided completing the transaction, thereby confirming their lack of bona fides. Learned counsel for Defendant No. 3 prayed for dismissal of the suit.
10. Consideration of Arguments and Evaluation of Record:-
I have carefully listened to and considered the arguments presented by all the parties, thoroughly reviewed the records, and taken into account the relevant laws and precedents.
11. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-
All the issues and additional issues are interconnected and interrelated; accordingly, they are addressed together as follows:
As per the plaint and the testimony led on behalf of the plaintiffs, it is stated that an Agreement to Sell dated 25.03.2012 was executed between the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1, whereby the plaintiffs agreed to sell the suit property to defendant no. 1 for a total sale consideration of ₹12,50,000/-. Of the total amount, ₹50,000/- was paid as earnest money on the date of execution of the agreement, and the balance was agreed to be paid on or before 30.06.2012.
CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 24 / 31
Digitally signed
VIKAS by VIKAS GARG
Date:
GARG 2025.11.18
16:18:58 +0530
The defendants did not lead any evidence. During the cross- examination of the plaintiff (PW-1), no suggestion was put forth by the defendants disputing the genuineness of the said agreement or alleging it to be forged or fabricated. There was also no suggestion challenging the execution of the said agreement.
In view of the above, the Agreement to Sell Ex. PW-1/1 dated 25.03.2012 stands duly established and proved.
The primary defence raised by the defendants is that certain ownership documents--namely, the GPA, Agreement to Sell, Possession Letter, Will, Receipt of Payment, and Affidavit, all dated 20.09.2012--were executed by the plaintiffs in favour of Defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs, however, deny the execution of these documents and contend that they are forged and fabricated. Even if, for the sake of argument, these documents are presumed to be genuine, no valid title passes to the defendants on the basis of such documents.
The alleged Will Ex. PW-1/D4, purportedly executed by both plaintiffs, holds no legal validity. The said Will bears the signature of only one attesting witness, whereas, under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, a valid Will must be attested by at least two witnesses. Furthermore, even the sole attesting witness mentioned has not been examined. It is also pertinent to note that at the time of filing of the present suit, both the testators were alive, and plaintiff no. 2, Ms. Sushila, continues to be alive. Hence, no Will purportedly executed by her has come into operation during her lifetime.
CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 25 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.18 16:20:00 +0530 As regards the other documents relied upon by the defendants, the same cannot be construed as ownership documents in the eyes of law.
At this stage, reference may be made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakeel Ahmad v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain (Civil Appeal No. 1598 of 2023, decided on 01.11.2023), wherein the Court held that "10 Having considered the submissions at the outset, it is to be emphasized that irrespective of what was decided in the case of Suraj Lamps and Industries(supra) the fact remains that no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney. The Registration Act, 1908 clearly provides that a document which requires compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court of Law on its basis. Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882."
CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 26 / 31 Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS Date:
GARG GARG 2025.11.18 16:21:38 +0530 It has been stated on behalf of the plaintiffs that possession of the suit property was handed over to defendant no. 1 pursuant to the Agreement to Sell dated 25.03.2012. However, the plaintiffs seek a declaration that the said Agreement to Sell Ex. PW-1/1 stands cancelled in terms of Clause 8 of the agreement. According to the plaintiffs, the total sale consideration was ₹12,50,000/-, out of which ₹12,00,000/- was paid, leaving a balance amount of ₹50,000/- unpaid. The plaintiff has duly testified to this effect, and no evidence has been led by the defendants to rebut this assertion. A mere suggestion put to PW-1/plaintiff No. 2 in cross- examination that the entire sale consideration had been paid does not, by itself, establish that the remaining ₹50,000/- was in fact paid.
In view of the above, it stands established that an amount of ₹50,000/- remained unpaid out of the total sale consideration of ₹12,50,000/-.
The plaintiffs, therefore, seek a declaration that the Agreement to Sell dated 25.03.2012 stands cancelled in terms of Clause 8 thereof. The said clause is reproduced below for ready reference:
"That First Party undertake to get the said property registered in the name of second party or his nominee within the period mentioned in clause 3 above. If the second party fails to arrange the payment of the balance amount as per clause 3 above, the transaction will be considered as canceled and the earnest money given will be CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 27 / 31 Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS GARG Date:
GARG 2025.11.18
16:22:13
+0530
forfeited."
It is evident that due to the non-payment of the balance amount of ₹50,000/-, the Agreement to Sell stands cancelled in accordance with its terms, and the earnest money of ₹50,000/- is also liable to be forfeited in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently, the plaintiff is also entitled to the possession of the suit property.
With respect to the prayer for mandatory injunction seeking return of the original title deeds and documents pertaining to the suit property, it is observed that neither the plaint nor the evidentiary affidavit specifies or describes the documents in question.
In the absence of any particulars or identification of the documents for which the relief of mandatory injunction is sought, no relief can be granted under this head.
As regards the prayer for recovery of ₹25,000/-, it has been pleaded that defendant no. 1 is liable to pay the said amount. In this context, Clause 9 of the Agreement to Sell is reproduced below:
"9. That this deal has been done through M/s._________ and each party i.e. first party and second party shall pay @ 2% commission to the said dealer. And the Defaulter party i.e. first party or second party shall pay @4% commission to the said dealer. That the first party and second party will be fully responsible for the transaction of the above payment. And the said dealer will not be responsible for the same in any manner."
CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 28 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: GARG 2025.11.18 16:22:24 +0530 Although the name of the property dealer is not mentioned and the relevant column in the Agreement to Sell remains blank, there is no dispute between the parties that the property dealer in question is defendant no. 2. In view of Clause 9 of the agreement, the plaintiff is liable to bear the entire commission amount due to the failure of the transaction. Accordingly, defendant no. 1 is liable to pay a sum of ₹25,000/- to the plaintiffs.
With respect to the claim for mesne profits, it is observed that no independent evidence has been adduced by the plaintiffs to establish the quantum of mesne profits for the alleged wrongful possession. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground is made out for grant of such relief, particularly when the plaintiff had already enjoyed the amount of ₹11,25,000/-.
It is admitted that the plaintiffs have retained an amount of ₹11,25,000/-, which has not been refunded to defendant no. 1. The said amount, therefore, rightfully belongs to defendant no. 1. Only a sum of ₹50,000/-, being the earnest money, can be forfeited by the plaintiffs in terms of the Agreement to Sell, as it alone is mentioned as earnest money under the agreement. There is no clause in the agreement that provides for forfeiture of any additional amount.
Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, defendant no. 1 is entitled to recover ₹11,25,000/- (i.e., ₹12,00,000/- - ₹50,000/- - ₹25,000/-).
In this regard, reference may be made to sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which is reproduced below for CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 29 / 31 Digitally signed by VIKAS VIKAS GARG Date:
GARG 2025.11.18
16:22:34
+0530
ready reference:
" (1) On adjudging the cancellation of an
instrument, the court may require the party to whom such relief is granted, to restore, so far as may be any benefit which he may have received from the other party and to make any compensation to him which justice may require."
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the plaintiff, while obtaining the reliefs of declaration/cancellation and possession, is liable to refund a sum of ₹11,25,000/- to defendant no. 1.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground is made out for grant of any interest.
Further, no evidence has been led by the defendants to establish that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, for non-payment of proper court fee, or for want of cause of action. Accordingly, Issues No. 1 to 3 framed on 20.11.2018 are decided against the defendants.
All the issues stand decided in the above terms.
12. RELIEF:-
In view of the above discussion and findings on all the issues, the suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed in the following terms:
A. The Agreement to Sell dated 25.03.2012 (Ex. PW-1/1) stands cancelled.
CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 30 / 31 Digitally signed VIKAS byDate:VIKAS GARG GARG 2025.11.18 16:22:43 +0530 B. The plaintiffs are held entitled to recover possession of the suit property, i.e., the built-up flat situated on the first floor, without roof rights, constructed over an area of 50 square yards, forming part of property bearing No. 11/419, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092, subject to payment of ₹11,25,000/- (Eleven Lakhs Twenty Five Thousands Only) to Defendant No. 1.
C. The subsequent purported sale/transfer of the suit property executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 3 is declared null and void and of no legal effect.
13. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
14. The file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed Pronounced in the open court VIKAS by VIKAS GARG Date: on 18th November, 2025 GARG 2025.11.18 16:22:49 +0530 (Vikas Garg) District Judge-05 /EAST KKD, Delhi- 18.11.2025 CS No. 299/16 Khem Chand & Anr. Vs. Amar Bahadur & Ors. Page of 31 / 31