Delhi District Court
Surjan And Ors vs Smt. Gurmeet Kaur on 27 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DALAL
DISTRICT JUDGE - 04
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
CNR NO: DLSW01-003063-2020
CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020
1. SURJAN
S/O SH. SHOBHA RAM
2. SUMAN
W/O SH. SURJAN
BOTH R/O:
D-130, JANKIPURI,
UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI
....PLAINTIFF(S)
VERSUS
GURMEET KAUR
W/O LATE SH. HARKISHAN SINGH
R/O: PLOT NO. 26,
GHASIPURA EXTENSION,
NEAR NANGLI DIARY,
NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI.
....DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 12,75,000/-
ALONG WITH INTEREST
TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT OF AMOUNT.
Date of Institution of Suit : 16.03.2020
Date of Final Arguments : 14.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 27.08.2025
CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 1 of 37
Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff : SH. RAJESH AHLAWAT
SH. ROHIT AHLAWAT
Ld. Counsel for Defendant : SH. ANAND
B.L.SRIVASTAVA
MS. KALYANI ARORA
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall dispose of the suit for recovery of ₹12,75,000/- filed by the plaintiffs, who allege that they were compelled to pay an additional ₹7,00,000/- to perfect the title of a property purchased from the defendant due to her fraudulent misrepresentation of ownership. The defendant has contested this claim by completely denying the sale transaction and asserting that her late husband misused her trust to obtain her thumb impressions on blank papers. Consequent to the framing of issues based on these divergent pleadings, both parties have led their respective evidence, which is being adjudicated herein.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they purchased property bearing No. D-130, Janki Puri, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059, from the defendant Smt. Gurmeet Kaur (hereinafter "defendant") for a total sale consideration of ₹4,25,000/-. The said amount was paid in full on 30.12.2009, upon which the defendant executed a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter, and Will in favour of the plaintiffs and handed over the physical possession of the property.
CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 2 of 373. The plaintiffs have averred that at the time of the transaction, the defendant represented herself as the absolute owner of the property, assuring them that the title was clear and free from all encumbrances. The plaintiffs, acting on this representation, invested their life savings to purchase the said property and subsequently invested a huge amount in carrying out construction thereon.
4. The plaintiffs' cause for grievance arose when Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh, the brother of the defendant's late husband, filed a civil suit (No. 54/2012) against them and the defendant, claiming to be the true owner and alleging that the defendant had no right to sell the property. It is alleged that the defendant initially assured the plaintiffs of her support in the litigation but subsequently failed to appear, leading to an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 09.07.2018 being passed against them.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiffs filed a Regular First Appeal (RFA No. 934/2018) before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, where a settlement was arrived at on 16.03.2019. To save their home and perfect their title, the plaintiffs were compelled to agree to pay an additional sum of ₹7,00,000/- to Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh.
6. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that when they informed the defendant about this liability, she assured them that she would reimburse the said amount of ₹7,00,000/- within 15 days CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 3 of 37 of the settlement. Relying on this assurance, the plaintiffs borrowed money and paid the settlement amount to Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh in two installments. However, the defendant failed to honour her promise and did not reimburse the amount.
7. Having been left with no other remedy, the plaintiffs sent a legal notice dated 23.01.2020 to the defendant demanding the payment, which went unanswered. Consequently, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking a decree for a total sum of ₹12,75,000/-, the breakup of which is as under:
a. ₹7,00,000/-: Amount paid to Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh in the settlement.
b. ₹2,75,000/-: Litigation expenses incurred in the previous suit and appeal.
c. ₹3,00,000/-: Damages for mental agony and harassment.
8. The plaintiffs have prayed for a decree of the aforesaid amount along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum and costs of the suit.
9. It is important to note here that initially, the suit was filed against Defendant No. 1 (Harkishan Singh) and Defendant No. 2 (Gurmeet Kaur) but during the pendency of the suit Defendant No. 1 (Harkishan Singh) expired and thus, the suit continued against Gurmeet Kaur as the only Defendant.
PROCEEDINGS CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 4 of 37
10. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 16.03.2020 and notice of the same was issued to the defendant. Vide order dated 24.02.2021, since none had appeared on behalf of defendants, both the defendants were proceeded ex-parte. On 23.02.2023, Plaintiff/PW-1 was examined in ex-parte evidence and was discharged. PW-2 HC Sanjeev was examined on 02.05.2023. One more witness namely PW-3 Sh. Jai Kishan Sharma, was examined on 11.07.2023 and discharged. Thereafter ex-parte final arguments were heard and matter was listed for orders. Vide separate judgment dated 18.12.2023, ex-parte judgment was passed and the suit of plaintiff was decreed for a sum of Rs. 12,75,000/- along with cost as well as pendente lite and future interest.
11. On 16.07.2024, an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC along with application under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC and application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act was filed by the defendant Gurmeet Kaur. Vide order dated 07.01.2025, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed and delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was allowed. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was also allowed and the decree dated 18.12.2023 was set aside.
DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE
12. The defendant has vehemently contested the suit, seeking its dismissal with costs. Her defense, as articulated in the written statement, is a complete denial of the plaintiffs' claims, CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 5 of 37 based on several preliminary objections and a starkly different factual narrative.
13. The defendant has challenged the maintainability of the suit on the following primary grounds:
a. That the suit is barred by the law of limitation, as the alleged transaction took place in 2009 and the plaintiffs were aware of the dispute since 2012, yet the suit was filed only in 2020. b. That the plaintiffs have approached the court with unclean hands by concealing material facts and fabricating a false narrative to extort money.
c. That the suit is not maintainable as the defendant never received the mandatory legal notice prior to its institution. d. That the suit is an abuse of the process of law, filed merely to harass the defendant.
14. On the merits of the case, the defendant's defense is as follows:
a. Complete Denial of Transaction: The defendant has categorically denied entering into any agreement to sell the property No. D-130, Janki Puri, New Delhi, to the plaintiffs. She has denied the execution of any documents such as a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, or Receipt, and has specifically denied receiving the alleged sale consideration of ₹4,25,000/-.
b. Fraud by Late Husband: It is the defendant's specific case that she is a victim of fraud committed by her late husband, CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 6 of 37 Sh. Harkishan Singh. She has pleaded that due to his "questionable moral character," she was living separately from him. She alleges that on several occasions, under the guise of making investments for their children, her husband obtained her signatures and thumb impressions on blank papers under duress or by misrepresentation. She contends that these blank papers have been misused to create the fabricated documents relied upon by the plaintiffs. c. Denial of Knowledge and Involvement: The defendant asserts that she has no knowledge of the prior civil suit filed by her brother-in-law, Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh, and was never served with its summons. Consequently, she also denies any knowledge of the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the subsequent mediation, or the settlement agreement. She has flatly denied ever assuring the plaintiffs that she would reimburse the settlement amount of ₹7,00,000/-.
15. In essence, the defendant portrays herself as a stranger to the entire transaction, with no connection to the plaintiffs or the subsequent litigation. She contends that the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs are forged and fabricated and that the entire suit is a malicious attempt to unjustly enrich themselves at her expense. She has prayed for the suit to be dismissed.
ADMISSION DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS:
16. In the admission/ denial of documents, the defendant Gurmeet Kaur, admitted her photographs and signatures on the CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 7 of 37 following documents, however, the contents of said documents were denied by her.
a) Copy of Ikrarnama - Ex. P1.
b) Copy of General Power of Attorney - Ex. P2.
c) Copy of agreement to sell - Ex. P3.
d) Copy of affidavit - Ex. P4.
e) Copy of receipt - Ex. P5.
f) Copy of possession letter - Ex. P6.
g) Copy of deed of will - Ex. P7.
h) Copy of General Power of Attorney - Ex. P8.
ISSUES
17. On 27.03.2025, following issues were framed :-
a. Issue No. 1 - Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of Rs. 12,75,000/-, as prayed for? O.P.P. b. Issue No. 2 - If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for any interest, if yes, for what period and at what rate? O.P.P. c. Issue No. 3 - Whether the present suit is barred by limitation? O.P.D. d. Issue No. 4 - Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
18. Plaintiff has examined five witnesses in support of his case :-
a. PW-1 Sh. Surjan (Plaintiff no. 1 himself) b. PW-2 HC Sanjeev, MHCR, PS Dabri.
c. PW-3 Sh. Jai Kishan Sharma (Notary Public) CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 8 of 37 d. PW-4 Sh. Ravi Pratap Singh e. PW-5 Sh. Daya Ram, JA, Record Room (Sessions)
19. Plaintiff, PW-1, has tendered his evidence in affidavit as Ex. PW1/A in which he reiterated the stand taken in the plaint. PW-1 has also relied upon the following documents:
a. Copy of transfer documents dated 02.05.2002 - Ex. P2 (colly) Ex. PW1/1 (colly) is de-exhibited.
b. Copy of transfer documents dated 06.09.2003 executed by Smt. Santosh Devi in favour of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur - Ex. PW1/2 (colly) (13 pages).
c. Copy of transfer documents dated 30.12.2009 executed by Smt. Gurmeet Kaur in his favour and other plaintiff(s) - Ex. P1 and Ex. P8 (colly), Ex. PW1/3 (colly) is de-exhibited. d. Photocopy of certified copy of judgment dated 09.07.2018 passed by Sh. Vishal Gogne, ld. ADJ, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi - Ex. PW1/4 (colly) e. Certified copy of the order dated 15.10.2019 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Mediation Settlement dated 16.03.2019 - Ex. PW1/5 (colly).
f. Copy of transfer documents dated 13.09.2019 executed by Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh in his favour along with photocopy of transfer documents dated 07.08.1989 - Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) g. Photocopy of transfer documents dated 11.03.1983 - Mark A. CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 9 of 37 h. Office copy of legal notice dated 23.01.2020 along with postal receipts and tracking report - Ex. PW1/7 (colly) i. Copy of complaint dated 23.01.2020 along with tracking report - Mark B.
20. PW-1 was cross examined on 30.04.2025, 20.05.2025 and 28.05.2025.
21. PW-2 HC Sanjeev, is a summoned witness and has proved the certified copy of the FIR No. 196/13, PS Dabri, as Ex. PW2/A. This witness was cross examined on 03.07.2025. Ld. Counsel for the defendant objected to the tendering of the summoned record (Ex. PW2/A) on the ground that the said document is not part of the plaint or the documents filed by the plaintiff.
22. PW-3 is Sh. Jai Kishan Sharma, another summoned witness, who was working as Notary Public since 17.11.1997. He has proved the entry no. 1223, of GPA dated 30.12.2009, entry no. 1224 of GPA dated 30.12.2009, entry no. 1225 of agreement of sell, entry no. 1226 of receipt dated 30.12.2009 and entry no. 1227 of possession letter dated 30.12.2009, in the Notary Register and had also proved the signatures and thumb impression of Gurmeet Kaur from pt. A to E and signature of Suman and Surjan from pt. F to I, vide Ex. PW3/A. This witness was cross examined on 03.07.2025.
23. PW-4 is Sh. Ravi Pratap Singh. He has proved the certified record of DD No. 567330 dated 14.03.2019, for a sum of CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 10 of 37 Rs. 3,00,000/- as Ex. PW4/A and has also proved the certified record of DD No. 567579 dated 11.09.2019, for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as Ex. PW4/B. This witness was cross examined on 16.07.2025.
24. PW-5 is Sh. Daya Ram, Judicial Assistant from Record Room (Sessions), and has proved the judgment passed by Sh. Vishal Gogne, ld. ADJ - 02, Dwarka Courts, dated 09.07.2018, from the original record, which has already been exhibited as Ex. PW1/4. This witness was cross examined on 16.07.2025.
25. Vide separate statement of plaintiff, the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
26. Defendant has examined herself as DW-1 and has tendered her affidavit Ex. DW1/A in evidence, wherein, she has reiterated the averments made by her in written statement.
27. This witness was cross examined by ld. Counsel for plaintiff on 31.07.2025, ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
28. Sh. Rajesh Ahlawat, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has successfully proven his case through a wealth of cogent, reliable, and unimpeachable evidence, while the defendant's defense has been exposed as a CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 11 of 37 sham, built on falsehoods and contradictions. It is submitted that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for.
29. Ld. Counsel has primarily argued that the sale transaction dated 30.12.2009 stands conclusively proved. He has drawn the court's attention to the cross-examination of the defendant (DW-1), where she made a fatal admission of her thumb impressions being present on the sale documents (Ex. P-8) and, more importantly, on the Notary's official register (Ex. PW3/A). It is contended that an admission is the best form of evidence, and this demolishes her entire defense of non-execution. The counsel has further relied on the unshaken testimony of the independent witness PW-3 (the Notary Public), who categorically proved the due execution of the documents by the defendant in his presence. It is argued that the defendant's subsequent plea of having signed "blank papers" is a desperate afterthought, for which she has failed to lead any corroborative evidence.
30. It has been further contended that the defendant's fraudulent conduct and knowledge of the defective title are writ large on the record. The judgment in the prior suit (Ex. PW1/4) and the FIR lodged against her (Ex. PW2/A) are undeniable proofs that she was well aware of the title dispute. Her decision to remain ex- parte in the said suit was not a mark of ignorance but a calculated move to evade liability. By selling the property with full knowledge of this defect, she committed a fraud upon the plaintiffs CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 12 of 37 and breached the statutory warranty of title under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act.
31. Ld. Counsel has submitted that the monetary loss suffered by the plaintiff is a direct and foreseeable consequence of the defendant's fraud. The adverse judgment (Ex. PW1/4) forced the plaintiff into a settlement (Ex. PW1/5) where he had to pay ₹7,00,000/- to save his home. This payment has been irrefutably proven by the testimony of the bank manager (PW-4) and the bank records (Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B). It is argued that the defendant is legally bound to indemnify the plaintiff for this loss, and is also liable to pay damages for the immense harassment and mental agony caused over a decade of litigation.
32. On the legal objection of limitation, it has been argued that the suit is well within the prescribed time limit. Ld. Counsel submits that the cause of action for the present suit is not the discovery of fraud in 2012, but the actual damnification of the plaintiff in 2019 when he was compelled to pay the settlement amount. The suit for reimbursement or indemnity was filed in 2020, well within the three-year period from the date the cause of action accrued.
33. In conclusion, Ld. Counsel has argued that the plaintiff has successfully discharged the onus of all issues upon him, whereas the defendant's testimony is unreliable, contradictory, and unworthy of credence. It is thus prayed that the suit be decreed CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 13 of 37 in favour of the plaintiff for the entire claimed amount along with interest and costs.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
34. Ms. Kalyani Arora, Ld. Counsel for the defendant, has argued that the suit is a classic example of an abuse of the legal process. It is contended that the suit is based on a fabricated narrative, is hopelessly barred by limitation, and has been filed with the sole motive of extorting money from a widowed lady. It has been prayed that the suit be dismissed with exemplary costs.
35. The main plank of the defense argument is that the suit is fatally barred by the law of limitation. Ld. Counsel has drawn the Court's attention to the cross-examination of the plaintiff (PW-1), wherein he made a clear and unequivocal admission that he came to know about the alleged fraud and forgery prior to 2012. It is argued that the cause of action, if any, arose on the date the fraud was discovered. The limitation period for seeking relief on grounds of fraud is three years, which expired around 2015. The defendant contends that the plaintiff's attempt to create a fresh cause of action based on the 2019 settlement is merely a clever artifice to circumvent the law. The present suit, filed in 2020, is therefore contended to be barred by limitation, and this admission by the plaintiff himself is fatal to his case.
36. It has been further argued that the plaintiff's entire case is incredible and his testimony is unreliable. Ld. Counsel has highlighted the glaring contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 14 of 37 regarding the payment of earnest money (bayana). The witness first denied paying any bayana and later completely changed his stance, claiming to have paid ₹1,00,000/-. It is submitted that a witness who makes such material improvements and contradicts himself on a fundamental aspect of the transaction is not worthy of belief.
37. Ld. Counsel has vehemently argued that the defendant is a victim of fraud committed by her late husband, and not the perpetrator. It is submitted that the defendant (DW-1) is an illiterate woman who consistently stated that her husband, by misusing her trust, had obtained her thumb impressions on blank papers. While the defendant admitted her thumb impressions on the documents, it is argued that this is not an admission of the execution of a valid contract, but merely an admission of her thumb impression on what she believed were blank papers.
38. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has failed to prove that any consideration was ever paid to the defendant. The defendant has steadfastly denied receiving any money. During her cross-examination, she stated that her husband might have received the money, for whose actions she cannot be held vicariously liable after his demise.
39. Finally, Ld. Counsel has argued that the claims for ₹2,75,000/- (litigation expenses) and ₹3,00,000/- (damages) are completely arbitrary and not supported by even a shred of documentary evidence. It is contended that such special and CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 15 of 37 general damages cannot be granted on the basis of mere oral averments.
40. In conclusion, it is argued that the suit ought to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone. Even otherwise, the plaintiff's case is based on the testimony of an unreliable witness, whereas the defendant is an illiterate lady who has been a victim of circumstance. It is thus prayed that the suit be dismissed.
PROOF OF DOCUMENTS
41. Prior to embarking upon the issue-wise analysis, it is pertinent to first consider and determine the proof of the key documents that are central to the resolution of this dispute. The findings on the issues hereinafter are based predominantly on the following documents, the proof of which is considered and established in the following paragraphs.
The Sale Documents (Ex. P1 & Ex. P8 colly)
42. Ex. P1 and Ex. P8 are the Agreement to Sell, GPA, Receipt, Possession Letter, etc., dated 30.12.2009. These are private documents. Under the Evidence Act, a private document must be proved by establishing the authenticity of the signature or handwriting of the person alleged to have executed it (Section 67).
43. This set of documents was proved through a three- pronged approach:
CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 16 of 37a. Testimony of the Plaintiff (PW-1): He tendered the documents during his examination-in-chief and identified them as the papers executed by the defendant. b. Testimony of the Notary (PW-3): He provided direct evidence of execution. He testified that the defendant, Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, affixed her thumb impression on his official register (Ex. PW3/A) in his presence for the purpose of executing these very documents.
c. Admission by the Defendant (DW-1): This was the most conclusive proof. During her cross-examination, the defendant herself admitted, "The document Ex.P-8 bears my thumb impression...". An admission by a party against whom a document is being used is the best evidence of its execution.
The Notary's Register (Ex. PW3/A)
44. Ex. PW3/A is the certified copy of the notary register containing entries No. 1223 to 1227. This document is proved as follows:
a. Primary Evidence (Production of Original): The Notary (PW-3) produced his original register in court. The exhibited document (Ex. PW3/A) is a copy that was compared with the original and marked as "OSR" (Original Seen and Returned). This satisfies the requirement of proving a document by its primary evidence.CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 17 of 37
b. Admission by the Defendant (DW-1): She explicitly admitted in her cross-examination that the thumb impressions at points A to E on this document were hers.
The Trial Court Judgment (Ex. PW1/4)
45. Ex. PW-1/4 is the certified copy of the judgment dated 09.07.2018 in the suit filed by Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh. Ex. PW-1/4 is proved as follows:
a) Tendering by PW-1: The plaintiff tendered the certified copy during his evidence.
b) Verification by Official Custodian (PW-5): The Judicial Assistant (PW-5) from the court's record room brought the original judicial file and formally testified that he had "compared and verified" the exhibited copy (Ex. PW1/4) with the original judgment on the file, making its authenticity unimpeachable.
The First Information Report (FIR) (Ex. PW2/A)
46. Ex. PW2/A is the certified copy of FIR No. 196/13, PS Dabri. During the course of the plaintiff's evidence, an objection was raised by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant when the certified copy of FIR No. 196/13 (Ex. PW-2/A) was tendered through the summoned witness PW-2. The objection was that the said document was not filed along with the plaint. This objection is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. A perusal of the record reveals that the plaintiff, in their Replication, has CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 18 of 37 specifically and unequivocally pleaded the existence of this very FIR, complete with its number and the police station where it was registered. By specifically pleading the FIR in the Replication, the plaintiff gave sufficient and clear notice to the defendant that this document would be relied upon during the trial and has substantially complied with the requirement of Order VII Rule 14. Therefore, the defendant cannot claim to have been taken by surprise when the document was formally tendered in evidence. Moreover, Ex. PW-2/A is an official record of the police and it has been proved not by the plaintiff himself but by a summoned, official witness from the concerned police station. For these reasons, the objection is overruled, and the document is held to be properly admitted into evidence.
47. Ex. PW-2/A was proved by summoning a competent witness from the concerned police station. PW-2 (HC Sanjeev), the official from PS Dabri, produced the certified copy from the official records, thereby proving its existence and contents.
The High Court Order & Mediation Settlement (Ex. PW1/5 colly)
48. Ex. PW-1/5 (Colly) are the certified copies of the High Court's order and the settlement agreement. The said documents were proved by the plaintiff tendering their certified copies during his evidence, which is the prescribed mode of proof under Section 77 of the Evidence Act.
CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 19 of 37The Bank Records of Demand Drafts (Ex. PW4/A & Ex. PW4/B)
49. Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B are certified records of the two Demand Drafts issued in favour of Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh. These are entries in bankers' books. These were proved in accordance with the special procedure laid down in the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. PW-4 (The Branch Manager), a competent bank officer, produced the certified records from the bank's system and testified to their authenticity, thus proving the payment.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS ISSUE NO. 1 - WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR DECREE OF RS. 12,75,000/-, AS PRAYED FOR? O.P.P
50. The onus to prove this issue rests squarely upon the plaintiff. The total claim of ₹12,75,000/- has been presented under three distinct heads, and the court shall adjudicate each one sequentially to determine the plaintiff's entitlement.
Part I: Claim for ₹7,00,000/- (Compensation for Loss due to Defective Title) Legal Framework
51. This claim represents the core of the dispute and is fundamentally a claim for indemnity arising from a breach of the seller's statutory duties. The Indian legal framework, under Section CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 20 of 37 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter 'TPA'), carves out significant statutory protections for the buyer.
52. Section 55(1)(a)1 TPA mandates that a seller is duty- bound to disclose any material defect in the title of which they are aware and the buyer is not. More pertinently, Section 55(2) 2 TPA creates an implied covenant of title, a statutory assurance from the seller that the interest they are transferring not only exists but that they have the legal authority to transfer it. This is a non-negotiable warranty of title that accompanies every sale. A breach of this warranty, especially when done with the knowledge of the defect, constitutes not just a civil wrong but an act of fraud. The resultant loss suffered by the buyer in curing this title defect becomes a debt that the seller is liable to indemnify. The plaintiff's claim for ₹7,00,000/- is precisely the amount he had to expend to cure the title defect created by the defendant's breach.
Evidence and Analysis 1 "Section 55(1)(a) - Rights and liabilities of buyer and seller.--In the absence of a contract to the contrary, the buyer and the seller of immoveable property respectively are subject to the liabilities, and have the rights, mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property sold:
(1) The seller is bound--
(a) to disclose to the buyer any material defect in the property or in the seller's title thereto of which the seller is, and the buyer is not, aware, and which the buyer could not with ordinary care discover;........"2
Section 55(2) - The seller shall be deemed to contract with the buyer that the interest which the seller professes to transfer to the buyer subsists and that he has power to transfer the same:
Provided that, where the sale is made by a person in a fiduciary character, he shall be deemed to contract with the buyer that the seller has done no act whereby the property is incumbered or whereby he is hindered from transferring it. The benefit of the contract mentioned in this rule shall be annexed to, and shall go with, the interest of the transferee as such, and may be enforced by every person in whom that interest is for the whole or any part thereof from time to time vested.CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 21 of 37
53. To succeed in this claim, the plaintiff had to establish a clear causal chain: first, that a sale transaction with the defendant indeed took place; second, that the title conveyed was defective and the defendant was aware of this; and third, that this defect directly caused the quantifiable loss of ₹7,00,000/-. Thus, the analysis is divided into the following heads:
a. Establishment of the Sale Transaction b. Proof of Defective Title and Fraudulent Concealment c. The Consequent Loss and its Quantum Establishment of the Sale Transaction:
54. The defendant, in her pleadings and affidavit (Ex. DW1/A), took the extreme position of complete denial. However, this defense was systematically dismantled by the plaintiff's evidence and the defendant's own testimony. This Court prefers the overwhelming evidence adduced by the plaintiff over the self- serving and incredible denials of the defendant for the following reasons:
a. Admissions are the Best Evidence: The defendant (DW-1) made two fatal admissions in her cross-examination. She admitted that her thumb impressions were present on the sale documents (Ex. P-8) and on the official register of the Notary Public (Ex. PW3/A). An admission is the best and most conclusive form of evidence against the party making it. Her subsequent explanation that she affixed her thumb impressions on "blank papers" is a classic, unsubstantiated CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 22 of 37 defense. The burden to prove such a serious allegation of fraud against her own husband and the plaintiffs was squarely upon her, a burden she has utterly failed to discharge. It is an unbelievable afterthought, unworthy of credence.
b. Independent Corroboration: The testimony of PW-3 (the Notary Public), an independent officer of the law, was clear and unshaken. He produced his original register (Ex. PW3/A) and unequivocally stated that the defendant executed the documents and affixed her thumb impressions in his presence. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of an independent, official witness who has no personal interest in the outcome of the suit.
c. Rejection of the 'Fraud by Husband' Defense: The defendant has sought to absolve herself of all liability by squarely placing the blame on her late husband, claiming she was an unwitting victim of his schemes. However, this defense is found to be a mere attempt to evade the consequences of her own actions and is rejected for several reasons.
1. Firstly, the defendant is not being held vicariously liable for the acts of her husband, but for her own direct participation in the transaction. Her admitted thumb impressions on the sale documents (Ex. P-8) and the notary's register (Ex. PW3/A), corroborated by the clear testimony of the Notary (PW-3), prove her CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 23 of 37 physical presence and active role in the execution of the documents.
2. Secondly, the plea that her thumb impressions were fraudulently obtained on blank papers is a serious allegation for which the burden of proof lay entirely upon her. She has failed to produce a shred of evidence to substantiate this claim. Blaming a deceased person who cannot testify is a convenient but legally insufficient defense without any corroboration.
3. Thirdly, her own narrative of being an estranged victim was contradicted by her admission in the cross-
examination that she was living with her husband in 2009 when the transaction took place. This indicates that they were acting in concert at the time of the sale.
55. Thus, the court finds that the defendant was a willing and active participant in the sale transaction and cannot now escape liability by shifting the entire blame onto her deceased husband. The sale of the suit property by the defendant to the plaintiff is, therefore, established as a proven fact.
Proof of Defective Title and Fraudulent Concealment:
56. The plaintiff has successfully proven not only that the title was defective but that the defendant sold the property with full knowledge of the defect.
a. Conclusive Judicial Finding: The judgment in the prior suit (Ex. PW1/4), the authenticity of which was verified by the CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 24 of 37 court official PW-5, conclusively establishes that Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh was the rightful owner. The defendant was a party to that suit. Her decision to remain ex-parte was not an act of ignorance but a calculated choice to avoid facing the claim, which she knew to be true.
b. Presumption of Knowledge: The defendant's claim of being unaware of the said litigation is a blatant falsehood. As a named defendant in that suit, she is presumed to have been served with the summons. Furthermore, the registration of FIR No. 196/13 (Ex. PW2/A) against her concerning the very same property transaction serves as irrefutable proof of her knowledge of the dispute. The cumulative effect of her being a party in the civil suit and an accused in the criminal FIR forms a presumption that she was fully aware of the title dispute, a fact she actively concealed from the plaintiff at the time of sale. This elevates her action from a mere breach of warranty to a clear case of fraudulent misrepresentation.
The Consequent Loss and its Quantum:
57. The evidence establishes an unbreakable causal link between the defendant's fraudulent act and the plaintiff's loss. "But for" the defendant selling him a property with a defective title, the plaintiff would not have been subjected to litigation, suffered an adverse judgment, and been compelled to pay an additional sum to save his home.
CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 25 of 3758. The High Court-monitored Mediation Settlement (Ex. PW1/5) proves that the payment of ₹7,00,000/- was not voluntary but was a legal necessity to mitigate further damages (i.e., eviction).
59. The actual quantum of the payment is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by the testimony of PW-4 (the Bank Manager) and the certified bank records of the Demand Drafts (Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B).
Finding on Part I
60. The plaintiff has successfully discharged the heavy onus upon him. The evidence on record overwhelmingly establishes that the defendant committed a fraudulent breach of the statutory warranty of title under Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act. This breach directly and foreseeably caused a quantifiable loss of ₹7,00,000/- to the plaintiff, which represents the cost he incurred to cure the defective title. The plaintiff is, therefore, legally entitled to be indemnified for this loss. This part of the claim is allowed in full.
PART II: CLAIM FOR ₹2,75,000/- (LITIGATION EXPENSES) Legal Framework
61. A claim for expenses incurred in previous litigation falls under the category of special damages. The established principle of law is that special damages must be specifically CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 26 of 37 pleaded and then proved with a high degree of certainty and precision. A mere assertion without documentary backing is insufficient.
Evidence and Analysis
62. The plaintiff (PW-1), in his affidavit (Ex. PW-1/A), has made a statement claiming an expenditure of ₹2,75,000/-. However, the plaintiff has failed to file or prove a single document in support of this claim. There are no fee receipts from counsel, no invoices, no bank statements reflecting such payments, nor any detailed account of the expenditure. While it is undeniable that the plaintiff would have incurred expenses in a legal battle that spanned several years, the Court cannot grant a specific sum based on conjecture. The plaintiff has failed to discharge the heavy burden of proof required to establish a claim for special damages.
Finding on Part II
63. For want of specific and credible proof, the claim for ₹2,75,000/- towards prior litigation expenses is disallowed.
PART III: CLAIM FOR ₹3,00,000/- (DAMAGES FOR MENTAL AGONY AND HARASSMENT) Legal Framework
64. This claim is for general damages arising out of the defendant's fraudulent conduct. Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, defines fraud to include the active concealment of a fact CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 27 of 37 by one having knowledge or belief of the fact. The defendant's act of selling a property with a known title defect falls squarely within this definition. Section 19 provides that a contract induced by fraud is voidable, and the party aggrieved is entitled to be put in the position in which he would have been if the representations made had been true. This includes compensation for injury, which is not limited to pecuniary loss but also extends to intangible harm like mental trauma and harassment.
Evidence and Analysis
65. The defendant's conduct, as established by the evidence, was not merely negligent but actively fraudulent. She not only sold a property with a defective title but also gave false assurances and later abandoned the plaintiff to face the legal consequences alone, despite being a co-defendant in the suit. The plaintiff was subjected to:
a. Years of litigation (from 2012 to 2019). b. The looming threat of dispossession from his home. c. The ignominy of being named as an accused in a criminal case (Ex. PW2/A).
d. The financial distress of arranging a large sum of money to secure his property.
66. This prolonged ordeal undoubtedly caused immense mental agony and harassment. The court has a duty to compensate for such intangible injuries caused by fraudulent acts. Considering the entire conspectus of facts, the duration and nature of the CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 28 of 37 plaintiff's suffering, the amount of ₹3,00,000/- claimed as damages is not found to be exorbitant, punitive, or disproportionate. It is held to be a fair and reasonable compensation.
Finding on Part III
67. The claim for damages on account of mental agony and harassment is justified and is allowed in full.
Final Determination of Issue No. 168. In light of the foregoing analysis, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the following amounts:
a. Amount paid in settlement: ₹7,00,000/- b. Damages for harassment: ₹3,00,000/-
Total: ₹10,00,000/-
69. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) against the defendant.
70. Issue No. 1 is accordingly decided, holding the plaintiff to be entitled to a partial decree as calculated above.
ISSUE NO. 2 - IF SO, WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR ANY INTEREST, IF YES, FOR WHAT PERIOD AND AT WHAT RATE? O.P.P.
71. The onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. This issue pertains to the award of pendente lite (from the date of filing CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 29 of 37 of the suit to the date of the decree) and future interest (from the date of the decree to the date of realization). The power of the court to award such interest is discretionary and governed by Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis of Entitlement and Period
72. The court has already found that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of ₹10,00,000/- to the plaintiff. This amount represents the money the plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of due to the defendant's fraudulent actions. The defendant, having caused this loss, had the use and benefit of these funds (or caused the deprivation thereof) while the plaintiff suffered. To deny interest would be to allow the defendant to benefit from her own wrong and the delays inherent in litigation.
73. The fundamental principle behind awarding interest is to compensate the successful party for being deprived of the use of their money during the period of litigation. It is a matter of justice, equity, and good conscience. Given the defendant's conduct, which this court has found to be fraudulent, there is every reason to grant interest to the plaintiff.
74. Therefore, the court holds that the plaintiff is entitled to receive both pendente lite interest from the date of the institution of the suit (16.03.2020) until the date of this decree, and future interest from the date of this decree until the date of actual payment or realization by the plaintiff.
CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 30 of 37Analysis of Rate of Interest
75. The plaintiff has prayed for interest @ 18% per annum. The court must determine if this rate is reasonable and permissible under the law.
Pendente Lite Interest:
76. The award of pendente lite interest is at the complete discretion of the court. The rate should be reasonable and not penal. The plaintiff has pleaded that he had to borrow a portion of the settlement amount at a high rate of interest. While this court cannot adopt exorbitant rates from informal borrowings as a benchmark, it does take into account the financial strain placed upon the plaintiff. The prayer for 18% p.a., a rate typically associated with commercial transactions, is considered excessive in the present context.
77. Considering the prevailing economic conditions and the long-term bank lending rates during the pendency of this suit, and balancing the equities between the parties, the court finds that awarding pendente lite interest @ 6% per annum would be just, fair, and reasonable.
Future Interest:
78. The award of future interest is governed by the proviso to Section 34(1) of the CPC. It states that where the decree is for the payment of money, the future interest shall not exceed six CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 31 of 37 percent per annum, unless the liability arises out of a "commercial transaction."
79. The underlying transaction in this case was the sale of a residential plot between individuals. The present suit is for damages or indemnity arising from fraud in that transaction. It cannot be construed as a "commercial transaction" within the meaning of the CPC. Therefore, the interest awarded cannot exceed the statutory cap of 6% per annum.
80. Given the defendant's conduct and the need to ensure prompt payment of the decretal amount, the court finds it appropriate to award the maximum permissible rate of 6% per annum as future interest. This serves the dual purpose of compensating the plaintiff for future delays while remaining within the confines of the law.
Final Finding on Issue No. 281. In view of the above reasoning, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the decretal amount of ₹10,00,000/- as follows:
a. Pendente lite interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit (14.03.2020) till the date of the decree.
b. Future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of its realization.CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 32 of 37
82. Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff in the aforesaid terms.
ISSUE NO. 3 - WHETHER THE PRESENT SUIT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION? O.P.D.
83. The onus to prove that the suit is barred by the law of limitation lies entirely upon the defendant.
Defendant's Contention
84. The defendant's plea of limitation is primarily based on a critical admission made by the plaintiff (PW-1) during his cross-examination. PW-1 admitted that he came to know about the forgery and fraud played upon him "prior to the filing of the suit by Sh. Jitender Pal" (i.e., prior to 2012).
85. Based on this admission, the defendant contends that the cause of action arose when the fraud was discovered by the plaintiff around 2011-2012. It is argued that the limitation period for seeking relief on the ground of fraud is three years, as prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963. Since the present suit was filed only in 2020, it is contended that it is hopelessly barred by time.
Analysis of the Nature of the Suit and the Accrual of Cause of Action
86. While the defendant's argument has a superficial appeal, it fundamentally mischaracterizes the nature of the present CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 33 of 37 suit and the specific relief sought. To correctly apply the law of limitation, the court must first ascertain the true character of the suit and when the right to sue for the claimed relief actually accrued.
Distinction between a Suit for Rescission and a Suit for Indemnity
87. Upon discovering the fraud in 2012, the plaintiff had a right to sue for rescission of the sale contract dated 30.12.2009. The limitation for such a suit would indeed have commenced from the date of discovery of the fraud. However, the plaintiff did not file a suit for rescission. He is not asking this court to set aside the sale and refund his original purchase price. Instead, he chose to defend his title, and upon failing, he paid a further sum to perfect his title.
88. The present suit is for indemnity against the loss suffered due to the breach of the defendant's warranty of title, and for reimbursement of the money he was compelled to pay to a third party (Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh) because of the defendant's default. The cause of action for a suit for indemnity is distinct from a cause of action for rescission. The right to sue for indemnity does not arise when the potential for loss is discovered; it arises only when the party is actually damnified--that is, when the actual loss or damage occurs.
Accrual of the Right to Sue CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 34 of 37
89. In this case, while the plaintiff was aware of the defective title in 2012, he had not yet suffered the monetary loss for which he is now suing. His loss was crystallized and his damage was sustained only when he was compelled by the Hon'ble High Court's mediated settlement to make payments to Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh. These payments were made on 18.03.2019 and 18.09.2019. This is the point at which the plaintiff was actually damnified and the cause of action to be indemnified for this specific loss accrued.
Application of the Limitation Act, 1963
90. The defendant's reliance on the limitation period for fraud is misplaced, as this is not a suit for relief from the initial fraud but for compensation for a subsequent loss. The appropriate article of the Limitation Act, 1963, to be applied here is Article 24, which provides for a suit for "money payable to the plaintiff for money paid for the defendant." Following are the relevant considerations:
a. Article: Article 24, Limitation Act, 1963 b. Description of Suit: For money payable to the plaintiff for money paid for the defendant.
c. Period of Limitation: Three years.
d. Time from which period begins to run: When the money is paid.
91. The plaintiff paid the money to Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh on 18.03.2019 and 18.09.2019. The present suit was filed on CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 35 of 37 14.03.2020. The suit is, therefore, well within the three-year period prescribed by Article 24.
92. Even if the residuary Article 113 were to be applied, the period of limitation is three years from when "the right to sue accrues." As determined above, the right to sue for reimbursement/indemnity accrued only in March and September 2019.
Final Finding on Issue No. 393. The defendant has failed to discharge the onus of proving that the suit is barred by limitation. The defendant's argument incorrectly conflates the cause of action for rescission of contract with the cause of action for indemnity. The cause of action for the present suit arose in 2019 when the plaintiff made the payments to cure the defective title sold by the defendant. The suit, having been filed in 2020, is well within the prescribed period of three years.
94. Issue No. 3 is accordingly decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 4 - RELIEF
95. In view of the findings of this court on Issue No. 1, 2, and 3, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed. The plaintiff has successfully established his entitlement to a partial sum and interest thereon.
CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 36 of 3796. Accordingly, the following relief is granted:
a. A decree for a sum of ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
b. The plaintiff is also held entitled to pendente lite interest 3 and future interest4 at the rate of 6% per annum on the decretal amount of ₹10,00,000/-
c. The plaintiff is also held entitled to the costs of the suit.
97. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
98. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED: 27.08.2025 Digitally signed by SUMIT SUMIT DALAL DALAL Date:
2025.08.27 17:15:27 +0530 (SUMIT DALAL) DISTRICT JUDGE - 04 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI 3 From the date of filing of suit (14.03.2020) till the date of this decree.4
From the date of this decree till the date of its complete realization.CS DJ ADJ: 234/2020 Page 37 of 37