Delhi District Court
Umesh Verma vs Ramlubhaya Farmah on 17 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUGANDHA AGGARWAL,
DISTRICT JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. 57792/2016
DLND010001962011
Mr. Umesh Verma
S/o Late Sh. Inderjit Verma
R/o H. No. EA-128,
Indepuri, New Delhi- 110012.
..........Plaintiff
Versus
Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya Farmah (since deceased)
.......Defendant no. 1
(Represented through LRs)
Smt. Asha Sirpal
D/o Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya Farmah
R/o 1021 Augustine Trail Cary, NC-27518 .......LR No. 1
Smt. Sudesh Sahani
D/o Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya Farmah
R/o 2009 Ambrose Park Ln
Cary, NC-27518 ..........LR No. 2
Smt. Suman Kent
D/o Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya Farmah
R/o 401 Vintage Hill Circle Apex
NC- 27539 .........LR No. 3
SUGANDHA
AGGARWAL
Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 1 of 38 AGGARWAL
Date: 2026.01.17
16:31:54 +0530
Smt. Savita Rai
D/o Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya Farmah
R/o 106 Backford Road
Cary, NC-27518 .........LR No. 4
Smt. Aneeta Sarpal
D/o Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya Farmah
R/o 201 Boardway Walsall, West Midlands,
WS1 3HD, United Kingdom. ..........LR No. 5
Smt. Sheela Devi Farmah
W/o Late Sh. Ram Lubhaya Farmah
R/o 106 Backford Road
Cary, NC-27518 .......Defendant no. 2
Date of filing the suit : 23.09.2011
Date when reserved for judgment : 13.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 17.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.09.2008 with respect to the property bearing no. EA-128, Inderpuri, New Delhi (herein after referred to as 'suit property').
Pleadings
2. The facts as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff entered SUGANDHA into an agreement to sell with defendants no. 1 and 2, who AGGARWAL Digitally signed CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 2 of 38 by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:32:03 +0530 represented themselves to be absolute owners, for the sale of the suit property admeasuring 200 sq. yards built up to third floor for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,06,00,000/-. The agreement to sell was executed on 12.09.2008, Annexure P-2. The plaintiff has averred that he paid sum of Rs. 19,00,000/- as earnest money out of which Rs. 14,00,000/- was paid through three demand drafts and Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid in cash. As per the agreement Annexure P-2 balance sale consideration of Rs. 87,00,000/- was to be paid by the plaintiff within 172 days i.e. till 03.03.2009 and on payment of the balance sale consideration the sale deed was to be executed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has averred that at the time of agreement to sell defendants have assured that the suit property is free from any encumbrances and in case of any objection to their right, title or interest in the suit property they shall be liable for payment of damages for the losses suffered by the plaintiff. Defendants also handed over the vacant and physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiff on the spot at the time of receiving the part payment and executed the receipt thereof i.e. Annexure P-3.
3. It is averred that plaintiff came to know that earlier defendants entered into a sale agreement with one Sh. Avnish Tyagi for the suit property and took Rs. 7 lakhs from him as earnest money. As the said agreement to sell could not reach its finality the SUGANDHA AGGARWAL earnest money paid by Sh. Avnish Tyagi was forfeited by the Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 3 of 38 16:32:10 +0530 defendants. Plaintiff also came to know that defendants misled him about the transfer of the half share in the suit property earlier belonging to Sh. Ram Piara Farmah in favour of defendant no. 2 vide the settlement in civil suit bearing no. 30/1985. It is contended that on 25.02.2009, Sh. Avnish Tyagi entered the house of the plaintiff with some goons and attacked his family for which the plaintiff got an FIR registered bearing no. 30/2009 at P.S.-Inderpuri.
4. Plaintiff has further averred that he received a legal notice dated 24.11.2008 (Annexure P-5) from the defendants whereby it was informed to the plaintiff that defendants have forfeited the part payment of Rs. 19 lakhs and have cancelled the agreement Annexure P-2. Plaintiff replied the legal notice vide reply dated 08.12.2008 (Annexure P-6) and asked the defendants to clear the cloud over their title in the suit property. It is averred that defendants did not respond to the reply and therefore the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 28.02.2009 (Annexure P-7) calling upon the defendants to provide the documents vide which defendant no. 2 had acquired half share of the suit property from the elder brother of defendant no. 1. The legal notice was duly replied vide reply dated 15.04.2009 (Annexure P-8).
5. The plaintiff has further averred that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement Annexure P-2, the plaintiff invoked the said SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Digitally signed by SUGANDHA Page 4 of 38 AGGARWAL CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Date: 2026.01.17 16:32:19 +0530 arbitration clause and the dispute was referred to the sole arbitrator for adjudication and an award was passed in favour of the plaintiff. It is further contended that the arbitrator had not granted the relief of specific performance of the contract observing that the same was beyond the scope of arbitration clause.
6. It is contended by the plaintiff that defendants have cheated and defrauded the plaintiff, he is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 87 lakhs and the defendants are bound to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration.
7. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking specific performance of the agreement Annexure P-2 along with the cost of the litigation.
8. Joint written statement was filed by defendants no. 1 and 2. In the written statement, defendants have admitted that an agreement Annexure P-2 was executed between them and plaintiff. It is further stated that the defendants are the absolute owner of the suit property. It is averred that initially, the suit property was purchased by defendant no. 1 and his elder brother namely Sh. Ram Piara Farmah. Due to a family dispute a civil suit was filed. In the civil SUGANDHA suit bearing no. 31/85 filed before the court of Sh. M.R. Garg, the AGGARWAL Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 5 of 38 Date: 2026.01.17 16:32:34 +0530 then S.J.I.C., Phillaur, Punjab titled as Ram Piara V/s Kamla Devi, a settlement was arrived at between the family members and as per the said settlement, Sh. Ram Piara Farmah transferred his half share in the suit property in the favour of defendant no. 2 herein. The said share was duly mutated in favour of defendant no. 2 herein vide mutation dated 07.01.1991. It is averred that since then both the defendants are joint owners of the suit property. It is further stated that the plaintiff was inducted as tenant for the entire first floor of the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs.2,050/-. The ground floor of the suit property was in possession of various other tenants and the second floor was in possession of the defendants. Though they were residing outside India but as and when they visited India, they used to stay either on the second floor of the suit property or at their hometown at Jagraon (Punjab).
9. It is further stated in the written statement that initially, the defendants entered into an agreement to sell dated 22.04.2008 with one Sh. Avneesh Tyagi. However, the said agreement could not be finalized because Sh. Avneesh Tyagi failed to pay balance sale consideration. On 02.09.2008, both the defendants visited India and initially stayed at their hometown in Punjab. They stayed there till 07.09.2008 and at an instance of Sh. Avneesh Tyagi, they came to SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Delhi on 08.09.2008. It is contended that Sh. Avneesh Tyagi stated that he in unable to purchase suit property and he can arrange a Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:32:43 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 6 of 38 meeting with the plaintiff for the sale of the suit property.
10. Defendants have further averred that accordingly, after negotiations, it was agreed that plaintiff shall purchase the suit property from the defendants against a total sale consideration of Rs.1,06,00,000/-. The initial agreement to sell was executed on 09.09.2008 when plaintiff gave sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of a cheque drawn on Ratnakar Bank Ltd., Karol Bagh Branch, New Delhi, sum of Rs.4,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. and paid sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash as earnest money. Plaintiff had brought an agreement to sell dated 09.09.2008 which was already typed and on stamp paper of Rs. 100, plaintiff induced defendant no. 1 to sign the said agreement without going through the terms of the same. At the instance of the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 signed the said agreement to sell without reading the terms and plaintiff never gave the copy of the same to defendant no. 1. It is further contended that as per the said agreement to sell, plaintiff assured that he shall pay the balance sale consideration by 28.09.2008 and will get the sale deed executed in his favour by the defendants. It was also agreed that if plaintiff is unable to pay balance sale consideration by 28.09.2008, he shall pay a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as penalty within a period of 60 days from the SUGANDHA AGGARWAL execution of agreement to sell.
Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:32:50 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 7 of 3811. It is contended that on 12.09.2008, plaintiff again approached defendant no. 1, he asked the defendant no. 1 to return the cheque of Rs.10,00,000/- as he wanted to pay the said amount by Demand Draft. Accordingly, defendant no. 1 returned the cheque and in lieu of the same, plaintiff handed over 02 demand drafts to defendant no. 1 for a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. On the said date, the plaintiff has got another agreement to sell with him which was also already typed. He assured the defendant no. 1 that the said agreement to sell contains the same terms as the earlier agreement to sell and the only change made is regarding the mode of payment to the earnest money. It is contended that believing the plaintiff, defendant no. 1 signed the agreement to sell dated 12.09.2008 (Annexure P-2) without going through the terms of the agreement.
12. Defendants have further contended that when they visited Delhi on 25.09.2008, they found that plaintiff has forcibly taken possession of the second floor of the suit property, when plaintiff was confronted with the same, he handed over a copy of agreement Annexure P-2 to the defendants saying that the possession of the second floor of the suit property has been handed over to him by the defendants themselves in pursuance of the said agreement. It is contended that the plaintiff has deceitfully got the ground floor of the suit property also evicted from the other tenants and gave the SUGANDHA AGGARWAL possession of the same to one of his relatives.
Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:33:03 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 8 of 3813. It is contended that the plaintiff also tried to create a false cloud on the title of the defendants and in connivance with Sh. Ram Piara Farmah moved an application under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure in the civil suit as attorney of Sh. Ram Piara Farmah. The said application was moved only with an intention to usurp the suit property, however, the application was dismissed.
14. It is stated that when the defendants came to know about the misdeeds of the plaintiff, they immediately got a complaint registered at PS Inderpuri on 27.09.2008 against the plaintiff. Plaintiff appeared in the police station and compromised the matter, he assured that he would hand over the possession of the second and ground floor of the suit property to defendant no. 1. However, after returning from the police station, plaintiff resiled from the compromise. Defendant no. 1 also moved an application under Right to Information Act dated 12.11.2008 in the DCP Office but no status regarding his complaint was given by the police. It is averred that the defendants being non-resident Indian had to return to the USA and therefore, they could not follow up with their complaint.
15. It is further contended that defendants came to know that SUGANDHA AGGARWAL plaintiff has hatched a conspiracy with Sh. Pradeep Kumar Farmah also who is the son of Sh. Ram Piara Farmah to usurp the suit Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:33:10 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 9 of 38 property.
16. It is further submitted that no relief can be granted to the plaintiff as the agreement Annexure P-2 relied upon by the plaintiff was obtained by deceit and fraud. As per the plaintiff himself, the possession has been transferred in lieu of the agreement Annexure P-2, therefore, the same was compulsorily required to be registered under Section 17 (1-A) of the Registration Act. The agreement Annexure P-2 is neither registered nor sufficiently stamped and therefore, cannot be considered by the court. It is further contended that the plaintiff with mala fide intention initiated arbitration unilaterally and obtained a favourable award in collision with the sole arbitrator. Defendants challenged the said award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. All other contentions of the plaint was specifically denied. It is contended on behalf of defendants that the agreement Annexure P-2 for which specific performance is sought is not a valid agreement being unregistered, insufficiently stamped and obtained by fraud. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for any relief.
17. Rejoinder was filed by the plaintiff wherein he reasserted the contents of the plaint and denied the averments made in the written statement. SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:33:17 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 10 of 38 Issues
18. After completion of the pleadings and from material on record, following issues were framed on 05.03.2019 by my learned predecessor:
Issue No. 1 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of Specific Performance of agreement dated 12.09.2008, as prayed for? OPP.
Issue No. 2 : Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action? OPD.
Issue No. 3 : Whether the agreement to sell dated 12.09.2008 is illegal and not enforceable as alleged by the defendant? OPD.
Issue No. 4 : Relief.
Evidence
19. In order to prove its case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit. He was partly cross-examined on 10.10.2018 and then on 23.04.2019. However, as PW-1 failed to appear for his cross-examination on SUGANDHA subsequent dates the court closed plaintiff's evidence on AGGARWAL 10.07.2019. As the cross-examination of PW-1 could not be Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:33:24 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 11 of 38 concluded on account of lapse on the part of plaintiff himself, his evidence cannot be considered by the court. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff.
20. Despite giving opportunity, defendants did not lead any evidence in the present matter.
Final Arguments
21. Written arguments were filed on behalf of both the parties and arguments were addressed in the court also. Learned counsel for plaintiff has argued that the agreement Annexure P-2 is admitted by the defendants. In fact, they are also relying upon the same agreement in their cross-case, as per the said agreement the final date of execution of the sale deed was 03.03.2009, however, defendant no. 1 issued a legal notice dated 24.11.2008 Annexure P-5 to the plaintiff terminating the agreement Annexure P-2. It is argued that the said legal notice was invalid and defendant no. 1 had no authority to unilaterally terminate the agreement Annexure P-2.
22. It is further submitted that the defendants neither cross- examined the plaintiff's witness nor led any evidence to prove the SUGANDHA AGGARWAL averments made in the written statement, neither defendants themselves nor any of their legal heir entered into witness box. In Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:33:32 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 12 of 38 fact, the defendants were in a habit to execute agreement to sell and then forfeit the earnest money without executing the sale deed.
23. It is argued that prior to entering into agreement Annexure P-2 with the plaintiff the defendants had executed an agreement to sell for the same property with one Sh. Avnish Tyagi and forfeited the earnest money paid by him. It is further contended that plaintiff has categorically pleaded that he was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and the said fact was duly testified by the plaintiff in his evidence. However, defendant did not cross-examine the plaintiff to controvert the said deposition. It is further stated that the copy of agreement Annexure P-2 was duly supplied to the defendants and the plea that the plaintiff has committed fraud upon the defendants is false and incorrect. In fact, the cross-examination of PW-1 will show that the defendants were very well aware about the terms of agreement Annexure P-2 and had also accepted the part payment in pursuance of the agreement Annexure P-2.
24. It is contended that after the amendment of Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, the relief of specific performance is mandatory rather than discretionary when it is established that there was a valid SUGANDHA contract which plaintiff was ready and willing to perform and there AGGARWAL is no hardship to the defendant in implementing the agreement to Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:33:40 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 13 of 38 sell. It is argued that in the present case all these requirements are fulfilled and therefore the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of specific performance. It is further contended that the plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box and testified as PW-1. His testimony is consistent, reliable and free from contradictions and therefore there is no impediment in acting upon his testimony. It is argued that on the other hand defendants did not step in the witness box and therefore an adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendants. In support of this contention the plaintiff has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidhya Dhar vs. Manik Rao, (1999) 3 SEC, 573. It is further contended that as per the principles laid down in the judgment of Indira Kaur Vs. Sheo Lal Kapoor, (1988) 2 SEC, 488, the defendants shall be compelled to honor the contract entered into. It is argued that in these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance as prayed for.
25. Per contra, Learned counsel for defendants has argued that in order to get a decree of specific performance the plaintiff had to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. It is argued that there is no evidence produced by the plaintiff to show that he had sufficient funds to make the balance payments.
SUGANDHA Neither there is any such pleading made in the plaint and in fact the AGGARWAL testimony of PW-1 will show that even the earnest money was paid Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:33:50 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 14 of 38 by him by taking loan from people.
26. It is further stated that as per the agreement Annexure P-2 the final date of execution was 03.03.2009 but the plaintiff fraudulently unilaterally initiated arbitration on 15.02.2009 which clearly shows malafide on the part of the plaintiff. It is further contended that plaintiff has not even pleaded that he approached the defendants with balance sale consideration at any point of time which clearly shows that plaintiff has failed to prove his readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale consideration.
27. It is also stated on behalf of the defendants that whenever an agreement to sell transfers possession the same is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 (1-A) of the Registration Act and admittedly in the present case the agreement to sell in question is not registered. It is contended that the same cannot be acted upon by the court. In support of this contention the defendant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ameer Minhaj Vs. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) ISSAR And Ors., Civil Appeal No. 18377 of 2017. It is further contended that the plaintiff is not entitled for refund of the earnest money also as no prayer to this effect is made. SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Digitally signed
28. In support of his contentions the defendant relied upon the by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:33:58 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 15 of 38 following judgments: a. M/s Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JS Vohra AIR 2016 Delhi 203, b. Suresh Shah & Anr VS. Sarita Gupta & Anr. 308 (2024) DLT 438, c. Iswar Bhai C. Patel & Bachu Bhai Patel Vs. Harihar Behera & Anr (1999) 3 SCC 457 and d. Lakshmi (deceased) Anr Ors Vs. M/s Unique Industrial Handlers (Pvt.) Ltd. A.S. NO. 322 of 2018 and C.M.P. No. 7952 of 2018 and Cross Objection No. 30 of 2018.
Findings
29. My issue wise findings are as follows:
Issue No. 2 : Whether the suit of the plaintiff is without any cause of action? OPD.
Issue No. 3 : Whether the agreement to sell dated 12.09.2008 is illegal and not enforceable as alleged by the defendant? OPD.
30. Onus of proving both these issues was upon the defendants. Defendants have contended that there is no cause of action to file the present suit as the agreement Annexure P-2 is non est. It is further contended that signatures of the defendants on the agreement Annexure P-2 were obtained by the plaintiff by playing fraud. It is averred that, as per the case of the plaintiff himself, possession was SUGANDHA transferred in pursuance of agreement Annexure P-2, therefore, the AGGARWAL said agreement was required to be compulsorily registered under Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:34:06 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 16 of 38 Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act. It is contended that an unregistered agreement to sell cannot be acted upon by the court.
31. The defendants have challenged the agreement Annexure P-2 on two grounds, firstly, on the ground of fraud and secondly, on the ground that it is an unregistered agreement to sell. Fraud is the question of fact which was required to be proved by the defendants, as it is their case that they were not permitted to read the terms of the agreement Annexure P-2 before signing the same. However, the defendants have not led any evidence to substantiate the averments made in their written statement. Consequentially, the fact that plaintiff played fraud upon the defendants and obtained their signatures deceitfully remains unproved.
32. The other objection raised by the defendants pertained to the requirement of registration of agreement Annexure P-2. This is a legal objection which is required to be considered by the court even in absence of any evidence being led by the defendants. It is correctly averred by the defendants that, as per the plaintiff's own case the possession of the suit property was handed over to him in pursuance of the agreement Annexure P-2, therefore, the same was required to be registered under Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act. The amendment to Section 17 of the Registration Act was SUGANDHA AGGARWAL carried out in the year 2001 which came into effect from Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:34:14 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 17 of 38 24.09.2001. Therefore, the agreement Annexure P-2, which is dated 12.09.2008, is governed by Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act as it stood post amendment.
33. However, the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act carves out an exception to the requirement of registration of an agreement to sell. The proviso provides that an unregistered document affecting immovable property, which is otherwise required to be registered under the Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act , may be received in evidence for the purpose of a suit for specific performance.
34. Therefore, in view of the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, an unregistered agreement to sell can be considered by the court for the limited purpose of adjudicating the relief of specific performance.
35. In the present case, the plaintiff is seeking only the relief of specific performance of the agreement Annexure P-2. Therefore, the right to sue is available to the plaintiff even if the agreement Annexure P-2 is unregistered. In these circumstances, the plea of the defendants that the agreement Annexure P-2 can not be considered by the court is not tenable. The said agreement can be considered by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL the court for the limited purpose of the prayer of specific Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:34:23 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 18 of 38 performance. Accordingly, both these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue No. 1 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of Specific Performance of agreement dated 12.09.2008, as prayed for? OPP.
36. The onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought specific performance of the agreement Annexure P-2 which is dated 12.09.2008. As per the pleadings in the plaint, vide agreement Annexure P-2, the defendants agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,06,00,000/-. Out of the said amount plaintiff made a part payment of Rs. 19 lakhs. It was agreed that the remaining sale consideration was to be paid within 172 days, i.e., on or before 03.03.2009, and upon receipt of the said amount, defendants were to execute the sale documents in favour of the plaintiff.
37. To seek the relief of specific performance, a plaintiff is required to establish the existence of valid agreement to sell and to further prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. In the present case, it is admitted by the defendants that they agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff vide SUGANDHA AGGARWAL agreement Annexure P-2, though certain terms of the said Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:34:30 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 19 of 38 agreement have been denied by them. It is also admitted that defendants received the initial payment of Rs. 19 lakhs. Now in order to seek specific performance the onus was upon the plaintiff to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract.
38. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that after the amendment to Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act, the relief of specific performance is no longer discretionary and that once the essential requirements are fulfilled, the court is bound to grant the decree of specific performance. It is further argued that in the present case all the essential facts required to grant a decree of specific performance have been duly established and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement Annexure P-2.
39. However, in the present case the agreement Annexure P-2 is dated 12.09.2008, whereas the amendment relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff pertains to year 2018. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Katta Sujatha Reddy Vs. Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd. (2023) 1 SCC 355, which was reiterated in Annamalai Vs. Vasanthi And Others, SLP (C) No. 26848-26849/2018 decided on SUGANDHA 29.10.2025 has categorically held that the amendment brought about AGGARWAL by Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 has no retrospective Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:34:38 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 20 of 38 effect and does not apply to the suits or transactions that arose prior its enforcement on 01.10.2018. In Annamalai Vs. Vasanthi And Others, SLP (C) No. 26848-26849/2018 (Supra), it was observed as under:
"34. Prior to comprehensive amendments brought by Act 18 of 2018 to Sections 10, 14 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short the 1963 Act), with effect from 01.10.2018, Section 10 of the 1963 Act specified cases in which specific performance of contract is enforceable. In Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd.14, this Court held that 2018 Amendment to the 1963 Act is prospective and cannot apply to those transactions that took place prior to its coming into force. No doubt, this decision was reviewed and recalled in Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd. v. Katta Sujatha Reddy15 but in the review order/ judgment this Court did not specifically hold that the amended provisions would govern suits instituted prior to the 2018 Amendment (see paragraph 32 of the review judgment). Rather, in review, this Court proceeded to decide the matter by assuming that the grant of specific performance continued to be discretionary to a suit instituted before the date of the amendment. Besides above, the judgment impugned in this appeal was passed on 02.02.2018 i.e., before the amendment came into effect. Therefore, we proceed to address issue C based on SUGANDHA law that existed on the date when the impugned AGGARWAL judgment was passed."Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
40. In Katta Sujatha Reddy Vs.Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Date: 2026.01.17 16:34:45 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 21 of 38 Ltd. (Supra) and Annamalai Vs. Vasanthi And Others (Supra), the agreement to sell in question was executed prior to the amendment of the Specific Relief Act in the year 2018; therefore the same was held to be governed by Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act as it stood prior to the said amendment. The agreement Annexure P-2 in the present case was executed on 12.09.2008 i.e. much prior to the amendment of the Specific Relief Act in the year 2018. Therefore, the said agreement has to be examined in the light of Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act as it stood prior to the 2018 amendment. Consequently, the argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff that he is entitled to a decree of specific performance by virtue of the amended provisions of the Act does not hold good.
41. Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act prior to its amendment in 2018, provided that the relief of specific performance of a contract was discretionary in nature and could be enforced by the court only in cases where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused by non-performance of the contract or where monetary compensation was not an adequate relief.
42. In the present case, the plaintiff himself has pleaded that he had invoked the arbitration clause contained in the agreement SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Annexure P-2 and that an arbitral award has already been passed in Digitally signed by his favour with regard to the said agreement. Beside this in order to SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:34:55 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 22 of 38 seek the relief of specific performance under Section 10 of the Act (as it then stood), the plaintiff was also required to prove that he was and has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract.
43. It is a settled position of law that the expressions ' readiness' and 'willingness' are distinct and carry different connotations. The meaning of the terms 'readiness' and 'willingness' has been elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s J.P. Builders & Anr. Vs. A. Ramadas Rao & Anr. Civil Appeal Nos. 9821-9822 of 2010 , wherein it was held as under:
"9) The words "ready" and "willing" imply that the person was prepared to carry out the terms of the contact. The distinction between "readiness" and "willingness" is that the former refers to financial capacity and the latter to the conduct of the plaintiff wanting performance. Generally, readiness is backed by willingness.
10) In N.P. Thirugnanam vs. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 115 at para 5, this Court held:
".....Section 16(c) of the Act envisages that plaintiff must plead and prove that he had performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than those terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant. The continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of SUGANDHA AGGARWAL specific performance. This circumstance is material and relevant and is required to be considered by the Digitally signed by SUGANDHA court while granting or refusing to grant the relief. If AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:35:05 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 23 of 38 the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the suit alongwith other attending circumstances. The amount of consideration which he has to pay to the defendant must of necessity be proved to be available. Right from the date of the execution till date of the decree he must prove that he is ready and has always been willing to perform his part of the contract. As stated, the factum of his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract is to be adjudged with reference to the conduct of the party and the attending circumstances. The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract."
11) In P.D'Souza vs. Shondrilo Naidu, (2004) 6 SCC 649 paras 19 and 21, this Court observed:
"It is indisputable that in a suit for specific performance of contract the plaintiff must establish his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. The question as to whether the onus was discharged by the plaintiff or not will depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. No strait-jacket formula can be laid down in this behalf....The readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract would also depend upon the question as to whether the defendant did everything which was required of him to be done in terms of the agreement for sale."
12) Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 SUGANDHA mandates "readiness and willingness" on the part of the AGGARWAL plaintiff and it is a condition precedent for obtaining relief of grant of specific performance. It is also clear Digitally signed by SUGANDHA that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:35:14 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 24 of 38 must allege and prove a continuous "readiness and willingness" to perform the contract on his part from the date of the contract. The onus is on the plaintiff. It has been rightly considered by this Court in R.C. Chandiok & Anr. vs. Chuni Lal Sabharwal & Ors., (1970) 3 SCC 140 that "readiness and willingness"
cannot be treated as a straight jacket formula. This has to be determined from the entirety of the facts and circumstances relevant to the intention and conduct of the party concerned. It is settled law that even in the absence of specific plea by the opposite party, it is the mandate of the statute that plaintiff has to comply with Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and when there is non-compliance with this statutory mandate, the Court is not bound to grant specific performance and is left with no other alternative but to dismiss the suit. It is also clear that readiness to perform must be established throughout the relevant points of time. "Readiness and willingness" to perform the part of the contract has to be determined/ascertained from the conduct of the parties."
44. The same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.S. Venkatesh Vs. A.S.C Murthy (D) by LRs & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 8425 of 2009 decided on 07.02.2020 wherein the meaning of terms 'readiness' and 'willingness' was elaborated. It was categorically held that the buyer must establish continuous readiness and willingness on his part to perform the contract.
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
45. The Hon'ble Apex Court further laid down the factors which the court is required to consider while adjudicating whether the Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:35:20 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 25 of 38 buyer was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, and has held as under:
"15. The words 'ready and willing' imply that the plaintiff was prepared to carry out those parts of the contract to their logical end so far as they depend upon his performance. The continous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant the relief of performance. If the plaintiff fails either to aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior, and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount which he has to pay the defendant must be of necessity to be proved to be available. Right from the date of the execution of the contract till the date of decree, he must prove that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The court may infer from the facts and circumstances whether the plaintiff was ready and was always ready to perform his contract.
16. In "N.P. Thirugnanam (Dead) by LRs Vs. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao and Others" it was held that continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to grant of the relief of specific SUGANDHA AGGARWAL performance. This circumstance is material and relevant and Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:35:27 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 26 of 38 is required to be considered by the court while granting or refusing to grant the relief. If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior to and subsequent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circumstances. The amount of consideration which he has to pay to the defendant must necessarily be proved to be available.
17. In Pushparani S. Sundaram and Others Vs. Pauline Manomani James (deceased) and Others, this Court has held that inference of readiness and willingness could be drawn from the conduct of the plaintiff and the totality of circumstances in a particular case. It was held thus:
"So far these being a plea that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract is there in the pleading, we have no hesitation to conclude, that this by itself is not sufficient to hold that the appellants were ready and willing in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. This SUGANDHA requires not only such plea but also proof of the AGGARWAL same. Now examining the first of the two Digitally signed circumstances, how could mere filing of this suit, by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 after exemption was granted be a circumstance 16:35:32 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 27 of 38 about willingness or readiness of the plaintiff. This at the most could be the desire of the plaintiff to have this property. It may be for such a desire of the plaintiff to have this property. It may be for such a desire this suit was filed raising such a plea. But Section 16(c) of the said Act makes it clear that mere plea is not sufficient, it has to be proved."
18. Similar view has been taken by this Court in "Manjunath Anandappa URF Shivappa Hanasi Vs. Tammanasa and Others" and "Pukhraj D. Jain and Others Vs. G. Gopalakrishna".
19. The judgment of this court in "Umabai and Anr. Vs. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan (Dead) by LRs and Anr", is almost similar to the case at hand where the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to reconvey property. The plea of the plaintiff was that the transaction was one of mortgage and the sale stood redeemed and the plaintiff was discharged from the debt and he was ready to pay the defendant the amount for the property only in the alternative that the plea of mortgage was not accepted by the court, would show that his readiness was conditional. The plaintiff did not have any income and could not raise the amount required for re-purchase of the property. In the totality of the SUGANDHA AGGARWAL circumstances, it was held that the plaintiff was not ready and Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:35:38 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 28 of 38 willing to perform the contract. The conditions laid for the specific performance of the contract are in para 30, which is as under:
"30. It is now well settled that the conduct of the parties, with a view to arrive at a finding as to whether the plaintiff-respondents were all along and still are ready and willing to perform their part of contract as is mandatorily required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act must be determined having regard to the entire attending circumstances. A bare averment in the plaint or a statement made in the examination-in-chief would not suffice. The conduct of the plaintiff- respondents must be judged having regard to the entirety of the pleadings as also the evidences brought on records".
46. In R. Shama Naik Vs. G Srinivasiah, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13999 of 2021, decided on 28.11.2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the plaintiff is not only obliged to make a specific averment in the plaint regarding his readiness and willingness to perform the contract, but is also required to adduce SUGANDHA cogent oral and documentary evidence to establish the availability AGGARWAL of funds to make payment in terms of the contract in time. It was Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.17 16:35:43 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 29 of 38 further held that the expressions readiness and willingness are distinct and both are required to be proved to claim seeking relief on specific performance.
47. It is a settled proposition of law that willingness is reflected from the conduct of the plaintiff/buyer, whereas readiness refers to capacity of the plaintiff/buyer to perform the contract, which would necessarily include his financial ability to make payment of the consideration amount.
48. In the light of aforesaid legal position, it has to be examined whether, in the present case, the plaintiff has been able to plead as well as prove his readiness and willingness to make payment of the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period.
49. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff has nowhere specifically averred that he was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration in terms of the agreement Annexure P-2. It is true that there cannot be a straight jacket formula, nor does Section 10 of the Specific Relief Act prescribe any particular format language in which readiness and willingness must be pleaded in the plaint. However, this does not absolve the plaintiff from discharging the statutory obligation casted upon him. For the purpose of examining SUGANDHA AGGARWAL whether the plaintiff has complied with the mandate of the statute Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:35:50 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 30 of 38 the court is required to consider the pith and substance of the pleadings.
50. Where a statute requires a particular fact to be pleaded, the same may be pleaded in any form or words, however, the words or phrasology so employed must clearly convey and satisfy the statutory requirement that the plaintiff has either performed or has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syed Dastagir Vs. T.R. Gopalakrishnasetty 1999 (SC) 831.
51. In the present case, plaintiff has averred in the plaint that immediately after the execution of agreement to sell Annexure P-2 he received a legal notice Annexure P-5 from the defendants, which has been placed on record, whereby the defendants revoked the agreement Annexure P-2 on the allegations of fraud. The plaintiff is stated to have replied to the notice vide reply Annexure P-6, which is also placed on record.
52. It is further pleaded that after sending the said reply in the SUGANDHA year 2008 the plaintiff issued another legal notice to the defendants AGGARWAL on 28.02.2009. Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:35:56 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 31 of 38
53. Neither in the plaint nor in the reply Annexure P-6, nor in the legal notice dated 28.02.2009 the plaintiff has disclosed any facts which would demonstrate that he had sufficient funds or the means to arrange such funds to pay the balance sale consideration. In the plaint the plaintiff has merely stated, in a solitary line in paragraph 18, that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and offers a sum of Rs. 87 lakhs to the defendants. However, this bald assertion is not supported by any particulars or material facts showing his financial capacity.
54. Similarly, in the reply Annexure P-6, the plaintiff has not even whispered that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On the contrary, in the said reply, the plaintiff questioned the ownership of the defendants over the suit property and called upon them to clear the cloud over their title. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 28.02.2009 calling upon the defendants to execute the sale documents. However, even in the said notice the plaintiff merely referred to other civil litigations pending against the defendants and made a vague submission regarding his readiness to perform the contract. Significantly, in the legal notice instead of offering the balance sale consideration, the plaintiff again called upon the defendants to clear the cloud over their title to the suit property. Thus, there is no pleading or contemporaneous Digitally signed by SUGANDHA conduct on record to show that the plaintiff was genuinely willing SUGANDHA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.17 16:36:01 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 32 of 38 and possessed the financial means to pay the balance sale consideration in terms of agreement Annexure P-2.
55. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff has proved his readiness and willingness by stepping into the witness box as PW-1. It has further been contended that although PW-1 tendered his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit and deposed that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, his cross examination was not concluded by the defendants and therefore his testimony remains unrebutted and uncontroverted. It has been argued that though the suit was dismissed in default at one stage, upon restoration an opportunity was granted to the defendants to concluded the cross examination of PW-1, however, but despite such opportunity, the defendants failed to cross-examine the witness.
56. The aforesaid contention is contrary to the judicial record. The record reveals that the PW-1 was first partly cross-examined on 10.10.2018, and his further cross examination was deferred, on the joint request of both the parties for 10.01.2019. On 10.01.2019, the cross-examination could not be concluded as PW-1 was not present and matter was adjourned to 23.04.2019, PW-1 again appeared and was partly cross-examined, whereafter the matter was adjourned to SUGANDHA AGGARWAL 10.07.2019 for further cross-examination. Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:36:06 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 33 of 38
57. However, on 10.07.2019, PW-1 again failed to appear for his cross examination. In view of the repeated non-appearance of the witness and considering the past conduct of the plaintiff the court was constrained to close the plaintiff's evidence. The judicial record thus clearly, establishes that the defendants were prevented from concluding the cross examination of PW-1 not on account of any lapse on their part, but due to the repeated non-availability of the witness himself. It is a settled principle of law that where the evidence of a witness can not be tested by way of cross examination owing to his own default, such evidence cannot be relied upon and is liable to be eschewed from consideration. In the present case, as discussed herein above, the defendants were unable to conclude the cross examination of PW-1 due to the conduct of the plaintiff himself. Consequently the examination-in-chief of PW-1, which remained incomplete and untested cannot be read in evidence and does not advance the case of the plaintiff.
58. For the sake of arguments, even if the affidavit of PW-1 filed in examination-in-chief is considered, same would reveal that in the said affidavit also plaintiff has not disclosed any means by which he could have arranged the balance sale consideration or that he had the funds to pay the balance sale consideration or that he ever SUGANDHA AGGARWAL offered the amount of balance sale consideration to the defendants Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:36:12 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 34 of 38 for executing sale documents.
59. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the defendants have not led any evidence to prove the contentions made in the written statement and therefore the case of the plaintiff deserved to be decreed. This argument is also not tenable. It is a settled principle that the plaintiff cannot take advantage of any lapse on part of the defendant to prove his own case. The burden squarely lies on the plaintiff to stand on the strength of his own case and to prove the same independently, even if the defendant fails to lead any evidence and prove his case. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in M.M.B. Catholicos Vs. M.P. Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the contentions in the plaint that he was ready and willing and had sufficient funds to pay the balance sale consideration. He has also failed to prove his plea that there was any cloud on the title or ownership of the suit property of the defendants.
60. The plaintiff has pleaded that Sh. Ram Piara Farmah had disputed the family settlement and, therefore, the ownership of the defendants over the suit property was not clear. In view of Section 101 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden to prove these SUGANDHA AGGARWAL facts squarely lay upon the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff neither Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 16:36:18 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 35 of 38 examined Sh. Ram Piara Farmah as a witness nor led any other oral or documentary evidence to substantiate this plea.
61. The record will reveal that the plaintiff has also not come to the court with clean hands. In the plaint it is contended that only one agreement to sell was executed on 12.09.2008 and the plaintiff paid the earnest money by way of demand drafts and in cash. Plaintiff himself has placed on record the legal notice Annexure P-5 issued by the defendants. In the said legal notice in paragraphs no. 3 and 4 the defendants have contended that initially an agreement to sell dated 09.09.2008 was executed between the parties, at that time plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- by way of cheque. Subsequently, plaintiff approached the defendants on 12.09.2008 and asked them to return the cheque as he wanted to make payment through demand drafts. As per the contents of the legal notice on that day it was plaintiff who got another agreement to sell which is Annexure P-2 and he obtained the signatures of the defendants on the same by misrepresenting that only the terms regarding mode of payment of earnest money were changed and remaining terms remain unchanged.
SUGANDHA
62. Plaintiff replied to the said legal notice which has been placed AGGARWAL on record as Annexure P-6. In reply to paragraphs no. 3 and 4 of the Digitally signed by SUGANDHA AGGARWAL Date: 2026.01.17 said legal notice plaintiff has admitted that initially agreement to 16:36:25 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 36 of 38 sell was executed on 09.09.2008 and thereafter another agreement to sell was executed on 12.09.2008 which is Annexure P-2. Though it is averred that the cheque was returned and payment was made through demand draft at the insistence of the defendants and defendants have read the terms of agreement Annexure P-2 also. The fact that the original agreement to sell was executed on 09.09.2008 has been concealed by the plaintiff in the plaint.
63. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that neither there is sufficient pleadings nor plaintiff has been able to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff has also failed to plead or establish the sources from which he could have arranged funds required for the payment of the balance sale consideration. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree of specific performance and the present issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Relief.
64. In view of the above discussion the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties all left to bear their own cost.
65. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Digitally signed by SUGANDHA SUGANDHA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.17 16:36:31 +0530 CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 37 of 38 record room after due compliance.Digitally signed by SUGANDHA
SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.17
16:36:38 +0530
(DR. SUGANDHA AGGARWAL)
District Judge-04
PHC-New Delhi-17.01.2026
This judgment contains 38 pages and all pages have been duly signed by me.
Announced in the open court on Digitally signed
by SUGANDHA
17th January 2026 SUGANDHA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.17
16:36:44 +0530
(DR. SUGANDHA AGGARWAL)
District Judge-04,
Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CS No. 57792/2016 Umesh Verma Vs. Ramlubhaya Farmah Page 38 of 38