Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. By way of present judgment, I shall conscientiously adjudicate upon the Suit of plaintiff for Declaration, Specific Performance and Permanent Injunction, against the defendant, who is now deceased.

2. The Suit was filed as on 10.12.2018 and upon service of the summons upon the defendant, she neither appeared nor filed her Written Statement for which, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte. After leading the plaintiff evidence, the matter was heard and an ex- parte judgment and Decree dated 01.09.2020 was passed by the then Ld. District Judge, Commercial Court-02, West District, Tis Hazari.

38. Arguments addressed on the issue have been duly considered. The evidence led by the parties relevant to the issue, has been appreciated and legal position has been duly examined. The prime plaintiff witness as PW1 has duly testified that the present suit has been filed to claim and assert interests and rights of the plaintiff against the defendant, in respect of the suit property bearing No. I-313, Ground Floor, Karampura, Delhi, which is stated to be a shop. During cross-examination, PW1 has categorically denied the suggestion put on behalf of the defendant that the suit property is a residential property and volunteered to explain that the suit property is a shop which was purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 28/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 and defendant had been using the same as shop. PW2, supporting witness of the plaintiff, has also deposed that the suit property for which the plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration, specific performance of execution of sale deed and necessary additional relief, is pertaining to a shop located on the ground floor, situated in Karampura, New Delhi. The same deposition has been reasserted by additional affidavit Ex.PW2/A1. The nature of the property as residential or commercial, has not been confronted during cross- examination to PW2, specifically on behalf of defendant.

39. The only evidence that has been led on behalf of defendant/LR no.1of defendant, is a summoned witness from the Court of Ld. Sessions Judge, where a trial is pending in a criminal case and is not relevant to the current issue under consideration.

40. As per facts of the case suit for Declaration, Specific Performance and Permanent Injunction has been filed by the plaintiff against deceased defendant (now represented through her LRs with LR no.1, as contesting LR) in respect of the suit property stated to be shop bearing no. I-313, Ground Floor, Karampura, Delhi, for which the plaintiff allegedly made a payment of Rs.15 Lakhs to the defendant, towards total sale consideration. It is further the case of the plaintiff that notarised documents such as Agreement to Sale & Purchase, Affidavit, Receipt, Deed of Will and Possession Letter, were executed in favour of the plaintiff on 20.07.2017 and it was an understanding between the parties that the defendant would execute the sale documents/sale deed in respect of the suit property/shop in Digitally CS (Comm.) No.69/2018 Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs. Smt. Usha (Through LRs.). PREETI signed by 29/63 AGRAWAL PREETI GUPTA AGRAWAL GUPTA (PREETI AGRAWAL GUPTA) District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 West/Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 22.12.2025 question before the concerned registrar within a week. On failure of the defendant to execute the necessary sale documents to complete the sale, present suit was filed. It may also be relevant to consider that the plaintiff is admittedly in physical possession of the suit property and has let out the shop to one tenant namely Sh.Braham Singh, for which the rent agreement is relied upon as Ex.PW1/6. The factum of the physical possession with the plaintiff is not denied by the defendant, though, a defence has been put up that the possession of the suit property was forcibly taken by the plaintiff.

52. Before adventing further on the issue, the Court shall examine the maintainability of this suit as per the Decree of Declaration, Specific Performance and Permanent Injunction, as prayed by way of the present suit by the plaintiff in its favour and against the deceased defendant (now LRs of deceased defendant) qua the suit property I-313, Ground Floor, Karampura, Delhi. The court has duly appreciated the legal position in this regard and finds the applicability of the binding judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal of 2025 arising out of SLP(C) No.26848-26849/2018 in case titled 'Annamalai vs. Vasanthi & Ors.; (2025)3 SCC 523 ; vide judgment dated 29.10.2025. In the very recent afore-cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Annalalai case (Supra), issue regarding maintainability of the suit for specific performance without seeking a declaratory relief qua subsistence of the contract, at the outset, has been duly considered. Hon'ble Supreme Court duly examined the legal position, whether in absence of a declaration, a decree of specific performance could be passed and when a declaratory relief is essential. It has been held: