Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 584
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
Parmeet Singh Anand & Anr. - Appellant
Vs.
Subhash Chand Aggarwal & Anr. - Respondent
CS(COMM) 824 Of 2022 & CRL.M.A. 7384 Of 2023 I.A. 20016 Of 2022 I.A. 14311 Of 2023 I.A. 10857 Of 2025
Decided On : 06-08-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gurkamal Hora Arora, Mr. Kushal Gupta, Ms. Tanya Aggarwal and Mr. Subodh Kumar Pandey, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Niraj Kumar, CGSC with Mr. Rishav Dubey (GP), Mr. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocates for UOI Mr. Asutosh Lohia, Ms. Shraddha Bhargava, Ms. Rishika Jain, Mr. Sharan Mehta, Ms. Princy Sharma and Mohd. Atif Abdullah Khan, Advocates
A purchaser's delay in filing for specific performance, especially amidst rising property values, challenges claims of readiness and willingness, rendering them ineffective.
Headnote:In this case concerning specific performance and injunction regarding an Agreement-cum-Receipt dated 12.07.2020, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants agreed to sell a property but later refused, claiming fraud related to the signatures. The Court found the Agreement invalid based on FSL findings indicating forgery, ruling that the Plaintiffs did not establish readiness nor maintain diligence, dismissing their interim application and vacating prior injunctions. The Plaintiffs also failed to show a prima facie case or any advance payments distinctly corroborated by evidence. The Court further emphasized the necessity of readiness and willingness in specific performance claims, which was notably absent here, resulting in dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claims.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs seek specific performance of a property sale. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of disputed agreement and alleged payments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. discusses legal standing and evidence surrounding the agreements. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's expectation of readiness and timeliness in claims. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. outcome based on findings of forgery and plaintiffs' inaction. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
I.A. No. 20016/2022 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
I.A. 14311/2023 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC)
1. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for specific performance and injunction with respect to Agreement-cum-Receipt dated 12.07.2020,whereby, it is alleged that Defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the entire built up first floor of the free hold property bearing No. A-22 situated in the layout plan of Gujranwala Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. situated at Gujranwala Town, Delhi-110009 admeasuring 433.75 square yards [‘suit property’] to the Plaintiffs.
2. I.A. No. 20016/2022 is an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’] filed by the Plaintiffs seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, thereby, restraining the Defendants, their agents, assigns, nominees etc. from creating any third-party interest in the suit property. This Court vide order dated 30.11.2022 passed an ex-parte ad- interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs directing the Defendants to maintain status quo qua title and possession of the suit property.
3. I.A. No. 14311/2023 is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC filed by the Defendants seeking modification and/or vacation of the interim order dated 30.11.2022.
Factual matrix of the stand taken by the Plaintiffs and Defendants
4. The Plaintiffs contends that the Defendants agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,82,00,000/- to be paid on or before 30.09.2020. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was paid in advance towards part sale consideration vide:
i. Two Cheques bearing Nos. 000053 and 000004, both dated 09.07.2022, both drawn on RBL Bank Ltd., Rajouri Garden, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- each.
ii. Gold worth Rs. 5,00,000/- was handed over.
4.1. It is stated that the suit property is jointly owned by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, having respective shares of 67% and 33%; however, as per thePlaintiffs, the Agreement-cum-Receipt dated 12.07.2020 [‘the said Agreement’] was only signed by Defendant No. 1. It is averred that Defendant No. 1 represented that he has been authorized by Defendant No. 2 to enter into the said Agreement.
4.2. It is stated that the Plaintiffs arranged loans from ICICI Bank to the tune of Rs. 1.85 crores and vide e-mail dated 21.09.2020 called upon the Defendants to accept the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed qua the suit property.
4.3. It is stated that, in September 2020, the Plaintiffs learnt that the Defendants had not enchased the two (2) cheques for the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs each handed over on 12.07.2020, which raised apprehension in the mind of the Plaintiffs.
4.4. It is stated that on 27.09.2020, the Plaintiffs issued a legal notice, thereby, calling upon the Defendants to execute the sale deed qua the suit property within 15 days [‘first legal notice’]. It is averred that on 29.09.2020, the Plaintiffs vide an application dated 29.09.2020 also applied for an appointment with the office of the Sub-Registrar-VI-A [‘concerned Sub-Registrar’] for 30.09.2020 for presentation and registration of a sale deed.
4.5. It is averred that after receiving the legal notice dated 27.09.2020, the Defendants (orally) informed the Plaintiffs that there were disputes between the Defendants and their erstwhile tenant, who had filed a criminal complaint against the Defendants; and therefore, the Defendants did not wish to execute a sale deed qua the suit property, during the pendency of the said criminal complaint. It is
