The court ruled that valid sales transactions were established over mere loan claims, emphasizing that contracts concerning property require mutual agreement to rescind and are enforceable as agreed.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 53A and 91 - Dispute arises from agreements to sell property and alleged loan transactions - The court determined that valid sale transactions were executed and enforceable, whereas the claim of loan transactions lacked credibility - Plaintiff's assertions of repayment were unsupported by credible evidence, including handwriting expert reports indicating forgery. (Paras 1, 106, 175)

(B) Property law - Agreements to sell versus loan agreements - A unilateral rescission of a contract is not valid without court intervention - The determination of rights in immovable property requires mutual consent for revocation or termination. (Para 144)

(C) Findings on specific performance - Court held that defendants were entitled to specific performance of agreements; plaintiff could not prove the existence of a loan. (Paras 162, 173)

Table of Content
1. nature of property ownership and transactions (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. creation of loan and security interests (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 16)
3. suspicion and returns of documents (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 28)
4. defendants' claim of ownership (Para 31 , 32 , 37 , 41 , 42)
5. evidence and witness testimonies (Para 60 , 61 , 63 , 69 , 70)
6. court's analysis on money transactions and contracts (Para 101 , 106 , 162)
7. final judgement and orders (Para 170 , 171 , 174)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The lead Suit CS (OS) 1336/1998 has been filed by the Plaintiff/Sh. Ajay Narain, seeking a Decree of Declaration that the General Power of Attorneys, Agreements to Sell and other related documents in respect of property bearing No. 110, Jor Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter “Suit Property”) would not come into operation till 31.12.1999. Further, the Plaintiff has also sought the relief of Permanent Injunction to restrain the defendants from acting on any of these documents or to create third party interest in the Suit Property.

2. The Defendants, Ms. Arti Singh and Sh. Kanwar Raj Singh of the lead Suit, have filed the cross Suit bearing No. CS (OS) 2273/2000, against the Plaintiff/Ajay Narain, titled Aarti Singh & Ors. v. Ajay Narain, seeking Specific Performance of the Agreements to Sell and the related documents and Injunction. For the convenience, Ajay Narain shall be referred to as Plaintiff and Ms. Arti Singh and Sh. Kanwar Raj Singh as the defendants.

3. Briefly stated, Smt. Kanso Devi, during her life time acquired the Suit Property bearing No.110, Jor Bagh, New Delhi vide Lease Deed dated 24.12.1960, executed in her favour by Land & Development Officer, New Delhi. The house was built by her from her own funds.

4. Smt. Kanso Devi and her husband Late Sh. Prem Narain adopted the Plaintiff in 1955 vide a Registered Deed of Adoption dated 27.05.1964. Smt. Kanso Devi executed a Will dated 21.06.1954, in respect of the suit property, thereby bequeathing it to her husband Sh. Prem Narain and after his demise to the Plaintiff. However, Sh. Prem Narain pre-deceased Smt. Kanso Devi, who died on 28.04.1986 after which the Plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property and he along with his family, has been residing on the Ground Floor since May, 1974.

5. The Plaintiff has explained that the First and Second Floor of the suit property was always given on rent to different tenants from time to time. In the year 1986 on the request of Defendant No.1/Aarti Singh, she was inducted as a tenant on Second Floor (barsati floor) of the suit property. At that time she was working as an Air Hostess with British Airways.

6. With the passage of time, because defendant No.1 was alone in Delhi, the plaintiff and his family started treating her like a family member. Somewhere in 1988-89, she gave up her job with the British Airways and became a Buying Agent for a Garment Importer from USA by the name of Razzle Dazzle International and opened her own office in the name of Razzle Dazzle India.

7. The First Floor of the property fell vacant in 1990 and Defendant No.1/Aarti Singh took the First Floor also on rent. She then married Defendant No.2/Sh. Kanwar Raj Singh (though now divorced) in December, 1991. The plaintiff and his family participated in all the marriage ceremonies which were performed on the Ground Floor of the suit property, where the plaintiff and his family have been residing. Their Lease Deeds in respect of First and Second Floor were also renewed from time to time by mutual consent of the parties.

8. Owing to the close association, various monetary transactions took place between them. In January, 1996, the Plaintiff gave an interest free loan of Rs.1.5 lakhs to the Company owned by Defendant No.1 and 2, though, no written record was executed because of their friendly relations.

9. In the latter half of 1996, the plaintiff planned to venture into new business avenues regarding manufacture and export of jewellery, garments