Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 505

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Mr. Rajinder Chaturvedi, S/o. Sh. Vansh Raj Chaturvedi - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shanti Singh, W/o. Sh. Chhote Lal - Respondent
RFA 379 of 2022
Decided On : 03-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pradyumna Singh.
For the Respondent:Mr. Sumeet Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Kumar Wadhwa, Mr. Mahinder Pratap Singh and Mr. Prince.

When a party admits to executing an agreement, unsubstantiated claims that the instrument was intended for a different purpose, such as a loan, are insufficient to invalidate the contract. An appellate court will not interfere with trial court findings of fact absent perversity or illegality.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 1 - Specific performance - Agreement to sell - Rectification of documents - Evaluation of evidence - Appellate court's scope of interference is limited to determining if the lower court's findings were perverse or illegal. (Paras 44, 46, 73)

(B) Evidence - Execution of instruments - Admissibility - Where a party admits to signing agreements, the burden of proving that the signatures were obtained under coercion or for a different purpose lies heavily on the party making such claims. Admissions found in draft documents, even if not formally filed in court, may be used as evidentiary support when corroborated by testimony and documentary evidence. (Paras 63, 65, 74)

Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a property and for the rectification of the agreement to include complete property details. The plaintiff claimed that the full consideration was paid and sought possession. The appellant contended that the documents were part of a loan arrangement for a relative and were not intended as a sale agreement, claiming signatures were obtained on blank papers. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the execution of the agreements was proven through the testimony of witnesses and the appellant's own admissions. The court noted that the appellant's defense, alleging the transaction was a loan, was unsupported by documentary evidence or the examination of witnesses. The court found the evidence overwhelming regarding the purchase of stamp papers by the appellant and the subsequent payment of rent, confirming the sale nature of the transaction.

Issues: The central issues were whether the lower court's finding regarding the execution of the sale agreement was accurate and whether the appellant successfully negated the agreement by asserting a loan defense.

Ratio Decidendi: Execution of a contract is confirmed when signatures are admitted and corroborated by witness testimony and registered records. Unsubstantiated claims of an alternative loan purpose, without supporting evidence, cannot invalidate a written agreement once its execution is established. Appellate courts must refrain from substituting their own view for that of the trial court unless the latter's reasoning is based on conjecture or suffers from legal perversity.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishing the contractual formation and breach of an agreement to sell. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
2. defendant asserts fraud and argues the transaction was a loan, not a sale. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
3. court frames issues and records oral and documentary evidence presented in trial. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
4. trial court finds evidence sufficient to prove agreement execution and validates specific performance. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
5. appellant challenges the judgment based on evidence appreciation and signature authenticity. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
6. appellate analysis confirms existence of agreements through documented payments and third-party validation. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
7. admissions in unfiled documents and conduct, like rental payments, supersede contrary defense claims. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71)
8. validity of contract execution verified regardless of alleged variations in personal signatures. (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77)
9. final dismissal of appeal, upholding specific performance and property deed rectification. (Para 78)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been preferred by the Defendant/Appellant, Mr. Rajinder Chaturvedi against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.09.2021, whereby the Suit for Specific Performance, Possession and Rectification of Agreement to Sell filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent, Smt. Shanti Singh, has been decreed in her favour, by the learned Additional District Judge.

2. The Plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 75903/2016 for Specific Performance, Possession and Rectification of the Agreement to Sell.

3. The brief facts as narrated in the Plaint are that, an Agreement to Sell dated 23.07.2011 was executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, in respect of Property bearing No. D-193, Near Kali Mandir, admeasuring 36 sq. yards, situated in the area of Village Mundka Colony known as Gauri Shankar Enclave, Prem Nagar-III, Kirari, Delhi-110086 (hereinafter referred to as “Suit Property”). The said Agreement to Sell, was witnessed by Mr. Chander Prakash Tripathi and Mr. Arvind Mishra.

4. It is claimed by the Plaintiff that an amount of Rs.2,06,000/- had been paid to the Defendant, as per the terms of the first Agreement to Sell dated 23.07.2011. It was agreed between the parties that the Sale Documents would be executed within a period of two years and possession of the Suit Property shall be handed over to the Plaintiff; till then Rs.3,000/- per month shall be paid by the Defendant to her, as rent towards the suit property.

5. The Plaintiff asserted that thereafter, a second Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012 was executed between the parties, wherein the payment of Rs.2,06,000/- was acknowledged and a Receipt dated 12.05.2012 was issued in favour of the Plaintiff, to which Mr. Chander Prakash Tripathi and Mr. Arvind Mishra, were the witness.

6. Subsequently, in last week of June 2012, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant that she had arranged the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,94,000/- and further requested for execution of the Sale documents. However, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that he would receive the said payment on 22.06.2012 and further requested the Plaintiff that she should make payment of Rs.2,95,000/-, instead of Rs.2,94,000/-, as the figure 94 was not lucky for the Defendant, as per Numerology.

7. Thereafter, the parties met on 22.06.2012, and the Plaintiff paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,95,000/-, towards full and final payment of the Suit Property, for which a Receipt dated 22.06.2012 was issued by the Defendant and the same was duly witnessed by Mr. Chander Prakash Tripathi and Mr. A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Del) 505

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHINEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.Mr. Rajinder Chaturvedi, S/o. Sh. Vansh Raj Chaturvedi - AppellantVersusSmt. Shanti Singh, W/o. Sh. Chhote Lal - RespondentRFA 379 of 2022Decided On : 03-06-2026

When a party admits to executing an agreement, unsubstantiated claims that the instrument was intended for a different purpose, such as a loan, are insufficient to invalidate the contract. An appellate court will not interfere with trial court findings of fact absent perversity or illegality.

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Mr. Rajinder Chaturvedi, S/o. Sh. Vansh Raj Chaturvedi - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shanti Singh, W/o. Sh. Chhote Lal - Respondent
RFA 379 of 2022
Decided On : 03-06-2026