$~69 & 70

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RSA 169/2023 & CM APPLs. 45848/2023, 45850-51/2023

PARMOD KUMAR & ANR.

..... Appellants

Through:

Mr. C.M. Gopal and Mr. Ram Mehar,

Advocates

versus

PARVEEN KUMAR & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Ishwar Singh, Advocate for R-1

alongwith R-1 in person

+

RSA 170/2023 & CM APPLs. 45852-54/2023

SHRI SURESH KUMAR

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. C.M. Gopal and Mr. Ram Mehar,

Advocates

versus

SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Ishwar Singh, Advocate for R-1

alongwith R-1 in person

%

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):

CM APPL. 45849/2023 in RSA 169/2023 (For Exemption)

CM APPL. 45853/2023 in RSA 170/2023 (For Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Digitally Signed

By:Mahima Sharma

Signing Date:03.10.2023

12:16:17

Signature Not Verified

Accordingly, the present applications stand disposed of.

RSA 169/2023 & RSA 170/2023

1.

These regular second appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) impugns the common judgement dated

28.02.2023 passed by the ADJ-04, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi (‘First

Appellate Court’) in RCA No. 5213/2016, titled as Pramod Kumar v.

Praveen Kumar & Ors., dismissing the appeals and upholding the

judgement dated 30.05.2016 passed by the Civil Judge-06, Central, Tis Hazari

Court, Delhi (‘Trial Court’).

1.1

The Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance filed by

Respondent No.1 herein with a direction to the defendants to execute a sale

deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the property bearing Old No. 15,

Khasra No. 198, Village Chowkri Mubarakbad, Onkar Nagar, ‘B’ Extension,

Delhi and New No. 341/2018, Onkar Nagar, ‘B’ Extension, Tri Nagar, Delhi

(‘suit property’).

2.

The learned counsel for the Appellants has addressed common

submissions in both the appeals.

2.1.He states that the courts below have failed to appreciate that the

agreement to sell (‘ATS’) dated 02.01.1992, which runs into two (2) pages,

has a differently typed font on each page; and therefore, there is a doubt with

respect to the validity of the said agreement. He states that the two (2) pages

appear to have been typed on separate machines.

2.2.He further states that though the ATS is written/typed in English, it has

been signed by late Smt. Rameshwari Devi in Gurmukhi/Punjabi and

therefore, there is a serious doubt, if the contents of the ATS were read out to

her before she signed the said ATS.

Digitally Signed

By:Mahima Sharma

Signing Date:03.10.2023

12:16:17

Signature Not Verified

2.3.He fairly admits that the issue with respect to the different font and

type-set of pages 1 and 2 of the ATS being different was not raised either

before the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court.

2.4.He also refers to the written statement dated 14.10.1992 filed by late

Smt. Rameshwari Devi in a separate suit for injunction i.e., CS No. 706/1992,

which was filed by the Appellants herein against late Smt. Rameshwari Devi,

their father and the Respondent Nos.1 and 6 herein seeking a restraint against

late Smt. Rameshwari Devi from disposing of the suit property on the plea

that it is an ancestral property.

2.5.He states that the said written statement though filed on 14.10.1992

makes no reference to the execution of the ATS dated 02.01.1992 between

late Smt. Rameshwari Devi and Respondent No.1 herein.

2.6.He states that the suit for injunction i.e., CS No. 706/1992 filed by the

Appellants herein stands dismissed, however, the copy of the said judgement

does not form part of the Trial Court Record and is therefore not a part of this

appeal. He also states that he is not aware about the reasons which lead the

Court to dismiss the said suit for injunction.

2.7.He further fairly admits that the suit for injunction filed by Appellants