J U D G M E N T

04.07.2023 MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

Genesis of the dispute

1. By way of the present execution-petition Ex.P.107/2019, the decree holder (DH) is seeking execution of the decree dated 07.05.2019 for specific performance and possession passed by this Court in CS (OS) No.984/2014. The suit property is property bearing No.B-24, Kailash Colony, New Delhi – 110048, measuring approximately 305 Sq. yards. By way of judgment and decree dated 07.05.2019, this Court has decreed the suit of the petitioner herein seeking specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 23.12.2013 in her favour in the following terms:

“28. Accordingly, a decree of specific performance is passed in favour of the Plaintiff - Smt. Simmi Dhawan against the Defendant - Sh. Naveen Malhotra in respect of property bearing no. No.B-24, land area measuring 305 sq.yds. approx., along with front half portion of Garage, situated in the residential colony known as 'Kailash Colony' at Village Zamrudpur, on Lajpat Nagar and Kalkaji Link road, in Delhi. Further, a decree of possession is also passed in favour of Mrs. Dhawan directing Mr. Malhotra to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property. Till the sale deed is executed and possession is transferred to Mrs. Dhawan, there shall be a permanent injunction restraining Mr. Malhotra from creating any third party interest in the suit property.”

2. Respondent No.1 is the judgment debtor (JD), while respondent Nos. 2 to 10 are the objectors, who are objecting to the execution of the present decree, claiming interest in different portions of the suit property. The details of the parties to the present petition, along with the portions in which they are claiming interest are as follows:

I. Respondent No.1 – Mr. Naveen Malhotra, JD II. Respondent No.2 – IDFC First Bank Limited (formally M/s Capital First Limited) – claiming to be mortgagee of Ground floor, First floor and Second floor III. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 – Smt. Manju Goswami and Sh.

Shrikrishan Giri – claiming to be purchasers of Ground floor and First floor from respondent No.2 in proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act)

IV. Respondent No.5 – Andhra Bank (now Union Bank of India) - claiming to be mortgagee of Second floor V. Respondent No.6 – Punjab National Bank – claiming to be mortgagee of Terrace/Third floor VI. Respondent No.7 – Bank of India – claiming to be mortgagee of a small part of the Garage VII. Respondent No.8 – Tarun Chawla – claiming to be purchaser of Garage portion from respondent No.7 in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act VIII. Respondent Nos. 9 and 10 – Mr. Jatin Jain and Ms. Neeru Jain – claiming to be purchasers of Terrace/Third floor from respondent No.6 under the SARFAESI Act Facts of the case

3. Brief facts of the case that emerge from the pleadings are as follows: The suit property was originally owned by Smt. Padma Malhotra, mother of the JD, who gifted the same to the JD vide registered Gift Deed dated 12.11.2003. Thus, on the basis of the said Gift Deed dated 12.11.2003, JD took loan from M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited (M/s Indiabulls) thereby mortgaging the suit property and depositing the original title documents with M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, including the registered Gift Deed dated 12.11.2003.

4. Under an Agreement to Sell dated 23.12.2013, the JD agreed to sell the suit property to the DH. As agreed under the said Agreement to Sell, out of the sale consideration, the DH paid money to M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, discharging the entire loan liability of the JD. Thus, M/s Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited returned all the original title deed documents deposited with it by way of mortgage to the JD.

5. The JD, despite having received the entire sale consideration, refused to specifically perform the Agreement to Sell with the DH and concluding the sale transaction. Thus, the DH filed a suit for spe