$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 28^th March, 2025 + CM(M) 397/2023, CM APPL. 11754/2023 & CM APPL. 32411/2024 SURJEET KAUR KHURANA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Praveen Suri with Mr. Sumit Pandey, Advocates.

versus SUMITRA DEVI AND ANR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Atul T N with Ms. Nazmeen Ahmed, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Petitioner herein was defending a suit for possession and mesne profits. She suffered a decree. When execution was filed against her, she raised objection by filing an application under Section 47 of CPC.

2. The challenge laid in the present petition is with respect to the dismissal of her such application.

3. To understand her grievance, let me, briefly, capture the essential facts which led to passing of decree. I shall be referring to the parties as per their nomenclature before the learned Trial Court and, therefore, petitioner herein shall be referred to as defendant no.1.

4. Defendant no.1 was absolute owner of a property situated in Abadi, known as Ranjit Nagar, Shadipur, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “suit property”).

5. The plaintiffs approached defendant No.1 for purchase of „under construction‟ entire 2nd floor Flat of said property, with one car parking and one two-wheeler parking space on stilt area (below Ground Floor) and after verbal talks, the deal was finalized for a total amount of Rs.47,00,000/-.

Signature Not Verified CM(M) 397/2023 1 Digitally Signed

6. Initially, one agreement known as Property Development Agreement was executed between them on 25.12.2011. As per the agreement, the construction of said property was to be completed by 31.05.2012 and in terms of the agreement, the advance payment was also made.

7. A registered Sale Deed was executed between the parties on 23.10.2012 wherein the sale consideration was, however, shown as Rs.

20,00,000/-.

8. Since the sale consideration had been paid and even the registered Sale Deed had been executed and since despite above, the physical possession of the property had not been handed over, the plaintiff was compelled to file a suit for possession, injunction, mesne profits and interest and damages.

9. During the pendency of the abovesaid suit, written statement was filed by the Objector and, based on averments made therein, plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, seeking decree on admissions.

10. Learned Trial Court allowed such application moved under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and decreed the suit in-part and decree of possession was passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants with respect to the suit property i.e. entire second floor with agreed parking spaces.

11. Decree sheet was directed to be prepared in terms of such order dated

30.08.2022.

12. Admittedly, suit with respect to mesne profits and damages is still pending adjudication before the learned Trial Court.

13. Defendant No.1 challenged the abovesaid decree by filing Regular First Appeal (RFA) and such appeal i.e. RFA No. 559/2022 was dismissed by this Court on 14.11.2022.

Signature Not Verified CM(M) 397/2023 2 Digitally Signed

14. Feeling aggrieved, SLP (Special Leave Petition) was also filed by the Objector and such SLP i.e. SLP (C) No. 714/2023 has also been dismissed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as the same was, eventually, withdrawn by the Objector on 24.01.2023.

15. Thus, the decree has already attained finality.

16. The objection petition has been filed by defendant No. 1 Ms. Surjeet Kaur Khurana, and not by a third person claiming any independent title or interest.

17. Her prime contention is that the decree is nullity as Sale Deed in question is illegal, being hit by the provisions of Section 23 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.

18. In order to buttress his contentions, Sh. Suri, learned counsel for objector/defendant no.1 has relied upon agreement dated 25.12.2011and according to Mr. Praveen Suri, learned counsel for the Objector, such Property Development Agreement is, actually sp