IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:19.05.2025 + C.R.P. 90/2019 & CM APPL. 17773/2019 CHANDER MOHAN KHANDELWAL ..... Petitioner versus HEMANT WADHWA ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar & Ms. Nimmi Sinha, Advs.

For the Respondent : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Adv.

CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.03.2019 (hereafter ‘impugned order”), passed by the learned Trial Court in CS No. 555/2017 (suit).

2. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’).

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

a. The suit was filed by the respondent, inter alia, seeking cancellation of Sale Deed dated 13.01.2016 (hereafter ‘the Sale Signature Not Verified Signed By:SANJAY C.R.P. 90/2019 Page 1 of 26 Deed’), which was registered on 28.01.2016, in respect of the suit property, that is, third floor of the property bearing no. C-126/B, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. By Sale Deed, the respondent had sold the suit property with roof rights to the petitioner for a sale consideration of ₹21,75,000/-.

b. It is the case of the respondent that his father was the owner of the entire property bearing no. C-126/B, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. It is claimed that due to being deserted by his other family members after losing some investments, the petitioner started living with his father on the ground floor of the property. In July, 2014, the respondent came into contact with the petitioner, who has a business of fabrics, when he had gone to the petitioner’s shop. It is alleged that the petitioner lured the respondent to make certain investments in the share market. After a few days of conversation, the respondent invested ₹50,000/- on the basis of assurances of the petitioner that he will be able to recover his old losses by getting profitable returns. The respondent was allegedly lured by the petitioner to make regular investments. In November, 2014, after the death of the respondent’s father, the respondent was induced to invest an amount of ₹3 lakhs in cash in the respondent’s business on the assurance of good returns. Within two months, the petitioner informed the respondent that the amount had been lost due to ups and downs in the market. Thereafter, the respondent invested more amount, which also did not bear any profitable returns.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:SANJAY C.R.P. 90/2019 Page 2 of 26 c. It is claimed that the respondent was assured that the petitioner will construct a third floor of the property for a nominal cost of ₹10 lakhs, whereafter, the ground floor could be sold at a higher price to make big investments. The petitioner also started the construction work with his own funds in the month of October, 2015. Due to coercion of the petitioner, the respondent sold the ground floor of the property for ₹23 lakhs and invested a sum of ₹10 lakhs with the petitioner to construct a third floor. It is alleged that the petitioner approached the respondent by saying that the amount had been lost in the market and asked the respondent to give him the third floor of the property as a collateral security to help recover the losses.

d. It is claimed that it was due to this, the respondent assented to registration of the subject property in the name of the petitioner, against which, a payment of ₹21,75,000/- was made to the respondent by way of different cheques to artificially give the garb to the transaction of a genuine sale. After the cheques were deposited, the whole money was withdrawn within two months to be invested with the petitioner. As the respondent had already lost a huge amount with the petitioner, he had no other alternative.

e. It is further claimed that there was a verbal agreement between the parties and the possession of the subject property was not handed over to the petitioner as per the Sal