$

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

BEFORE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

+ CS(OS) 1226/2014

RAKESH SINGH

S/0 LATE SH. MAHESH SINGH

R/O H. NO. E-986, LGF, CR PARK

NEW DELHI -110019 .....Plaintiff

(Through: Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, Advocate.)

versus

AMIT KUMAR

S/O SH. OM .KANWAR SINGH

R/O H. NO. 770, V.P.O. MUNDKA

DELHI-110041 ....Defendant No.1

SUNITA GARG

W/O SH. VIJENDRA KUMAR GARG

R/O KUMAR STEELS, AMBALA ROAD,

JAGADHARI, HARYANA – 135003 ....Defendant No.2

VIJENDRA KUMAR GARG

S/O SH. NANDLAL GARG

R/O KUMAR STEELS, AMBALA ROAD,

JAGADHARI, HARYANA – 135003 ....Defendant No.3

(Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Mr. Aditya Chauhan and Mr. Piyush Aggarwal, Advocates.)

+ CS(OS) 2031/2014

SUNITA GARG

(THROUGH CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY)

W/O VIJENDER KUMAR GARG

R/O KUMAR STEELS

AMBALA ROAD, JAGADHARI

HARYANA - 135003 .....Plaintiff

(Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Mr. Aditya Chauhan and Mr. Piyush Aggarwal, Advocates.)

versus

RAKESH SINGH

S/O LATE MAHESH SINGH

R/O HOUSE NO. E - 986, L.G.F.

NEW DELHI – 110019 .....Defendant No.1

AMIT KUMAR

S/O OM KANWAR SINGH

R/O HOUSE NO. 770

V.P.O. MUNDKA

NEW DELHI – 110041 .....Defendant No.2

(Through: Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, Advocate for D-1.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

% Reserved on: 13.10.2025

Pronounced on: 14.11.2025

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

The present dispute concerns property bearing No. D-94, LIC Colony, Jeevan Niketan, Paschim Vihar, Delhi- 110093 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) and involves two set of parties laying claims on the suit property on the basis of their respective set of documents. The central controversy between the parties pertains to the ownership and title of the suit property, the genuineness of the sale deeds dated 19.06.2003 and 27.12.2012, and the alleged collusion and acts of forgery committed in attempting to unlawfully transfer and appropriate the suit property.

2. Both suits were tagged for an analogous hearing, and the fate of one will decide the fate of the other.

COMMON FACTUAL MATRIX

3. For the sake of brevity and convenience of reference, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as under: -

* Mr. Rakesh Singh- Plaintiff in CS(OS) 1226/2014 and Defendant No.1 in CS(OS) No. 2031/2014 – hereinafter referred to as ‘the subsequent purchaser’

* Mr. Amit Kumar- Defendant No.1 in CS(OS) 1226/2014 and Defendant No. 2 in CS(OS) No. 2031/2014- hereinafter referred to as ‘the intermediate buyer ’

* Ms. Sunita Garg - The original owner in CS(OS) 1226/2014 and Plaintiff in CS(OS) No. 2031/2014- hereinafter referred to as ‘the original owner’.

4. The suit property was originally allotted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and subsequently converted to freehold. The original owner obtained a registered conveyance deed from DDA dated 12.12.2002 (Document No. 7291), upon which she claims to have taken vacant possession and constructed two rooms and a kitchen. She asserts continuous, uninterrupted possession and ownership of the suit property since then.

5. According to the subsequent purchaser, sometime prior to 2012, the intermediate buyer represented himself to be the lawful owner of the suit property, claiming to have acquired it from the original owner through a registered sale deed dated 19.06.2003. On the basis of this representation, and through the intervention of brokers, the subsequent purchaser entered into a transaction with the intermediate buyer for the purchase of the suit property.

6. On 27.12.2012, a sale deed was executed by the intermediate buyer in favour of the subsequent purchaser for an alleged sale consideration of Rs. 1,86,30,150/-, stated to have been paid through banking channels. The subsequent purchaser further incurred expenses towards stamp duty and registration charges, bringing the total transaction value to Rs. 1,99,34,762/-. The possession

Click Here to Read the rest of this document