$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 13.11.2025

Date of Pronouncement: 27.11.2025

+ RFA(OS)(COMM) 33/2025 and CM APPL. 64365/2025

SHRI SURENDER BASOYA .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv.

versus

SHRI SANJEEV JOON .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Naresh K. Daksh, Adv.

+ RFA(OS)(COMM) 14/2024, CM APPL. 34784/2024 and CM APPL. 30512/2025

SURENDER BASOYA & ANR. .....Appellants

Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv.

versus

SANJEEV JOON .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Naresh K. Daksh, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through the present Appeals, the Appellants assail the correctness of common judgement dated 04.03.2024 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Judgement’] passed by the learned Single Judge [hereinafter referred to as ‘LSJ’], wherein two separate suits filed by the Respondent [Plaintiff before the learned Single Judge], were decreed.

2. Since, the parties to the disputes are common, as is the Impugned Judgement, this Court deems it appropriate to deliver a common judgement with bifurcation of both the Appeals wherever necessary, while referring to the parties in the same manner.

3. For sake of convenience, the parties before this Court shall be referred to in accordance with their status before the LSJ.

COMMON FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, it is imperative to cull out the relevant background facts, which are set forth hereinafter.

5. While filing the suits and the interim applications under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’] the Plaintiffs, in brief, asserted as under:

6.1 In the plot admeasuring 1600 Sq. Yds., there were three owners. One-half belonged to Ms. Anju Bansal, i.e., measuring 800 Sq. Yds. The Plaintiff claims that the aforesaid property belonged to him, as he had invested the amount. In the remaining 800 Sq. Yds., Mr. Ramesh Kumar was the owner of 1/4th share i.e. 400 Sq. Yds., whereas another person Mr. Akhil Jain was the owner of 400 Sq. Yds. [hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘Suit Properties’].

6.2 Defendant No.1, i.e., Mr. Surinder Basoya purchased 300 Sq. Yds. plot vide Sale Deed dated 02.07.2013 from Ms. Anju Bansal on payment of Rs. 1,47,00,000/-. With respect to the remaining 500 sq. Yds. from the Suit Properties, available in the name of Ms. Anju Bansal, there was a Settlement Agreement executed between the Plaintiff and Ms. Anju Bansal dated 12.06.2015, which was acknowledged in a Court Decree dated 17.07.2015. Therein, it was held that the Plaintiff will be owner of 80%, whereas Ms. Anju Bansal shall be owner of 20%.

6.3 Mr. Ramesh Kumar, another co-sharer vide Sale Deed dated 27.10.2014 sold 400 Sq. Yds. in favour of Defendant No.1, a builder, for a sum of Rs. 1,90,00,000/-.

6.4 In the month of September 2016, the Defendant No.1 purchased an additional 270 sq. Yds. plot of the Suit Properties from the Plaintiff and Ms. Anju Bansal for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,58,00,000/-, out of which Rs.1,26,40,000/- was payable to the Plaintiff and remaining Rs.31,60,000/- was to be paid to Ms. Anju Bansal. The Sale Deed was duly registered on 15.10.2016 and the entire sale consideration was sought to be paid by the seven post-dated cheques of Rs.1,25,13,600/-, whereas Rs.1,26,400/- was deducted as TDS.

6.5 All cheques issued by Defendant No.1, on presentation, were dishonoured. As per the terms of Sale Deed, the express recitals in Clause 6 of the said deed states, in the event of dishonour of the cheques, the sale would automatically stand cancelled. Clause 6 of the Sale Deed reads as under:-

The said Clause 6 read as under:

“That the VENDOR hereby further covenants with the VENDEE that in case said Property or any portion of the Property hereby sold is lost to the VENDEE on account of any legal defect in the title and rig