* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 11^th MARCH, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

+ I.A. 8516/2024 IN CS(OS) 813/2023 S SHALU CONSTRUCTIONS .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw & Ms.

Shambhavi Kala, Advs.

versus ASHOK KAURA AND ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Anupam Srivastava, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Archit Singh, Mr. Vasuh Misra, Ms. Shreya Kunwar & Mr. Devesh Bhatia , Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

JUDGMENT

I.A. 8516/2024

1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking specific performance of the Collaboration Agreement dated 01.02.2013 in respect of property bearing No. A-72, New Friends Colony, New Delhi measuring 492 sq. yds. (hereinafter referred to as “the Suit Property”).

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are as under:

a. It is stated that in January, 2013, the Defendants approached the Plaintiff claiming themselves to be joint owners of the Suit Property and disclosed that two litigations concerning the Suit property were pending before this Court. The first litigation was CS(OS) No. 649/2010 titled “Ashok Kaura & Ors. v. Shashi Kaura & Ors.”, which was a partition suit between the family members i.e., the Defendants herein (hereinafter referred to as „the partition suit‟). The second was CS(OS) No. 1448/2010, a suit for specific performance filed by one Mr. Ajit Pal Singh against Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as „the specific performance suit‟).

b. It is stated that the Defendants allegedly represented that they were facing pressure in the specific performance suit and required funds to settle the dispute, assuring the Plaintiff that upon such assistance, they would execute a favourable collaboration arrangement with the Plaintiff based on the preliminary decree dated 09.07.2010 in the partition suit.

c. Relying on these representations, the parties executed the Collaboration Agreement on 01.02.2013. Under the agreement, the Plaintiff undertook to demolish the existing superstructure and construct a new building comprising basement, stilt, ground floor, first floor, second floor, third floor and terrace(s). In consideration of the development rights and allocation of built-up area, the Plaintiff agreed to pay a total monetary consideration of Rs.7.5 crores to the Defendants. It is stated that with the execution of the agreement, the Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2 crores in cash to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, which was acknowledged through receipts and recorded in the Collaboration Agreement. The agreement further provided for division of the constructed property whereby the Plaintiff was to receive the entire first and second floors along with one servant quarter with WC on each floor, 50% of the stilt parking and proportionate undivided rights in the land and common areas. Defendants No. 2 and 3 were to receive the entire basement and ground floor along with one servant quarter with WC on the ground floor and 25% of the stilt parking, while Defendant No. 1 was to receive the entire third floor with terrace rights, one servant quarter with WC on the third floor and the remaining 25% of the stilt parking, each with proportionate undivided ownership rights in the land.

d. It is stated that under the terms of the arrangement, the Plaintiff was responsible for undertaking redevelopment, applying for sanction plans and making agreed payments, whereas the Defendants were obliged to settle the pending litigations relating to the property, obtain mutation in their favour, secure conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold and thereafter, hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the Suit Property to the Plaintiff to enable redevelopment. The Plaintiff asserts that in furtherance of the agreement it applied for sanction plans with the SDMC and paid approximately Rs.12.38 lakhs towards municipal charges, and additionally paid Rs.20 lakhs on 16.03.2013 and Rs.12 lakhs on 01.11.2013 in cash to the Defendants at their request to facilitate disposal of