Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J
SUNITA SINHA – Appellant
Versus
M/S LEELA BUILDERS PVT LTD & ORS – Respondent
RFA-70/2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anirudh Bakhru, Ayush Puri, Kanav Madnani, Urvija Sharma, Aayomi Sharma, Sultan Jafri, Mohd. Umar, Abhigyan Pandey
For the Respondents: Samar Singh Kachwaha, Aakanksha Kaul, Kavita Vinayak, Gaurav Vashisth, Lakshay Dhamija, Arpit Bhargava, Sarthak Sharma, Abhishek Gaind, Ajay Singh Gosain, Astha Sharma, Nitasha Gupta, Manoj Pant

The doctrine of part performance protects a transferee in possession under an agreement to sell from recovery of possession by the transferor. Consequential relief of possession is barred by limitation where the substantive claim for declaration or cancellation of the underlying agreement is time-barred under the relevant limitation law.

Headnote:(A) Property Law - Agreement to Sell - Doctrine of Part Performance - Where a transferee has taken possession in part performance of a contract for consideration, the transferor is debarred from enforcing any right to recover possession, even in the absence of a registered conveyance deed, provided the essential conditions of such equitable doctrine are satisfied (Paras 111-115).

(B) Limitation - Consequential Relief - Declaratory Relief - Where a suit for possession is premised on the nullity of existing transaction documents, the prayer for cancellation of those instruments is substantive and not merely consequential; consequently, if the period for seeking such declaration has expired, the suit is barred by limitation (Paras 146-151).

(C) Evidence - Oral Agreement - Parol Evidence - Evidence of a separate contemporaneous oral agreement is admissible regarding matters collateral to the written instrument, provided the document is silent on that matter and the evidence does not contradict or vary the written terms (Paras 77-85).

(D) Estoppel - Approbate and Reprobate - A party cannot adopt inconsistent positions by treating a transaction as valid to enjoy its benefits and later asserting it as void to secure an advantage; silence and acquiescence by a transferor for a significant period preclude subsequent claims of contract cancellation (Paras 30-31).

Facts of the case:
The appellants, as legal heirs of a co-owner, initiated a suit for possession and injunction regarding an immovable property, claiming the underlying agreement to sell had been cancelled due to non-payment of the balance consideration. The respondents/purchasers contended that they had been in continuous, uninterrupted possession since 1989 and asserted that the parties had arrived at an oral understanding that payments made by purchasers to tenants to vacate the premises would be adjusted against the sale consideration. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the claim barred by limitation and lacking merit.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the purchasers established the existence of an oral understanding through evidence and the conduct of the parties, including the long-standing acquiescence of the original owners. The court held that the purchasers' continuous possession protected them under the doctrine of part performance, notwithstanding the absence of a registered sale deed. The suit was ultimately dismissed due to the failure to challenge the transaction documents within the limitation period.

Issues: The main issues were: (i) whether the agreement to sell had been cancelled; (ii) whether the suit was barred by limitation; (iii) whether the oral adjustment of payments was admissible evidence; and (iv) whether the purchasers’ possession was protected by the doctrine of part performance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that possessory title acquired through an agreement to sell and subsequent part performance is a significant interest that the transferor is barred from disturbing. Because the request for possession was contingent upon challenging the validity of the transaction instruments, failure to seek such declaratory relief within the prescriptive limitation period rendered the suit unmaintainable.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 19^thDecember, 2025 Pronounced on:17^th April, 2026.

+ RFA 70/2019, CM APPL. 3892/2019, CM APPL. 34117/2019 & CM APPL. 46747/2023 SUNITA SINHA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Ayush Puri, Mr. Kanav Madnani, Ms. Urvija Sharma, Ms. Aayomi Sharma, Mr. Sultan Jafri, Mr. Mohd. Umar and Mr.

Abhigyan Pandey, Advs.

M: 9958029634 versus M/S LEELA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.& ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Samar Singh Kachwaha, Ms.

Aakanksha Kaul, Ms. Kavita Vinayak and Mr. Gaurav Vashisth, Advs. for R-1 to 8 M: 9540022777 Email: gaurav@ssklawchambers.com Mr. Lakshay Dhamija, Adv for R-9 Mr. Arpit Bhargava, Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Gaind, Mr. Ajay Singh Gosain, Ms. Astha Sharma and Ms. Nitasha Gupta, Advs.

for R-10 M: 9871316969 Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate for R-11 (M:9971560508)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

JUDGMENT

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. I. INTRODUCTION

1. The present Regular First Appeal (“RFA”) has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), thereby, challenging the judgment dated 10^th January, 2019 (“impugned judgment”), passed by the Additional District Judge - 07, Saket Courts, New Delhi (“ADJ”), in the suit bearing CS No. 2162/2008 (renumbered as CS No. 1180/2017), titled as ―Sunita Sinha and Anr. Versus M/s. Leela Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.‖, whereby, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant.

2. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs, seeking mandatory injunction to restrain defendant nos. 1 to 8 from using the property bearing No. 48, Block No. 171, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, admeasuring 966.33 sq. yards (“suit property”), and to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the same to the plaintiffs. The suit, in the alternative, prayed for grant of decree of possession with respect to the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs, along with recovery of mesne profits and for permanent injunction, in respect of the same.

3. Before delving into the facts of the present case, it is pertinent to note that this Court vide order dated 28^th January, 2019, directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the title and possession of the suit property. Subsequently, an application being C.M. APPL. 34117/2019 came to be filed by respondent nos. 1 to 8 seeking modification of the order dated 28^th January, 2019 in order for them to seek mutation of the suit property in their name with the undertaking that they shall not part with the possession of the suit property. However, by way the order dated 29^th August, 2024, the said application was directed to be dealt with directly at the time of hearing of the main appeal.

4. This Court vide order dated 05^th May, 2022 has recorded that respondent nos. 1 to 8 are the only contesting parties in the present appeal. Further, this Court dealt with the application, i.e., C.M. APPL. 7668/2021, filed jointly by the four applicants, namely, Shri Sanjeev Sinha (husband of the deceased appellant), Shri Gaurav Sinha (son of the deceased appellant), Shri Mahesh Kapoor and Smt. Usha Kapoor, thereby, seeking their substitution in the appeal in place of the deceased appellant, i.e., Smt. Sunita Sinha, who died on 07^th September, 2020.

5. By way of the aforesaid order, this Court impleaded Shri Sanjeev Sinha (husband of the deceased appellant) and Shri Gaurav Sinha (son of the deceased appellant) as the legal heirs of the deceased appellant. However, the other applicants, being Shri Mahesh Kapoor and Smt. Usha Kapoor, were not impleaded, since they were third parties who claimed interest in the suit property on the basis of an Agreement to Sell dated 05^th December, 2005, executed by the appellant in their favour. The said applicants, however, were granted liberty to take appropriate steps for their intervention in the appeal separately. However, no steps were taken in this regard.

II. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE a. Pre-Filing of the Suit

6. The brief facts, relevant for adjudication of the app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIMini Pushkarna, JSUNITA SINHA – AppellantVersusM/S LEELA BUILDERS PVT LTD & ORS – RespondentRFA-70/2019

Cases Referred (12)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J
SUNITA SINHA – Appellant
Versus
M/S LEELA BUILDERS PVT LTD & ORS – Respondent
RFA-70/2019