Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Forged or concocted builder-buyer agreements nullify the contractual rights and obligations of the parties involved. When such agreements are fabricated, the legal validity of the commitments made under them is compromised, leading to no enforceable rights or duties for either party. ["[PULKIT AGARWAL & 2 ORS. vs EMAAR MGF LAND LTD. - Consumer National"]]
The main points indicate that the validity of the agreement is crucial. If the agreement is found to be forged or fabricated, the parties cannot rely on it for asserting rights or obligations. The courts and authorities, including RERA, recognize that forged agreements do not create legal entitlements or liabilities. ["[PULKIT AGARWAL & 2 ORS. vs EMAAR MGF LAND LTD. - Consumer National"]]
The judgment emphasizes that the value of the service or the sale consideration, as agreed upon in genuine contracts, is relevant for claims, but if the agreement itself is forged, such claims are invalid. The rights to approach consumer forums or RERA are contingent upon the existence of a valid agreement. ["[PULKIT AGARWAL & 2 ORS. vs EMAAR MGF LAND LTD. - Consumer National"]]
When agreements are forged, there is no legal basis for parties to claim rights or obligations derived from such documents. The authenticity of the agreement is paramount; without it, parties cannot enforce or defend contractual commitments. ["[PULKIT AGARWAL & 2 ORS. vs EMAAR MGF LAND LTD. - Consumer National"]]
The legal framework and judgments, including RERA rulings, recognize that forged agreements negate the contractual and statutory rights of the parties, rendering any claims based on such agreements invalid. This underscores the importance of genuine, legally executed agreements for establishing rights and obligations. ["[PULKIT AGARWAL & 2 ORS. vs EMAAR MGF LAND LTD. - Consumer National"]]
Analysis and Conclusion:Forgery or concoction of builder-buyer agreements effectively nullifies the contractual rights and obligations of the involved parties. Such agreements, if proven to be fabricated, hold no legal weight, and parties cannot enforce or claim rights based on them. Courts and authorities like RERA affirm that only genuine, valid agreements can underpin rights and obligations, and forged documents are inadmissible for legal or statutory claims. This principle ensures that contractual integrity is maintained and prevents misuse of false agreements to claim entitlements.
In the complex world of real estate transactions, the builder-buyer agreement serves as the cornerstone of rights and responsibilities. But what if that agreement is forged or concocted? A pressing legal question arises: when a builder-buyer agreement is concocted and forged, then there is no right or obligations on parties – judgments Raj RERA. This issue has been addressed in key Rajasthan RERA (Real Estate Regulatory Authority) judgments, emphasizing that such invalid documents strip away enforceability.
This blog post explores the legal implications, drawing from pivotal court rulings and related cases. While this provides general insights, it is not legal advice – consult a qualified attorney for your specific situation.
A builder-buyer agreement outlines payment schedules, possession dates, and penalties. However, if proven forged (fabricated without consent) or concocted (artificially created), it loses all legal validity. Courts view such documents as non-existent in the eye of law.
In one landmark case, the court noted: the forgery pleaded cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint, and questions whether the agreement itself is forged or concocted. H. S. Deekshit VS Metropoli Overseas Limited - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1581 This highlights that forgery allegations require evidentiary proof, but once established, the document creates no enforceable rights or obligations.
Similarly, another judgment states: since documents have been established to be forged or fake, obviously fraud was involved and that was sufficient to extend the period of limitation, and that fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the Court. Rajnesh Sharma VS Business Park Town Planners Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1728 Forged agreements undermine judicial processes and bind no parties.
The core principle is straightforward: forged agreements negate valid rights and obligations. Courts in Rajasthan RERA matters have consistently held that fabricated documents cannot support claims for possession, refunds, or penalties.
For example, in H. S. Deekshit VS Metropoli Overseas Limited - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1581, the court clarified: since fraud was involved, in the eye of law such documents had no existence, implying that no rights or obligations can be derived from such documents. Questions of forgery in Agreements to Sell, Powers of Attorney, and Sale Deeds are factual disputes resolved via evidence – if proven forged, they hold no legal effect.
This contrasts sharply with genuine agreements, where buyers enjoy robust protections.
The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) safeguards homebuyers through refunds, interest, and penalties for delays. However, these presume a valid agreement.
As per H. S. Deekshit VS Metropoli Overseas Limited - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1581, RERA remedies collapse if the agreement is forged: RERA’s protections and remedies presume the validity of the agreement; if the agreement is forged, its provisions do not bind the parties. Buyers cannot invoke RERA for enforcement based on fake documents.
While Raj RERA focuses on forgery, broader consumer and RERA cases illustrate the value of genuine agreements. In delay disputes, valid builder-buyer agreements enable refunds with interest.
Conversely, cases like Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-2020-3524 Dheeraj Jain Versus Shekhar Home Developers (RAJ/P/2017/271) reference builder-buyer agreements executed post-booking (e.g., 02.11.2015), stressing delivery timelines – but only for verified agreements. Absent authenticity, as in forgery scenarios, no remedies apply.
In Promod Balakrishna Pillai VS Patel Engineering Ltd., payment schedules in agreements justified refunds with 10% interest for delays, citing Supreme Court precedents like Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank. This reinforces: genuine agreements trigger RERA/CPA jurisdiction; forged ones do not. Harish Jain VS Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Recent rulings like Vatika Nirman Pvt. Ltd. VS U. P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority - 2024 Supreme(All) 1741 affirm RERA's role in adjudicating valid Builder-Buyer Agreements, directing appeals to tribunals rather than writs – but void agreements (e.g., via fraud) fall outside. Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-2020-3427 Jaimala Saini Versus RICCO Developers Pvt. Ltd. and similar cases ( Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-2019-2822 Gaurav Kumar Versus RICCO Developers Pvt. Ltd., Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-2020-3425 Sunita Rani Versus RICCO Developers Pvt. Ltd., Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-2021-4140 Sunil Kumar Sharma Versus RICCO Developers Pvt. Ltd. ) scrutinized agreement availability, dismissing claims without proof.
Not every allegation voids an agreement:- Evidence Required: Mere claims of forgery are insufficient; courts demand proof. H. S. Deekshit VS Metropoli Overseas Limited - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1581- Ratification Possible: If parties later validate a forged document, rights may arise – but until then, it remains invalid.- Alternative Remedies: Forgery victims may pursue civil suits for cancellation or criminal charges, bypassing RERA. Rajnesh Sharma VS Business Park Town Planners Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1728
In delay cases like Surender Singh VS Vardhman Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., allottees received refunds at 8-10% interest for non-delivery, but only under valid agreements. Pulkit Agarwal VS Emaar Mgf Land Ltd. linked pecuniary jurisdiction to sale value, not payments – irrelevant for forgeries.
To avoid pitfalls:- Verify Authenticity: Use e-signatures, witnesses, and RERA registration checks before signing.- Evidence in Disputes: Gather notarized copies, payment proofs, and witness statements.- Seek Alternatives: For genuine delays, leverage RERA (e.g., refunds per Harish Jain VS Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd.); for forgery, file FIRs or civil suits.- Courts' Role: Judges must rigorously test forgery claims before nullifying rights. H. S. Deekshit VS Metropoli Overseas Limited - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1581
Proven forged or concocted builder-buyer agreements confer no rights or obligations, rendering RERA inapplicable. As summarized: If a builder-buyer agreement is proven to be forged or concocted, then there are no valid rights or obligations on the parties arising from that agreement, and protections under RERA do not apply to such forged documents. H. S. Deekshit VS Metropoli Overseas Limited - 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1581Rajnesh Sharma VS Business Park Town Planners Ltd. - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1728
Key Takeaways:- Forgery voids agreements entirely.- RERA protects only genuine deals.- Always substantiate claims with evidence.- Explore civil/criminal paths for fraud.
Stay informed on real estate laws to safeguard your investments. For personalized guidance, contact a legal expert.
#RERAJudgments, #ForgedAgreements, #RealEstateLaw
The parties then executed a Buyers Agreement on 01.04.2013 incorporating their respective obligations in respect of the said allotment. ... The amount actually paid by the flat buyer to the builder would have absolutely no relevance in such a case, the only relevant factors being the value of the service i.e. the sale price agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder and the compensation claimed in the consumer complaint. ... the right of th....
RAJ/P/2017/271) was booked in the year 2013. Applicant further : alleged that builder buyer agreement for the aforesaid unit was cuted on 02.11.2015. The expected delivery of possession was on 02.11.2018 i.e. after 36 months of execution of the Page 10f 8 Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-2020-3524agreement. ... RAJ-RERA-C-2020-3524 ... On the basis of averments made in the pleadings and arguments advanced before the Authority, the following issues are required....
The parties then executed a flat-buyers agreement dated 25.8.2011, incorporating their respective obligations in respect of the said transactions. ... It was also contended before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the builder was not liable to pay interest at more than the saving bank interest of the State Bank of India, the parties having agreed so at the time of execution of the buyers agreement. ... There is merit in the submission which has been urged by the buyer th....
The parties then executed a flat-buyers agreement dated 25.8.2011, incorporating their respective obligations in respect of the said transactions. ... It was also contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the builder was not liable to pay interest at more than the saving bank interest of the State Bank of India, the parties having agreed so at the time of execution of the buyers agreement. ... There is merit in the submission which has been urged by the buyer th....
The parties then executed a Buyers Agreement on 01.04.2013 incorporating their respective obligations in respect of the said allotment. ... The amount actually paid by the flat buyer to the builder would have absolutely no relevance in such a case, the only relevant factors being the value of the service i.e. the sale price agreed to be paid by the flat buyer to the builder and the compensation claimed in the consumer complaint. ... limit the right o....
It is also submitted that on the strength of the aforesaid 15 Builder-Buyer Agreements the private respondent filed the 12 complaints before the RERA. ... Till date there is no declaration regarding the Builder-Buyer Agreements being void nor there is any order from any court or tribunal which in any manner affected the power and right of the RERA to enter or adjudicate the dispute before it. 36. ... The petitioner also filed a Civil Suit bearing No.93 of 2023 seekin....
No.RAJ-RERA-C-2019-2809 and OrsAfter perusal of the record of the files, it is found that an agreement for sale or builder buyer agreement is available in the files of complainant Sandeep Kumar Verma, Sunita Rani Saini, Asha Rani Sankla, Jaimala Saini and Jyoti Yadav. ... In case of other applicants, copy of agreement for sale or builder buyer agreement is not available. It was observed on the basis of the #HL_S....
No.RAJ-RERA-C-2019-2809 and OrsAfter perusal of the record of the files, it is found that an agreement for sale or builder buyer agreement is available in the files of complainant Sandeep Kumar Verma, Sunita Rani Saini, Asha Rani Sankla, Jaimala Saini and Jyoti Yadav. ... In case of other applicants, copy of agreement for sale or builder buyer agreement is not available. It was observed on the basis of the #HL_S....
No.RAJ-RERA-C-2019-2809 and OrsAfter perusal of the record of the files, it is found that an agreement for sale or builder buyer agreement is available in the files of complainant Sandeep Kumar Verma, Sunita Rani Saini, Asha Rani Sankla, Jaimala Saini and Jyoti Yadav. ... In case of other applicants, copy of agreement for sale or builder buyer agreement is not available. It was observed on the basis of the #HL_S....
No.RAJ-RERA-C-2019-2809 and OrsAfter perusal of the record of the files, it is found that an agreement for sale or builder buyer agreement is available in the files of complainant Sandeep Kumar Verma, Sunita Rani Saini, Asha Rani Sankla, Jaimala Saini and Jyoti Yadav. ... In case of other applicants, copy of agreement for sale or builder buyer agreement is not available. It was observed on the basis of the #HL_S....
Opposite Party No.2 issued demand note dated 29.09.2011 for a sum of Rs.14,76,680/- towards payment of instalment. According to the agreement, the payment schedule was as follows: - Due on or before Amount Booking and Sale Agreement 19,76,680.00 On Completion of Foundation Work 15,61,344.00 On Completion of Podium Slab 19,51,680.00 On Completion of Slab 1 Work 7,80,672.00 On Completion of Slab 2 Work 7,80,672.00 On Completion of Slab 3 Work 7,80....
It is submitted that the Builder Buyer Agreement is one sided and is in favour of the Opposite Parties, violating the rights and interest of the Complainants. It is submitted that since the Opposite Parties have failed to hand over the possession of the flats within the stipulated period, the Opposite Parties be directed to refund their deposited amount along with service tax, compound interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit and also to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards the mental agony and harassment and the cost of litigation. At the time of signing the Builder Buyer A....
As per Builder Buyer Agreement, the Construction of the Tower was to be completed by December 2015 and possession was to be offered within 30 days thereafter for interior and fit outs. It is the say of the Complainants that they had made the payments of more than Rs.23,82,019/- as per demands of the Opposite Party Builder despite that the Builder had failed to compete the construction and did not provide possession for interior and fit outs on or before December 2015 as per terms of the Builder Buyer Agreement. Complainants booked a 3 BHK Flat No. 503, 5th Floor, Tower – H, admeasuring 1640 ....
The admitted facts by the appellant are that the appellant cancelled the allotment on 24th December 2013 allegedly for default of the complainant in paying the installments in spite of the reminders sent by the appellant. Thus, clearly the project was inordinately delayed and therefore the complainant may have been justified in stopping the further payments. The possession was due in the year 2010, however, the same could not be delivered in time and even the builder buyer agreement was sent to the complainant in the year 2012. it is also admitted that the builder buyer agreement h....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
