Delhi District Court
Rajan Bhasin vs Sudhir Kalra Ors on 31 July, 2025
INDEX
Sl. Heading Page No.
No.
1. Memo of parties 2
2. Brief Facts - Plaintiff's case 3-4
3. Defendant's case 4-6
Written statement of defendants
no. 1 and 2
4. Replication to the written 6
statement
5. Issues 6-7
6. Plaintiff's Evidence 7-8
7. Defendants No. 1 and 2 Evidence 8-10
8. Arguments by Ld. Counsel for 10-11
parties
9. Analysis & conclusion 11-12
Issue no. 1
10. Issue no. 2 12-24
Judgment relief upon :
(I) Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. Vs Mahaveer
Lunia & Ors., 2025 INSC 772 (para no. 9.2,
9.3 and 9.4)
11. Issue no. 3 24-26
13. Issue no. 4 26-28
14. Issue no. 5 28-33
15. Issue no. 6 33-35
16. Issue no. 7,8 and 9 35-36
17. Relief 36
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 1 of 36
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:57:37 +0530
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE- 02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by - Sh. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, DHJS
In the matter of-
CS DJ No. 611350/2016
CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014
Sh. Rajan Bhasin
S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam Bhasin,
R/o 176, First Floor, Gali No. 1,
Padam Nagar, Near Sarai Rohilla,
Delhi
............... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Sudhir Kalra
S/o Sh. Ram Prakash Kalra
R/o D-6/16, Second Floor,
Rana Pratap Bagh,
Delhi - 110007
2. Ajit Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Duli Chand
R/o C-1/11, Rana Pratap Bagh,
Delhi - 110007
3. The Chowki Incharge,
Sangam Park,
P.S. Bharat Nagar, Delhi
............... Defendants
Date of Institution of suit : 01.07.2014
Date of Reservation of judgment : 03.07.2025
Date of Pronouncement of judgment : 31.07.2025
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 2 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:57:44 +0530
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, PERMANENT AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. This court is rendering the present judgment to adjudicate
the suit filed on 01.07.2014 by the plaintiff against the
defendants for the relief of possession, mandatory and
permanent injunction, respectively.
Case of the plaintiff (In brief)
2. It has been averred in the plaint that the plaintiff, through
the registered sale deed dated 24.04.2014, purchased the roof
above the second floor with further roof rights in property
bearing no. D-6/16, built on land measuring 138.3 sq. yds.
situated at Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi – 110007 (henceforth
referred to as ‘the suit property’) with common rights of
entrance, passage, and stairs therein, in the property with the
right to construct thereupon along with freehold land
underneath the same, for a total consideration of ₹.14,00,000/-
from the defendant no. 2 .
3. It has also been averred that the defendant no. 2 delivered
the vacant, peaceful, and physical possession of the suit
property to the plaintiff; however, on 12.05.2011, when the
plaintiff reached there that day, he saw that someone had put a
new lock on the suit property instead of his old lock. On
inquiry it came to his knowledge that defendant no. 1 put his
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 3 of 36
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.31
SHARMA 16:57:51 +0530
lock on, and despite repeated requests, not only had defendant
no. 1 refused to remove the lock but also asserted that he is
the owner of the suit property, as he has purchased it from
Mohd. Danish. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the
plaintiff against the defendants for seeking the
abovementioned reliefs.
Facts pleaded in written statement of defendant no. 1 (In brief)
4. In the written statement, the defendant has denied the
averments made in the plaint and contended that the suit of the
plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with
cost on the grounds that the suit property was purchased by
defendant no. 1 vide agreement to sell dated 19.04.2008 and
agreement dated 15.04.2011 executed between the plaintiff
and Mohd. Danis, who purchased the same from Sh. Ajeet
Kumar, defendant no. 2, and since 19.04.2008, defendant no.
1 has been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the
suit property.
5. It has also been contended that the defendant no. 2 had no
authority to sell the suit property to the plaintiff, as the
defendant no. 2 had already entered into an agreement with
Mohd. Danish vide agreement dated 11.05.2007 and
surrendered the possession of the entire property to said
Mohd. Danish. Defendant no. 2 received a huge consideration
amount from him, and in turn, Mohd. Danish entered into an
agreement to sell with defendant no. 1 and handed over the
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 4 of 36
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:57:59 +0530
possession of the suit property to him.
6. It is also asserted that any transaction between the plaintiff
and defendant no. 2 in respect of the suit property is a sham
transaction, as the defendant no. 2 had no right, authority, or
title to sell the suit property, as he had already surrendered the
possession and entered into an agreement to sell dated
19.04.2008 with the defendant no. 1 for an amount of
₹.16,84,000/-.
7. The defendant no. 1 also raised doubts on the genuineness
of the sale deed dated 24.04.2014, as the sale deed was
executed prior to the passing of the consideration. Further, it
has also been averred that Mohd. Danish filed suit against the
defendant no. 2 on the basis of an agreement to sell entered
into between them on 11.05.2007, and the defendant no. 2 had
no right to enter into a sale transaction with the plaintiff.
Hence, it is prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be
dismissed.
Facts pleaded in written statement of defendant no. 2 (In brief)
8. In the written statement, the defendant no. 2 contended that
he is the proprietor of M/s Ajit Kumar Dhiraj Kumar and is
the actual owner of the suit property, which had been
purchased from Sh. Raj Baboo Nishcal vide registered sale
deed dated 21.06.2006. The defendant no. 2 entered into an
agreement to sell dated 11.05.2007 with Mohd. Danish to
build the ground, first, and second floors, and after completion
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 5 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:58:07 +0530
of the building, Mohd. Danish was to hand over the ground
floor (except the shops on the ground floor). Mohd. Danish
had to pay ₹.80,00,000/- to the defendant no. 2 minus Rs.25
lacs.
9. Thereafter, Mohd. Danish filed a suit for permanent and
mandatory injunction against the defendant no. 2, though the
same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 22.07.2013, and
when the same was not challenged by Mohd. Danish, the
defendant no. 2 executed the sale deed dated 24.04.2014 in
favour of plaintiff Sh. Rajan Bhasin. It is further averred that
the defendant no. 2 has no objection if the relief prayed by the
plaintiff is granted to him.
Replication to the written statement of defendant no. 1 (in brief)
10. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of
defendant no. 1 wherein the contents of the plaint have been
reiterated and the contents of the written statement have been
denied.
Issues
11. After completion of pleadings, the Ld. Predecessor of this
Court vide order dated 01.08.2015, framed the following
issues for adjudication in the present suit:
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff suffers from
suppression of material facts, if so, effects?
OPD 1
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 6 of 36
SANDEEP Digitally
SANDEEP
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.31
SHARMA 16:58:14 +0530
2. Whether the defendant no./1 is the owner of
the suit property, the same having been
purchased from Mohd. Danish, who had
purchased it from defendant no. 2? If so, its
effect? OPD 1
3. Whether plaintiff has filed the suit in
collusion with defendant no. 2, if so, its
effects? OPD 1
4. Whether the sale deed dated 24.04.2014,
vide which plaintiff has claimed to have
purchased the suit property from defendant
no. 2 is a sham transaction? If so, its effects?
OPD 1
5. Whether the defendant no. 1 delivered the
possession of the suit property by Mohd.
Danish? OPD1
6. Whether the suit suffers from non-joinder &
mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 1
7. Who is entitled to have his lock on the entry
gate to the suit property? OPP & D1
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
mandatory injunctions, as prayed in the
plaint? OPP
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual
injunctions, as prayed in the plaint?
10. Relief
11. Costs.
Plaintiff’s Evidence
12. Plaintiff himself entered into witness box and examined
himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex. P-1
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 7 of 36
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.31
SHARMA 16:58:23 +0530
and relied upon the following documents :
S.No Exhibit/ Mark No. Description of Documents
1. Ex. PW1/A (OSR) Certified copy of the sale deed
dated 24.04.2014 registered on
26.04.2014
2. Ex. PW1/B Site plan
3. Ex. PW1/C (OSR) Certified copy of the sale deed
dated 21.06.2006
4. Ex. PW1/D Copy of the complaint dated
12.05.2014.
13. The PW1 has deposed in sync with the contents of the
pleadings, though he admitted that the owner of the second
floor is the defendant no.1, but the suit property purchased by
him from defendant no.2 for an amount of ₹.14,00,000/- Vide
separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, PE was
closed on 01.10.2016.
Defendant’s Evidence
Evidence on behalf of Defendant no. 1/Sudhir Kalra
14. It is pertinent to mention herein that on 01.12.2023, Ld.
Counsel for defendant no. 1 submitted that evidence recorded
on behalf of Sudhir Kalra (defendant no. 1 herein) in the
connected case bearing CS DJ No. 11249/16 titled “Sudhir
Kalra vs. Mohd. Danish” be read on behalf of the defendant in
the present matter. Sh. Sudhir Kalra examined himself in that
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 8 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:58:31 +0530
case as PW1in and tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex. P-1,
wherein he relied upon the following documents-
S.No Exhibit/ Mark No. Description of Documents
1. Ex. PW-1/1 Site Plan
2. Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly) Photocopy of agreement to sell
(OSR) dated 19.04.2008.
3. Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR) Photocopy of receipt
4. Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly) Photocopy of agreement dated
(OSR) 15.04.2011
5. Ex. PW-1/5 Legal notice dated 24.03.2014
6. Ex. PW-1/6 Postal receipt
7. Ex. PW-1/7 Envelope
15. PW1 was thoroughly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for the defendant (herein the plaintiff) on the aspects of the
execution of two alleged agreements to sell executed in his
favour by Mohd. Danish and the right/competency of said
Mohd. Danish to convey any title in the suit property to the
defendant no. 1.
Evidence on behalf of Defendant no. 2
16. One Sh. Manoj Kumar Dahiya, JJA, Record Room
Sessions, Tis Hazari Courts, was examined as D2W1 to
summon the record of CS DJ no. 28/2009 titled “Mohd.
Danish VS M/s Ajit Kumar Dheeraj Kumar,” which has been
placed on record as Ex. D2W1/A (OSR), and the certified
copy of the written statement of the defendant in the said suit
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 9 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:58:39 +0530
is Ex. D2W1/B (OSR). The certified copy of the order dated
24.10.2013 in M No. 47A/13 in suit 28/2009 is Ex. D2W1/C
(OSR).
17. Defendant no. 2/Ajit Singh was examined as D2W2, who
tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex. D2W2/A, wherein he
relied upon the document already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and
admitted the execution of the registration of the sale deed of
the suit property in favour of the plaintiff.
Final arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the parties
18. This Court has heard the final arguments of the Ld.
Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record
carefully. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the
defendant no. 1 had no right in the suit property, as the owner
of the same is Sh. Ajit Kumar; therefore, he could not have
bought the same from Mohd. Danish, and the real owner of
the suit property is defendant no. 2, who, by way of a
registered sale deed, conveyed the rights of the suit property
to the plaintiff. 2.
19. Per-contra Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 1 has argued
that by virtue of the agreement to sell, he had purchased the
property in question from Mohd. Danish, who had the
authority to transfer the rights in the suit property under the
agreement to sell dated 11.05.2007; therefore, the plaintiff has
no right in the suit property, and he is the owner of the same.
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 10 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:58:48 +0530
It has also been argued that the sale deed is nothing but a
sham document executed to usurp the hard-earned money of
the defendant no. 1 by the plaintiff, defendant no. 2, and
Mohd. Danish. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
Analysis & Conclusion
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff
suffers from suppression of material facts, if
so, effects? OPD 1
20. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no.1.
However, the defendant has failed to prove this issue, as there
is nothing on record to substantiate that the plaintiffs have
actually suppressed the material facts except his bald
averments in support of his contentions, and as such, he failed
to discharge the onus. The defendant has merely asserted that
the plaintiffs have approached the court by concealing
material facts, though neither cogent documentary evidence
was brought on record nor any witness was examined by the
defendant during the evidence to prove the same.
21. Even during the final arguments, nothing was brought to
the notice of the court to show what are the material facts that
have been suppressed by the plaintiffs and their effect on the
present matter. An old adage provides that ‘what can be
asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence’. In view of the same issue, no. 1 is decided against
the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs.
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 11 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:58:55 +0530
Issue no. 2
2. Whether the defendant no./1 is the
owner of the suit property, the same having
been purchased from Mohd. Danish, who
had purchased it from defendant no. 2? If so,
its effect? OPD 1
22. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no. 1.
The entire premise of the defendant’s defence is that he had
purchased the said property from Mohd. Danish through an
agreement to sell Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/4, where he agreed
to sell the suit property to the defendant no. 1. However, the
assertion of defendant no. 1 is immediately subject to
rejection for the reason that it is a well-established principle of
law that no one can convey a better title than he himself
possess.
23. Since Sh. Ajit Singh did not sell the property to Mohd.
Danish through the execution of Ex. PW1/P1, but it was
merely an agreement to sell, wherein clause 6 specifically
stated that the sale deed would only be executed after the full
payment of the sale consideration, which was never made, and
in the absence of a registered sale deed, Mohd. Danish could
not have sold the suit property to defendant no. 1, as he did
not have a valid title to convey the suit property to defendant
no. 1. Thus, any claim over the immovable property based on
an agreement to sell is insufficient and legally untenable.
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 12 of 36
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:59:04 +0530
24. It is incomprehensible to anyone that how an individual
could attain ownership of an immovable property solely
through the execution of an agreement to sell, as it does not
inherently establish any rights in the property but merely
grants the right to execute a sale deed in his favour or to
initiate a suit for seeking specific performance. To
substantiate the above mentioned view it is apposite to
mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as
‘Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. vs Mahaveer Lunia & Ors, 2025
INSC 772 (para-9.2, 9.3 and 9.4)’ wherein it has been held
that in the absence of a suit for specific performance of a
contract, an agreement to sell cannot be relied upon for
claiming ownership or title over the property. The relevant
para is reproduced here as under,
9.2….Moreover, Respondent No. 1 has not filed any suit
for specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell,
which further renders his claim untenable. In the absence of
a suit for specific performance, the agreement to sell cannot
be relied upon to claim ownership or to assert any
transferable interest in the property. This legal position has
been conclusively laid down by this Court in Suraj Lamp &
Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, wherein, it was held
that unregistered agreements to sell, even if coupled with
possession, do not convey title or create any interest in the
immovable property. It was further clarified that such
documents are insufficient to complete a sale unless duly
registered and followed by appropriate conveyance. The
relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted
below:
“16. Section 54 of TP Act makes it clear that a
contract of sale, that is, an agreement of sale does
not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such
property. This Court in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A.
Kamtam and Anr. (1977) 3 SCC 247, observed:
(SCC pp.254-55, paras 32-33 & 37)
“32. A contract of sale does not of itself
create any interest in, or charge on, theCS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 13 of 36
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signedKUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.31
SHARMA 16:59:29 +0530
property. This is expressly declared in
Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
See Rambaran Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazra
[1967]1 SCR 293. The fiduciary character of
the personal obligation created by a contract
for sale is recognised in Section 3 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963, and in Section 91
of the Trusts Act. The personal obligation
created by a contract of sale is described in
Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act as
an obligation arising out of contract and
annexed to the ownership of property, but
not amounting to an interest or easement
therein.
33. In India, the word `transfer’ is defined
with reference to the word `convey’. The
word `conveys’ in Section 5 of Transfer of
Property Act is used in the wider sense of
conveying ownership…
37….that only on execution of conveyance,
ownership passes from one party to
another….”
17. In Rambhau Namdeo Gajre v. Narayan Bapuji Dhotra
[2004 (8) SCC 614] this Court held:
“10. Protection provided under Section 53-A of the
Act to the proposed transferee is a shield only
against the transferor. It disentitles the transferor
from disturbing the possession of the proposed
transferee who is put in possession in pursuance to
such an agreement. It has nothing to do with the
ownership of the proposed transferor who remains
full owner of the property till it is legally conveyed
by executing a registered sale deed in favour of the
transferee. Such a right to protect possession against
the proposed vendor cannot be pressed in service
against a third party.”
18. It is thus clear that a transfer of immovable
property by way of sale can only be by a deed of
conveyance (sale deed). In the absence of a deed of
conveyance (duly stamped and registered as
required by law), no right, title or interest in an
immovable property can be transferred.
19. Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is
not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of sale)
would fall short of the requirements of Sections 54
and 55 of the TP Act and will not confer any title
nor transfer any interest in an immovable property
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 14 of 36
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.31
SHARMA 16:59:38 +0530
(except to the limited right granted under Section
53-A of the TP Act). According to the TP Act, an
agreement of sale, whether with possession or
without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54
of the TP Act enacts that sale of immovable
property can be made only by a registered
instrument and an agreement of sale does not create
any interest or charge on its subject-matter.”
9.3. This Court reaffirmed the same position in Cosmos Co.
Operative Bank Ltd v. Central Bank of India & Ors , where
it was reiterated that title and ownership of immovable
property can only be conveyed by a registered deed of sale.
The following observations are significant:
“25. The observations made by this Court in
Suraj Lamp (supra) in paras 16 and 19 are
also relevant
…..
26. Suraj Lamp (supra) later came to be
referred to and relied upon by this Court in
Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1526 wherein the
Court after referring to its earlier judgment
held that the person relying upon the
customary documents cannot claim to be the
owner of the immovable property and
consequently not maintain any claims
against a third-party. The relevant paras read
as under:–
“10. Having considered the
submissions at the outset, it is to be
emphasized that irrespective of what
was decided in the case of Suraj
Lamps and Industries (supra) the fact
remains that no title could be
transferred with respect to
immovable properties on the basis of
an unregistered Agreement to Sell or
on the basis of an unregistered
General Power of Attorney. The
Registration Act, 1908 clearly
provides that a document which
requires compulsory registration
under the Act, would not confer any
right, much less a legally enforceable
right to approach a Court of Law on
its basis. Even if these documents i.e.
the Agreement to Sell and the Power
of Attorney were registered, still it
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 15 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:59:47 +0530
could not be said that the respondent
would have acquired title over the
property in question. At best, on the
basis of the registered agreement to
sell, he could have claimed relief of
specific performance in appropriate
proceedings. In this regard, reference
may be made to sections 17 and 49
of the Registration Act and section
54 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882.
11. Law is well settled that no right,
title or interest in immovable
property can be conferred without a
registered document. Even the
judgment of this Court in the case of
Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra)
lays down the same proposition.
Reference may also be made to the
following judgments of this Court:
(i). Ameer Minhaj v. Deirdre
Elizabeth (Wright) Issar (2018)
7 SCC 639 (ii). Balram Singh
v. Kelo Devi Civil Appeal No.
6733 of 2022
(iii). Paul Rubber Industries
Private Limited v. Amit Chand
Mitra, SLP(C) No. 15774 of
2022.
12. The embargo put on registration
of documents would not override the
statutory provision so as to confer
title on the basis of unregistered
documents with respect to
immovable property. Once this is the
settled position, the respondent could
not have maintained the suit for
possession and mesne profits against
the appellant, who was admittedly in
possession of the property in
question whether as an owner or a
licensee.
13. The argument advanced on
behalf of the respondent that the
judgment in Suraj Lamps &
Industries (supra) would be
prospective is also misplaced. The
requirement of compulsory
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 16 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:59:55 +0530
registration and effect on non-
registration emanates from the
statutes, in particular the Registration
Act and the Transfer of Property Act.
The ratio in Suraj Lamps &
Industries (supra) only approves the
provisions in the two enactments.
Earlier judgments of this Court have
taken the same view.”
9.4. Furthermore, in M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula,
this Court undertook a comprehensive analysis of the
statutory provisions and precedents, and reaffirmed that an
unregistered agreement to sell does not and cannot by itself
create or transfer any right, title, or interest in immovable
property. The following paragraphs are pertinent in this
regard
“47. It is a settled law that a transfer of immovable
property by way of sale can only be by a deed of
conveyance. An agreement to sell is not a
conveyance. It is not a document of title or a deed
of transfer of deed of transfer of property and does
not confer ownership right or title. In Suraj Lamp
(supra) this Court had reiterated that an agreement
to sell does not meet the requirements of Sections
54 and 55 of the TPA to effectuate a ‘transfer’.
…
51. Section 17(1)(b) prescribes that any document
which purports or intends to create, declare, assign,
limit or extinguish any right, title or interest,
whether vested or contingent, of the value of one
hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable
property is compulsorily registerable. Whereas,
section 49 prescribes that the documents which are
required to be registered under Section 17 will not
affect any immovable property unless it has been
registered.
….
53. Even from the combined reading of the POA
and the agreement to sell, the submission of the
appellants fails as combined reading of the two
documents would mean that by executing the POA
along with agreement to sell, the holder had an
interest in the immovable property. If interest had
been transferred by way of a written document, it
had to be compulsorily registered as per Section
17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. The law recognizes
two modes of transfer by sale, first, through a
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 17 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
17:00:02 +0530
registered instrument, and second, by delivery of
property if its value is less than Rs. 100/-.”
25. From the above-referred-to judgments and the discussion
above, it is lucid that by an agreement to sell, no right or title
in the property may be conveyed to another person; therefore,
merely on the basis of Ex. PW1/2 or Ex. PW1/4, no right
could have been transferred to the defendant no. 1 by Mohd.
Danish. Furthermore, Ex. PW1/2 contains that Mohd. Danish
claimed himself as the owner of the property, which is not
correct. Not only this, but on page 02 of the Ex.PW1/2, Mohd.
Danish had assured that the title of the property is clear and
there are no encumbrances on it whatsoever. Though, legally
he could have not assured to the defendant no.1 as he himself
did not hold any title in the suit property. The same is
reproduced here as under, in verbatim
“That the first party has assured the second party that the
property which is the subject matter of this agreement is
free from all sorts of encumbrances, such as sale, gift,
mortgage, transfer, lien, charges, burden, decree, disputes,
litigation, injunction, notice, legal flaws, legal
complications etc., in the said property and there is no other
legal defect in the ownership and title of the First party in
respect of the said property and the first party is fully
empowered and competent to sell, convey and transfer the
same unto the second party….”
26. Furthermore, a review of the agreement to sell dated
11.05.2007, Ex. PW1/P1, indicates that while it granted
Mohd. Danish the authority to enter into the agreement to sell,
it stipulated that the sale deed in favour of Mohd. Danish
would only be executed upon the full payment of the
remaining consideration. It has neither been claimed nor is
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 18 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
17:00:09 +0530
there any evidence on record that Mohd. Danish has paid the
entire remaining consideration for the property, of which the
suit property is a part. Consequently, it is abundantly clear
that Mohd. Danish possessed no right, title, or interest in the
property.
27. The evidence presented by defendant no. 1 makes it
evident that he was entirely cognizant of the defect in the title
held by Mohd. Danish regarding the property in question from
the outset of the transaction. He has seen the agreement to sell
dated 11.05.2007, Ex. PW1/P1, which was executed between
Mohd. Danish and Sh. Ajit Kumar, the defendant no. 2. Ex.
PW1/P1 clearly states that Sh. Ajit Kumar is the owner of the
property in question, and that the sale deed in favour of Mohd.
Danish would only be executed after the complete payment of
the sale consideration.
28. In the cross-examination conducted on 31.01.2018 (page
2), PW1 conceded that Mohd. Danish had informed him that
Sh. Ajit Kumar was the owner of the suit property. The
relevant portion of the same is reproduced here as under, in
verbatim
“Danish had told me and from the agreement also it was
clear that Mr. Ajeet Kumar is the owner of the suit
property.”
29. Further, on 03.08.2017, during cross-examination,
defendant no.1 admitted that prior to entering into the
agreement to sell dated 19.04.2008, he saw the ownership
documents of the suit property, and he only made the payment
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 19 of 36
SANDEEP Digitally signed by
SANDEEP KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.31
SHARMA 17:00:15 +0530
of the earnest money after it. The relevant portion of the same
is reproduced here as under, in verbatim
“I have seen the document of the ownership of the
defendant No.1 and after being satisfied of the document, I
paid the amount.”
“Mohd. Danish had shown me the title documents of the
suit property to me prior to entering the document dated
19.04.2008. Mohd. Danish had shown me an agreement
which he had entered into with one Mr. Ajeet Kumar.”
30. Moreover, during the cross-examination on 14.11.2017
the defendant no. 1 also admitted that in Ex.PW1/P1 it has
specifically been mentioned that the owner of the property is
Sh. Ajit Kumar. The relevant portion of the same is
reproduced here as under, in verbatim
“It is correct that it is mentioned in the agreement dated
11.05.2007 that firm Ajeet Kumar Dhiraj Kumar is the
absolute owner of the property bearing number D-6/60,
Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi- 110007.”
31. The testimony of defendant no. 1 makes it abundantly
clear that he entered into the agreements to sell Ex. PW1/2
and Ex. PW1/4 with a thorough understanding that Mohd.
Danish did not hold the absolute title to the suit property. It is
acknowledged by defendant no. 1 that the true owner of the
suit property is Sh. Ajit Kumar, and therefore, Mohd. Danish
had no entitlement or title to the suit property that would
authorize him to transfer it to defendant no. 1.
32. It is well-established that by an agreement to sell, no right
or title may be conveyed in the immovable property to
someone else. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment
tilted as ‘Babasaheb Dhondiba Kute vs Radhu Vithoba Barde,
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 20 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
17:00:24 +0530
2024 INSC 122′ held that the conveyance by way of sale
would take place only at the time of registration of a sale deed
in accordance with Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Until such registration is completed, no conveyance can be
considered to have occurred. Consequently, it is abundantly
clear that the unregistered agreements to sell dated 19.04.2008
and 15.04.2011, Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/4, cannot, under any
circumstances, establish or convey any rights, title, or interest
in favour of defendant no. 1.
33. In the absence of a registered sale deed for the suit
property in his name, Mohd Danish did not possess any rights
or interests in it, which precluded him from transferring any
interest to defendant no. 1. Mohd. Danish could not have
conferred any rights to defendant no. 1 concerning the suit
property; this is also evidenced by the fact that Mohd. Danish
had also filed a suit against the admitted owner, Sh. Ajit
Kumar, for the specific performance of the agreement to sell
dated 11.05.2007. The court dismissed Ex. PW1/P1, and
Mohd. Danish did not pursue an appeal against the dismissal
of his suit; therefore, the judgment has become final. The fact
that Mohd. Danish filed a suit is sufficient to indicate that he
had no rights in the suit property, and his attempts to secure
such rights were unsuccessful; thus, Mohd. Danish remained a
person without rights in the suit property.
34. It is an admitted fact that the owner of the suit property
was Sh. Ajit Kumar, and since no sale deed was executed in
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 21 of 36
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
17:00:31 +0530
favour of either Mohd. Danish or defendant no. 1 by the
original owner, it stands to reason that, without a registered
conveyance or sale deed, defendant no. 1 cannot be conferred
any rights to the suit property. Additionally, the agreements to
sell Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/4, which defendant no. 1 has
relied upon to claim ownership, cannot, under any
circumstances, be deemed as documents that would facilitate
the transfer of any rights, interests, or title in the suit property
to another party.
35. In order to refute the claim made by defendant no. 1, the
plaintiff has relied on Ex. PW1/A, a sale deed dated
24.04.2014, which was registered on 26.04.2014, executed
between the admitted owner, defendant no. 2, Sh. Ajit Kumar,
and Ex. PW1/C, the registered sale deed executed on
21.06.2006 by Sh. Raj Baboo Nischal, through whom Sh. Ajit
Kumar purchased the suit property.
36. The previous paragraphs, which include the testimony of
defendant no. 1, clearly indicate that defendant no. 1 has
conceded that Sh. Ajit Kumar was the owner of the suit
property when Mohd. Danish entered into the agreements to
sell Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/4; therefore, there is no
disagreement regarding Sh. Ajit Kumar’s ownership of the suit
property, and thus, only Sh. Ajit Kumar had the right and
authority to convey it to another individual.
37. It is also well-established that any right in the suit
property may only be transferred by the registered sale deed
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 22 of 36
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.31
SHARMA 17:00:39 +0530
or conveyance deed; therefore, in the absence of any
registered deed, the defendant no. 1 cannot claim any right,
title, or interest in the suit property. Though, there is a
registered sale deed (Ex. PW1/A) in favour of the plaintiff
executed by the admitted owner of the suit property, Sh. Ajit
Kumar, i.e., defendant no. 2; therefore, Section 50 of the
Registration Act provides that registered documents relating
to land shall have priority over the unregistered documents.
The same is reproduced here as under,
“50. Certain registered documents relating to land to take
effect against unregistered documents.–
(1) Every document of the kinds mentioned
in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of section 17, sub-
section (1), and clauses (a) and (b) of section 18,
shall, if duly registered, take effect as regards
the property comprised therein, against every
unregistered document relating to the same
property, and not being a decree or order,
whether such unregistered document be of the
same nature as the registered document or not.
xxxxx….
38. The agreement to sell Ex. PW1/P1 was unable to pass any
title to Mohd. Danish, and therefore, he could not have
conferred any rights in the suit property to defendant no. 1.
Moreover, as stipulated by Section 50 of the Registration Act,
the registered sale deed Ex. PW1/A shall take precedence over
all other unregistered documents associated with the suit
property. Thus, the sale deed Ex.PW1/A was executed by the
owner of the suit property, Sh. Ajit Kumar, who is defendant
no. 2, in favour of the plaintiff and shall have priority over
Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/4.
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 23 of 36
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.31
SHARMA 17:00:48 +0530
39. As a result, the plaintiff holds a registered sale deed in his
favour, executed by the real owner before a competent officer,
and this deed is still valid as it has not been canceled by any
court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, there is no doubt
that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the suit property
and has priority over the rights of any other individual
concerning the same.
40. Taking into account the discussion above and the principle
of the preponderance of probabilities, this Court is deciding
this issue as the plaintiff holds a registered sale deed Ex.
PW1/A in his favour and in contrast, the defendant no. 1 has
only two agreements to sell, Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/4,
which were executed by an incompetent person, namely
Mohd. Danish, in favour of the defendant no. 1, hence, these
agreements devoid of substance and legal validity concerning
the conveyance of rights in the property that is the subject of
the suit. Accordingly, the present issue is decided in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1.
Issue no.3
3. Whether plaintiff has filed the suit in collusion
with defendant no. 2, if so, its effects? OPD 1
41. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no. 1.
The defendant no. 1 has averred that the present suit has been
filed by the plaintiff in collusion to usurp his hard-earned
money. Nevertheless, there is no evidence on record that
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 24 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
17:00:54 +0530
could even prima facie support the assertions of collusion
between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 in relation to the
filing of the suit. Furthermore, defendant no. 1 has not
adequately detailed how and under what conditions the
alleged conspiracy was devised against him by the plaintiff
and defendant no. 2.
42. It is important to note that defendant no. 1 made the
payment to Mohd. Danish for the acquisition of the suit
property, rather than to the plaintiff or defendant no. 2.
Additionally, defendant no. 1 has not clarified how Mohd.
Danish is related to the parties involved in the suit and how he
became implicated in the purported collusion between the
plaintiff and defendant no. 2.
43. Indeed, Mohd. Danish, to whom the first defendant paid
the earnest money, has undeniably initiated legal proceedings
against the second defendant, Sh. Ajit Kumar, seeking specific
performance of the sales agreement dated 11.05.2007, Ex.
PW1/P1. Consequently, it is illogical to suggest that an
individual engaged in litigation against another would
simultaneously participate in a conspiracy that resulted in the
institution of the present suit.
44. Moreover, it is perplexing how the suit could be deemed
collusive when it is acknowledged that the first defendant
possesses only two agreements to sell, Ex. PW1/2 and Ex.
PW1/4, executed by a person without rights in the property,
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 25 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
17:01:01 +0530
Mohd. Danish, who lacked any rights or interests in the
property in question.
45. Given that the defendant no. 1 has not presented any
substantial evidence to support the claim of collusion, and
during the cross-examination of PW1 and D2W1, only a
suggestion was made to the witnesses labeling the suit as
collusive, which was subsequently denied by the witnesses,
and no additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, has
been provided to substantiate the defense of collusion, the
mere assertions of the first defendant cannot be considered.
Therefore, this Court resolves this issue in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1.
Issue no.4
4. Whether the sale deed dated 24.04.2014, vide
which plaintiff has claimed to have purchased the
suit property from defendant no. 2 is a sham
transaction? If so, its effects? OPD 1
46. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no. 1.
Barring bald averments and some questions during the cross-
examination as to payment of the consideration of
₹.14,00,000/- by the plaintiff to defendant no. 2 for the
purchase of the suit property, defendant no. 1 has failed to
lead any evidence to prove the same. Nothing has come on
record by which it may be established that the sale deed
Ex.PW1/A was not registered before the competent officer or
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 26 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
17:01:10 +0530
the parties to the document did not have the competency to
execute the same.
47. In addition, it is acknowledged that the defendant no. 2
was the rightful owner of the property in question, and he
admitted during his testimony as D2W1 that he executed the
sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, in the absence
of any evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to question
the legitimacy of the duly registered sale deed, Ex. PW1/A.
48. The defendant no. 1 has failed to adequately explain what
right he has to dispute the registered sale deed, especially
since he has no claim to the property in question. The
documents upon which defendant no. 1 bases his claim
consists of two agreements to sell, Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/4,
executed by an individual who had no rights to the property.
Thus, it is unfathomable that how a person could gain any
rights to immovable property merely through the execution of
two agreements to sell by someone who is not authorized to
do so.
49. Moreover, it is crucial to highlight that the plaintiff
acquired the property following the dismissal of the specific
performance suit brought by Mohd. Danish against the true
owner, defendant no. 2. Hence, it is clear that at the time of
the registration of the sale deed for the property, there were no
pending litigations. Furthermore, the matter of insufficient
consideration cannot be raised, as it is solely the owner’s
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 27 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
17:01:20 +0530
prerogative to decide the price at which he is willing to sell
his property to another party, as long as it is not below the
prescribed circle rate.
50. It has not been proved that no consideration was made to
the defendant no. 2 by the plaintiff, and the same may be
corroborated by the copy of the passbook Ex. PW1/E, as it is
mentioned in it that on 24.04.2014 the plaintiff made the
payment of ₹.10,00,000/- to the defendant no. 2. Further, the
defendant no. 1 has also failed to bring anything on record
that may provide that the suit property was sold off below the
circle rate prevalent in that area at the relevant times. With
these findings and observations, this Court is also deciding the
issue against the defendant no. 1 and in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no.5
5. Whether the defendant no. 1 delivered the
possession of the suit property by Mohd. Danish?
OPD1
51. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no. 1.
The defendant no. 1 has the claim that he is in the possession
of the suit property and the same was handed over to him by
the defendant no. 2. The claim of possession of the defendant
is ex-facie liable to be rejected for the reasons that Mohd.
Danish was neither an owner nor had the valid documents in
his name on the basis of which he could have conveyed the
suit property to the defendant no. 1.
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 28 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
17:01:28 +0530
52. As previously mentioned, pursuant to Section 17 of the
Registration Act, it is obligatory that any right or interest in
immovable property can only be transferred via a registered
deed and not by any other method. It is acknowledged that the
agreements to sell Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/4 were executed
between defendant no. 1 and Mohd. Danish; therefore, any
conveyance is inherently flawed in law and thus illegal and
non est.
53. Furthermore, should it be assumed that Mohd. Danish
transferred possession of the roof, which constitutes the suit
property, to defendant no. 1, the well-established legal
principle would still apply, stating that no individual can
convey a better title than what they possess. Given that Mohd.
Danish did not possess rights to the suit property, it is
perplexing how he could have legally and validly conferred
any rights in the suit property to defendant no. 1. In light of
the aforementioned principle that a person without rights in a
property cannot further convey it, it can be concluded that if
possession was indeed transferred to the plaintiff by Mohd.
Danish, such transfer is illegal and devoid of any rightful
basis.
54. Furthermore, the defendant no. 1 cannot save his alleged
possession with the claim that Mohd. Danish had given him
the possession of the suit property, as in order to save the
possession, the mandate of Section 53A of the Transfer of
Property Act (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘TPA’) has to be
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 29 of 36
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
17:01:35 +0530
complied with, which provides that there must be an
agreement in writing and possession must be given in
pursuance of that agreement, but Section 17A of the
Registration Act provides that any agreement to sell that falls
under Section 53A of TPA must be registered, which is
reproduced as under
Section 17- [(1A) The documents containing contracts
to transfer for consideration, any immovable property
for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) shall be registered if
they have been executed on or after the commencement
of the Registration and Other Related laws
(Amendment) Act, 2001 (48 of 2001) and if such
documents are not registered on or after such
commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the
purposes of the said section 53A.]
55. It is admitted that the agreements to sell Ex.PW1/2 and
Ex.PW1/4 are not registered documents but merely notarized;
consequently, defendant no. 1 cannot invoke the doctrine of
part performance to justify his possession as delineated under
Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Thus, the issue
of Mohd. Danish transferring possession of the suit property
to defendant no. 1 lacks merit, given that the title and interest
in the suit property were conveyed by defendant no. 2, the
rightful owner. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether defendant
no. 1 acquired possession of the suit property from Mohd.
Danish, as such possession would still be deemed
unauthorized.
56. Moreover, the testimony of defendant no. 1 asserting that
possession was transferred to him by Mohd. Danish on
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 30 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
17:01:42 +0530
19.04.2008, coinciding with the execution of the agreement to
sell Ex. PW1/2, is fraught with doubts. This is particularly
evident as defendant no. 1 has stated in paragraph 28 of the
plaint of the suit for specific performance against Mohd.
Danish which he has filed that there are apprehension
regarding the potential transfer of possession of the suit
property by Mohd. Danish, leading defendant no. 1 to seek an
interim injunction against him.The same is reproduced here
asunder,
“That as there is apprehension that the defendant might part
with the possession of the suit property to a third arty
which will lead to multiplicity of litigation.”
57. There exists a well-known adage stating that two opposing
propositions cannot coexist. In the present suit, defendant no.
1 is attempting to assert two conflicting and mutually
destructive pleas, firstly, if the possession was indeed
transferred to him by Mohd. Danish, then there was no
necessity or justification for seeking an interim injunction
against Mohd. Danish because defendant no. 1 was in
possession then the same could not be transferred by Mohd.
Danish.
58. Furthermore, secondly, if the possession was transferred
to him, then the plaintiff’s claim is substantiated. Defendant
no. 1 has not provided an explanation for this inconsistency;
even during the final arguments, no clarification was
presented regarding this issue, despite the plaintiff
emphasizing it as a primary point of contentions during the
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 31 of 36
SANDEEP Digitally
SANDEEP
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.31
SHARMA 17:01:49 +0530
final arguments. Moreover, no additional evidence or
witnesses were presented before the Court to substantiate the
assertion that Mohd. Danish had actually transferred the
possession of suit property to defendant no. 1.
59. It is also imperative to note that in the agreement to sell
dated 19.04.2008 Ex.PW1/2, which serves as the foundation
of defendant no. 1’s entire case, it is explicitly stated that
possession of the suit property shall only be transferred after
the complete and final payment of the sale consideration. This
clearly indicates that possession was not transferred to
defendant no. 1 by Mohd. Danish at the time of or subsequent
to the execution of Ex.PW1/2.The relevant portion of the
same is reproduced (as mentioned in the page-2 of the
agreement) here asunder, in verbatim
“That the First party shall sign and execute a proper sae
deed in respect of the said property in favour of the
second party or their nominee and shall also deliver the
vacant peaceful possession of the property unto the
second party at the time of full and final settlement/
payment.”
(Underline added)
60. Based on the aforementioned observations, this Court has
concluded that, firstly, Mohd. Danish was unable to transfer
possession of the suit property to defendant no. 1, rendering
the possession of defendant no. 1 illegal. Secondly, the
doctrine of part performance as outlined in Section 53A of the
TPA does not assist defendant no. 1, as Exhibits PW1/2 and
PW1/4 were not duly registered, thus contravening Section
17(1)A of the Registration Act.
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 32 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
17:01:58 +0530
61. Moreover, the inconsistent position adopted by defendant
no. 1 in this case and the related case renders it entirely
implausible to assert that defendant no. 1 lawfully took
possession of the suit property; consequently, the court
resolves the present issue against defendant no. 1 and in
favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 6
6.Whether the suit suffers from non-joinder &
mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 1
62. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no. 1,
as he has alleged in the preliminary objections in the written
statement that the plaintiffs have not made Mohd. Danish a
party to the suit. It has been the defendant’s contention that
this omission is fundamental in nature and renders the present
suit defective and non-maintainable. The contentions of the
defendant no. 1 are neither sustainable nor legally tenable. As
the plaintiff is seeking the relief of possession and a
permanent and mandatory injunction against the earlier owner
of the suit property, i.e., defendant no. 2, and the owner of the
second floor, i.e., defendant no. 1.
63. At the outset it is apposite to discuss in brief the concept
of necessary party. A ‘necessary party’ in a civil suit is one
without whose presence the court cannot effectively and
completely adjudicate the matter in controversy. The test is
whether, in the absence of such a party, a binding and
enforceable decree can be passed and whether the lis can be
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 33 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
17:02:09 +0530
finally resolved. In the present case, when it has already been
held by the Court while deciding the previous issues that
Mohd. Danish is a person who doesn’t have any right/interest
in the suit property, then it may safely be concluded that his
presence is not essential for the effective disposal of the suit.
64. The reliefs sought by the plaintiff can solely be enforced
against the actual owner, namely, defendant no. 2, or against
the individual contesting the relief, specifically, defendant no.
1. The outcome of the remedies sought by the plaintiff is not
contingent upon the inclusion of Mohd. Danish, as he is
neither the proprietor nor the individual in possession of the
suit property; thus, there is no justification for his inclusion as
a defendant in the case.
65. The defendant no.1 entered into an agreement to sell
Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/4 with Mohd. Danish, in which it was
mentioned that Mohd. Danish is the real and absolute owner
of the suit property; therefore, in Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/4
neither the plaintiff nor the defendant no.2 was any of the
parties and was completely a stranger to the same. Then the
plaintiff is not obliged to arraign a stranger in the litigation
with whom he had no transactions whatsoever. With these
observations, this Court is reaching a decision that the present
suit may effectively be disposed of even in the absence of
him, and his non-impleadment is neither necessary nor fatal
for the suit; accordingly, the issue is decided against the
defendant no.1 and in favour of the plaintiff.
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 34 of 36
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.31
SHARMA 17:02:19 +0530
Issues no. 7, 8 and 9
7. Who is entitled to have his lock on the entry gate to
the suit property? OPP & D1
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory
injunctions, as prayed in the plaint? OPP
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual
injunctions, as prayed in the plaint? OPP
66. The onus to prove the issues is on the plaintiff, and these
issues are interrelated and may be resolved through common
findings; consequently, this Court finds it suitable to address
all three issues concurrently. It has been previously
determined that Ex.PW1/A, the registered sale deed of the suit
property executed in favour of the plaintiff by the true owner,
defendant no. 2, is a legitimate document.
67. Furthermore, in the connected suit involving the parties to
this case, this Court has also established that the plaintiff (in
the current suit) is the rightful owner of the suit property. The
agreements to sell, Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/4, executed by
Mohd. Danish, who possessed no title or rights to the suit
property, in favour of defendant no. 1, cannot be considered
when assessing the rights of defendant no. 1 in the suit
property.
68. Therefore, given that the plaintiff holds the registered sale
deed of the suit property, Ex. PW1/A, which has already been
affirmed as valid by this Court while deciding previous issues,
the plaintiff, being the rightful owner of the suit property, is
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 35 of 36
Digitally signed
SANDEEP by SANDEEP
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
17:02:27 +0530
entitled not only to secure it with a lock but also to prevent
others from interfering with his peaceful enjoyment of the
property. An individual lacking any rights to the suit property
cannot hinder the true owner from utilizing or enjoying the
property unless such use contravenes the law. With these
findings, it is concluded that all three issues are resolved in
favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 1.
Relief
69. The plaintiff is capable of substantiating his case; thus,
this Court is adjudicating the present suit without costs, in
favour of the plaintiff and hold him entitled to the relief of
possession of the property in dispute, along with a mandatory
and permanent injunction.
70. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
71. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly, after the payment
of the deficient court fees.(If any)
72. File be consigned to record room.
SANDEEP Digitally
by SANDEEP
signed
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
17:02:33 +0530
Pronounced in the open Court (Sandeep Kumar Sharma)
on July 31st , 2025 DJ-02/CENTRAL/THC/DELHI
CS DJ No. 611350/2016 CNR No. :DLCT01-000719-2014 Rajan Bhasin Vs Sudhir Kalra and Ors. Page No. 36 of 36