Delhi District Court
Sanjay Kumar vs Rakesh Sehgal on 4 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH.SHAILENDER MALIK,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02, NORTH
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS (COMM.) 531/2022
CNR No.DLNT010078872022
Rakesh Sehgal
s/o Sh.Sunder Singh Sehgal
r/o 91, Zone H-4/5, Suvidha Kunj,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034. ...Plaintiff
Versus
Sanjay Kumar
s/o Sh.Ram Dhan
r/o B-4/45C, Keshav Puram,
Delhi-110035. ...Defendant
Date of Institution : 01.09.2022
Date of judgment reserved : 19.03.2026
Date of judgment : 04.04.2026
AND
CS (COMM.) 142/2024
CNR No.DLNT010031922024
Sanjay Kumar
s/o Sh.Ram Dhan
r/o B-4/45C, Keshav Puram,
Delhi-110035. ...Plaintiff
Versus
Rakesh Sehgal
s/o Sh.Sunder Singh Sehgal
r/o 91, Zone H-4/5, Suvidha Kunj,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034. ...Defendant
Date of Institution : 06.03.2024
Date of judgment reserved : 19.03.2026
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.1 Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.04
16:12:29 +0530
Date of judgment : 04.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. By this common judgment this court proceeds to
decide the civil suit CS (COMM.) No.531/2022 titled as Rakesh
Sehgal vs. Sanjay Kumar as well as civil suit bearing CS
(COMM.) No.142/2024, which was initially filed as counter
claim titled as Sanjay Kumar vs. Rakesh Sehgal.
Plaint in CS (COMM.) 531/2021
2. Facts as per the pleadings in Civil Suit (COMM.)
No.531/2022 (main suit) are that the plaintiff Rakesh Sehgal filed
the commercial suit seeking relief of specific performance of an
agreement dated 16.10.2021 as well as relief of permanent
injunction. It is stated in the plaint that plaintiff and defendant
had entered into an agreement dated 16.10.2021 in respect of a
commercial property bearing no. 117 from Bottom to Top with
roof right measuring 250 sq. m. in Block-J, Sector-4, Bawana
Industrial Complex (hereinafter referred to as suit property). It is
stated that defendant despite receipt of entire sale consideration
from plaintiff has resiled from the above said agreement and is
now claiming it to be a loan transaction. Whereas defendant has
received the entire amount as a sale consideration, documents
effecting transfer were also executed and got registered as per
law in the manner as it was done by earlier owners. It is alleged
that defendant is trying to wriggle out from the agreement to sell
dated 16.10.2021 fraudulently.
3. It is stated in the plaint that plaintiff is in business of
manufacturing of wires and cables. Defendant is also in the
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.2 Digitally signed
SHELENDER by SHELENDER
MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:12:35 +0530
business of electrical trade. As such both of them were known to
each other for many years. Suit property was initially allotted by
DSIIDC (Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited) to Harbans Singh Sethi and Iqbal Singh
Sethi (partners of M/s Kay Tent Industries) vide allotment letter
dated 17.10.2003. Possession was also handed over to allottees
under a letter dated 13.11.2003. The perpetual lease deed in
respect of suit property was also executed on 11.03.2015 in
favour of allottees Harbans Singh Sethi and Iqbal Singh Sethi. It
is stated that thereafter Habans Singh Sethi and Iqbal Singh Sethi
transferred the suit property to one Pawan Garg for sale
consideration of Rs.29,80,000/- vide different documents such as
Agreement to Sell, Will, GPA, SPA, Affidavit, NOC, Indemnity
Bond etc. all dated 30.03.2015.
4. It is further stated in the plaint that above said
Pawan Garg, thereafter transferred the suit property to one
Sudhanshu Makkar for sale consideration of Rs.29,90,000/- by
various documents such as Agreement to Sell, Will, GPA, SPA,
Affidavit, NOC, Indemnity Bond etc. all dated 02.11.2015.
Sh.Sudhanshu Makkar then further transferred the suit property
to one Amit Goel for consideration of Rs.48,00,000/- by way of
documents i.e. Agreement to Sell, Will, GPA, SPA, Affidavit,
NOC, Indemnity Bond etc. all dated 01.03.2019. Said Amit Goel
further transferred the suit property to defendant Sanjay Kumar
for consideration of Rs.49,00,000/- with similar documents as
referred to above all dated 19.09.2020.
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.3
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.04
16:12:40 +0530
5. It is stated that on 03.10.2021 defendant approached
plaintiff to offer to sell the suit property. Defendant stated to
plaintiff that he is owner of the suit property and since his
business is running into losses on account of slump in the
business due to Covid-19 situation. Plaintiff stated to have
visited the suit property on 05.10.2021 and during that visit
defendant showed to plaintiff title documents of suit property and
told the plaintiff that the suit property is free from any charges,
encumbrances, litigation etc. and further informed the plaintiff
that it would be available for transfer upon requisite permission
to be obtained from DSIIDC.
6. Plaintiff stated to have relied upon representation of
defendant and agreed to purchase the suit property for sale
consideration of Rs.49,50,000/-. Accordingly on 16.10.2021
plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement to sell for
purchase of suit property. It is stated that plaintiff paid the entire
sale consideration amount to defendant by way of RTGS and that
fact is mentioned in the agreement. Defendant stated to have
further executed a registered GPA in favour of plaintiff, in respect
of suit property, along with other documents such as SPA,
Receipt, Affidavit etc. It was agreed that sale deed for suit
property would be executed and registered as soon as permission
from the Department/Authority (DSIIDC) would be obtained. It
is further mentioned in the plaint that on the date of execution of
agreement dated 16.10.2021 defendant handed over physical
possession of suit property to plaintiff symbolically, although
documents of possession were executed on the pretext that
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.4
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:12:46 +0530
machinery/equipment of defendant are yet to be removed from
the suit property. Since plaintiff had cordial relation with
defendant, he did not resist for the same.
7. It is stated that defendant despite holding the keys of
the suit property, could not arrange steps for machinery and
sought time for removal of the machinery, to which plaintiff
agreed. In the meantime plaintiff stated to have applied for
water/ electricity connection in his name and got the electricity
connection on 27.10.2021. It is stated that defendant on
15.12.2021 again asked the plaintiff for three more days to
remove machinery and equipment and to hand over the
possession and keys of the suit property. However defendant did
not hand over possession of the suit property and kept on
delaying for same on one pretext or other. It is stated in plaint
that when no response was received from defendant despite
multiple requests, plaintiff visited the suit property on 25.12.2021
and was shocked to see that cousin of the defendant was sitting in
the suit property, he called upon the defendant and plaintiff asked
for giving of possession of the same. Defendant came to the suit
property with his brother Ravi and raised an illegal demand of
Rs.15 lakhs from the plaintiff for hand over of possession.
8. Defendant allegedly threatened plaintiff for dire
consequences and trapping the plaintiff and suit property into
false cases. It is alleged that defendant had malicious intentions
for not performing the agreement to sell and to hand over
possession to the plaintiff. Under such illegal design, defendant
allegedly issued a legal notice dated 27.12.2021, wherein
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.5
Digitally signed
by
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.04
16:12:50 +0530
defendant made false allegations against the plaintiff and one
Sunil Harjai (witness to the document of agreement to sell)
claiming that defendant had never sold the suit property and
rather it was a loan transaction, further the registered GPA/Will
were claimed to have already been cancelled on the back of
plaintiff.
9. It is stated in the plaint that since plaintiff has
already paid the entire sale consideration under agreement to sell
dated 16.10.2021 and plaintiff is read to perform his other part of
agreement to sell, it was for defendant to obtain permission for
transfer of suit property from DSIIDC, for which plaintiff is also
ready to bear the expenses, plaintiff apprehending that defendant
may sell the suit property to third party, first resorted to pre-
institution mediation. It is stated that defendant despite service
of notice failed to participate in pre-litigation mediation. Hence
the suit has been filed seeking decree of specific performance of
agreement to sell dated 16.10.2021 in favour of plaintiff praying
for direction to defendant to hand over possession of the suit
property, plaintiff has further sought decree of permanent
injunction to restrain defendant, his legal heirs, representatives
etc. from selling, mortgaging, alienating or in any manner
creating third party interest in respect of suit property.
Written Statement
10. After service of summons, defendant put appearance
and filed the WS wherein defendant took the objection that suit is
not maintainable, devoid of cause of action, plaintiff has no locus
to file the present suit. It is pleaded that suit is otherwise not
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.6
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.04
16:12:57 +0530
maintainable in view of Section 41(i) & (j) of Specific Relief
Act. Plaintiff is stated to be guilty of suppressing material facts.
It is stated that suit has been filed only to harass the defendant,
has not been property valued for the purpose of court fee and
jurisdiction, plaint mentions vague and uncertain facts. It is
pleaded that plaintiff is relying upon document which is neither
registered nor properly stamped as per Indian Registration Act
1908 and Indian Stamp Act 1899.
11. It is further pleaded in the WS that true and
necessary facts are that defendant is running its business of
manufacturing home appliances in the name and style of
“AMDO” through a partnership firm namely Tirupati Balaji and
is owner of suit property. Plaintiff and one Sunil Harjai are
indulged in similar business as of defendant and therefore are
known to each other for last ten years. It is stated that plaintiff,
defendant and Sunil Harjai used to give and take amount in cash
dasti to each other, on many occasions and due to passage of time
a trust has developed among themselves. Due to Covid-19
situation, business had slowed down, it is stated that plaintiff and
Sunil Harjai and defendant discussed their future business plan at
A-2 Mangolpuri Factory in last week of September 2021 wherein
plaintiff and Sunil Harjai stated to have offered a partnership
business to defendant to earn profit by creating a monopoly in the
market.
12. Plaintiff and Sunil Harjai further told defendant that
they have recently purchased property no.A-10, Mangolpuri
Industrial Area, admeasuring 600 sq. mtr. To establish a big
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.7 Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.04
16:13:01 +0530
manufacturing unit and offered defendant to become partner in
that firm. It is pleaded that plaintiff and Sunil Harjai offered
defendant a friendly loan without interest of Rs.50 lakhs, if
defendant agrees to do partnership business with plaintiff and
Sunil Harjai. In this regard plaintiff and Sunil Harjai stated to
have asked defendant to execute certain documents as a security
to repay the loan amount. Defendant considering the previous
relation with plaintiff and Sunil Harjai agreed to the offer and
supplied some machines/raw material in plaintiff’s factory
premises no.A-10, Mangolpuri Industrial Area on 13/14.10.2021.
13. It is stated in the WS that on the same day defendant
received a call from Sunil Harjai, thereupon on 16.10.2021
defendant went at the residence of plaintiff along with title
documents of suit property, which plaintiff and Sunil Harjai took
as a collateral security for the loan amount. It was agreed that
those title documents of suit property would be returned to
defendant after repayment of loan amount. Defendant stated to
have agreed to hand over complete chain of original title
documents of suit property to plaintiff and Sunil Harjai because
of cordial relations with them for ten years. It is stated that
thereafter both plaintiff and Sunil Harjai took defendant to Noida
where defendant stated to have signed, put thumb impressions on
number of already prepared documents. Plaintiff and Sunil
Harjai stated to have also taken the defendant to Registrar
Office,where also defendant without suspecting anything,
appeared before Registrar and executed documents by putting
signature/thumb impression on certain papers. On 16.10.2021
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.8 Digitally signed
SHELENDER by SHELENDER
MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:13:07 +0530
plaintiff and Sunil Harjai deposited a cheque of Rs.49,50,000/-,
which was credited to the account of defendant.
14. It is further stated in the WS that plaintiff and Sunil
Harjai thereafter started spreading rumor in the market by
claiming that they have purchased the suit property from the
defendant. Defendant when made an inquiry in this regard from
plaintiff and Sunil Harjai, they did not give a proper reply.
Defendant thereafter withdrew entire machine and raw material,
which was sent to plaintiff’s Mangolpuri factory for partnership
business. Defendant stated to have asked plaintiff and Sunil
Harjai to return all title documents of suit property as well as
documents which were signed and executed by defendant on
16.10.2021. Defendant informed that he is ready to return the
amount of Rs.49,50,000/- as defendant is no more interested in
partnership business. It is pleaded that plaintiff and Sunil Harjai
agreed to return all documents, however pretending that since
documents are lying bank locker, which can be operated by wife
of plaintiff who was stated to be out of Delhi and asked the
defendant to wait for some time. It is pleaded that defendant
waited for some time, however after sometime when defendant
again requested plaintiff and Sunil Harjai to return title
documents as well as other executed documents, they kept on
avoiding to return on one pretext or other.
15. It is pleaded that defendant was shocked to know
that plaintiff in connivance with Sunil Harjai got the electricity
meter of suit property changed in his name and got it installed.
Defendant thereafter stated to have cancelled/revoked GPA, Will
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.9 Digitally signed
SHELENDER by SHELENDER
MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:13:11 +0530
on 23.11.2021 to save the suit property as executed by defendant
earlier on 16.10.2021 in favour of plaintiff. It is pleaded that
plaintiff has given a false complaint against the defendant with
SHO PS Bawana on 14.01.2022 and further filed complaint in
the of ld. MM. It is stated that it is rather plaintiff and Sunil
Harjai who committed fraud and cheating with defendant by
intentionally deceiving the defendant to hand over the title
documents of suit property and to execute and sign certain
documents in favour of plaintiff. It is pleaded that defendant had
actually taken a friendly loan which he is wiling to return to
plaintiff. It is alleged that on 25.12.2021 plaintiff and Sunil
Harjai with hired goons illegally trespassed in the factory/suit
property and gave beating to the workers employed there.
Defendant called the police by dialing 100 number, police arrived
and took CCTV camera footage which plaintiff removed after
entering into the suit property. It is stated that SHO of PS
Bawana however has not taken any appropriate steps as per law.
16. While denying the case of plaintiff on merits in
totality, it is denied that any agreement to sell dated 16.10.2021
was entered into between plaintiff and defendant. It is not
dispute that plaintiff and defendant were known to each other for
last many years, however it is denied that defendant on
03.10.2021 approached the plaintiff and offered to sell the suit
property. It is also denied that plaintiff agreed to purchase the
suit property for total consideration of Rs.49,50,000/- and that
entire sale consideration was paid by plaintiff. It is pleaded that
in fact as per circumstances already pleaded above a sum of
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.10 Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:13:17 +0530
Rs.49,50,000/- was taken as a friendly loan and not towards
payment of sale consideration. While denying the other
averments of the plaint, it is specifically denied that defendant
handed over physical possession of suit property to plaintiff
symbolically.
Replication
17. Replication to the WS was filed wherein the facts as
stated in the plaint were reiterated and pleadings of the defendant
were controverted. It is stated that suit of the plaintiff is liable to
be decreed as defendant has completely taken an unreliable and
unsustainable defence as there is no challenge to agreement to
sell, GPA and other documents.
18. Since along with the WS defendant had also filed a
counter claim, same was separately identified as a separate suit
no.142/2024.
Issues
19. On the basis of pleadings as come on the judicial
record of CS (COMM.) 531/2022, ld. Predecessor of this court
framed following issues on 14.03.2023 :
(i) Whether the suit is hit by the Provisions of Clause
(i) and (j) of Section 41 of Specific Relief Act, as claimed
by the Defendant in the written statement? OPD
(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to Decree of specific
performance of Agreement to Sell dated 16.10.2021
executed between the parties, as prayed for? OPP
(iii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to Decree of
perpetual injunction, as prayed for? OPP
(iv) Relief.
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.11 Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.04
16:13:21 +0530
Facts/plaint in CS (COMM.) 142/2024
20. As noted above defendant Sanjay Kumar filed
separate suit seeking relief of declaration and mandatory
injunction. As per the plaint of suit filed by defendant Sanjay
Kumar it is stated that defendant Rakesh Sehgal and Sunil Harjai
are indulged in the similar business as of plaintiff herein for last
ten years and since plaintiff, defendant and Sunil Harjai used to
give and take amount dasti cash amount to each other, due to
passage of time they developed a good friendship and trust
among themselves.
21. It is stated that when on account of Covid-19
situation there was slow down in the business, plaintiff,
defendant Rakesh Sehgal and Sunil Harjai discussed a future
business plan with plaintiff Sanjay Kumar under which they
stated to have offered to plaintiff Sanjay Kumar a partnership
business with them to earn profit by creating a monopoly in the
market. It is stated in the plaint that defendant and Sunil Harjai
stated to have purchased a property no. A-10, Mangolpuri
Industrial Ara of 600 sq. mtr. And claimed that they are planning
to establish a big manufacturing unit there and offered the
plaintiff Sanjay Kumar to be the partner in the firm as their
experience is required. It is further stated that defendant Rakesh
Sehgal and Sunil Harjai offered plaintiff Sanjay Kumar a friendly
loan without interest of Rs.50 lakhs if he agrees to to partnership
business with defendant and Sunil Harjai.
22. It is stated that plaintiff Sunil Kumar agreed for the
same, considering the trust and old relation with defendant and
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.12
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:13:27 +0530
Sunil Harjai. It is stated that on 14/15.10.2021 plaintiff received
a call where upon on 16.10.2021 defendant and Sunil Harjai
transferred the amount of Rs.49,50,000/- by way of cheque to the
account of plaintiff Sanjay Kumar. It is stated that thereafter
defendant and Sunil Harjai started spreading rumor in the market
by claiming that they have purchased the property of plaintiff
SanjayKumar i.e. property no. 117, Pocket J, Sector 4, Bawana
Industrial Complex.
23. It is further mentioned in the plaint that when
defendant and Sunil Harjai did not give a proper response,
therefor plaintiff stated to have withdrew his entire machinery
and raw material which he sent at Mangolpuri Factory of
defendant for partnership business. It is further stated that
plaintiff Sanjay Kumar asked the defendant and Sunil Harjai to
return all the original chain of title documents of suit property as
well other documents signed and executed by plaintiff on
16.10.2021 as plaintiff offered to return the amount of
Rs.49,50,000/- and informed that he is no more interested to
carry on any business in partnership. It is stated that defendant
and Sunil Harjai agreed to return all the documents, however
pretending that since documents are lying in the bank locker,
which can be operated by wife of defendant who is not in Delhi,
therefore asked the plaintiff to wait. It is stated that despite
waiting for some time when defendant and Sunil Harjai failed to
return titled documents and other documents executed by him on
one pretext or other, plaintiff was shocked to come to know that
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.13 Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.04
16:13:31 +0530
defendant got the electricity meter changed in his name in respect
of suit property.
24. It is pleaded that plaintiff has already cancelled/
revoked GPA, Will dated 16.10.2021 on 23.11.2021. It is alleged
that on 25.12.2021 defendant and Sunil Harjai brought some
goons and trespassed into the suit property and beaten workers
working in the factory of the plaintiff herein. It is stated that on
the same day plaintiff filed a written complaint with the SHO of
PS Bawana as well to DCP (Outer) on 10.05.2022 but not action
was taken, rather plaintiff thereafter got issued a legal notice
dated 27.12.2022 calling upon the defendant to return all the
original title documents of suit property as well as other
documents executed by plaintiff on 16.10.2021 as plaintiff
expressed his willingness to return the amount of Rs.49,50,000/-
to defendant. It is stated that defendant Rakesh Sehgal filed a
false complaint dated 14.01.2022.
25. It is alleged that it is defendant and Sunil Harjai who
committed fraud with plaintiff by deceiving the plaintiff to hand
over title documents of suit property and induced him to sign and
execute certain documents in their favour. Hence suit was filed
seeking declaration to declare the execution of documents and
transaction dated 16.10.2021 between plaintiff and defendant to
be null and void in respect of suit property as well as further
directing the defendant to return/ hand over original chain of title
documents of suit property as well as documents signed/executed
by plaintiff on 16.10.2021 and hand over documents in
possession of defendant in respect of suit property.
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.14 Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.04
16:13:37 +0530
WS to Suit No.142/2024
26. Defendant namely Rakesh Sehgal filed the WS
taking the objection that present suit does not qualify to be a suit
involving “commercial dispute”, as such suit is not maintainable.
It is stated that relief as sought in the present plaint is not
maintainable as challenge to the documents executed by plaintiff
is without any substance. It is stated that plaintiff is a
businessman in the trade for numerous years, plaintiff having
purchased the property a year go i.e. on 19.09.2020 from earlier
owner by executing documents like Agreement to Sell, Will, GPA
and agreed to sell the suit property to defendant herein by
executing similar documents on 16.10.2021. It is stated that
earlier documents of ownership/transfer of title have also been
handed over to defendant by the plaintiff. Execution of those
documents has not been challenged.
27. While denying the case of plaintiff herein on merits,
all the allegations as made in plaint of Suit No.142/2024 have
been specifically denied. It is denied that the amount of
Rs.49,50,000/- was taken by the plaintiff Sanjay Kumar as a loan.
It is reiterated that in fact the transfer of amount of
Rs.49,50,000/- in favour of plaintiff herein was towards payment
of sale consideration under agreement to sell dated 16.10.2021. It
is pleaded that thereafter plaintiff herein executed other
documents of transfer of title such as registered GPA, Will,
Affidavit, Receipt etc. showing that in fact it was a sale
transaction and not a loan transaction.
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.15 Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.04
16:13:40 +0530
Replication
28. Replication to the WS of defendant was filed by the
plaintiff wherein the pleadings of the defendant were
controverted and case of the plaintiff has been reiterated.
Issues
29. Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated
25.07.2024 framed following issues in CS (COMM.) 142/2024 :
(1) Whether the Plaintiff/Counter Claimant is entitled to
Decree of declaration with respect to the documents and
transaction dated 16.10.2021 between the Plaintiff and
Defendant in respect of the Property No. 117 measuring 250
sq. mtr. Pocket-J, Sector-4, Bawana Industrial Complex,
Delhi-110039? OPP
(2) Whether the Counter Claimant is entitled for return
of entire chain of documents dated 16.10.2021 with respect
to the aforesaid Property No. 117 admeasuring 250 sq. mtrs.
Pocket-J, Sector-4, Bawana Industrial Complex, Delhi-
110039 in possession of the Respondent herein? OPP
(3) Relief.
30. On the same day i.e. 25.07.2024 ld. Predecessor of
this court noted that since both the suits are between same
parties, in order to avoid conflicting judicial opinion both the
suits bearing CS (COMM.) 531/2022 and CS (COMM.)
142/2024 were ordered to be clubbed together for disposal and
therefore it was also ordered that evidence in respect of both the
suits shall be recorded in suit no.531/2022. On the same day ld.
Local Commissioner was appointed for recording of evidence.
31. I have heard Sh.Sudeep Singh, ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff in Suit No.531/2022 and counsel for defendant in Suit
No.142/2024 as well as Sh.S. Khan, ld. Counsel for defendant in
Suit No.531/2022 and counsel for plaintiff in Suit No.142/2024.
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.16
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:13:46 +0530
I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf
of ld. Counsel for parties. My findings on each issues are as
following :
Issue No.(i) of Suit No.531/2022
(Whether the suit is hit by the Provisions of Clause (i) and (j)
of Section 41 of Specific Relief Act, as claimed by the
Defendant in the written statement? OPD)
32. It appears from the record that above noted issue
was framed on the objection of defendant that suit is barred under
Section 41 clause (i) and (j) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 as
plaintiff has concealed certain material facts. Although no
specific argument has been made on this issue, even otherwise it
be noted that Section 41 of Specific Relief outline instances
when equitable relief of injunction can be declined by the court.
The primary purpose of Section 41 is to restrict the court from
granting injunction relief, which in any manner as enumerated in
the provision, interfere with judicial, legislative or public
processes or when other equally efficacious remedy exist. It be
noted that the essentially in the suit no.531/2022 plaintiff is
seeking relief of specific performance which is otherwise not
governed by Section 41 of Specific Relief Act, no doubt beside
that plaintiff has further sought relief of permanent injunction,
however in the absence of any specific arguments or the evidence
pointed out during arguments to show that bar of Section 41 (i) or
(j) of Specific Relief Act would attract, present issue stands
decided against the defendant and in favour of plaintiff.
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.17
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.04
16:13:50 +0530
Issue no. (ii) of suit no.531/2022
(Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to Decree of specific
performance of Agreement to Sell dated 16.10.2021 executed
between the parties, as prayed for? OPP)
33. Onus to proving this issue is on the plaintiff of suit
no.531/2022, as noted above plaintiff has examined one witness
in the above noted suit i.e. plaintiff himself as PW1. In affidavit
of PW1, plaintiff Rakesh Sehgal has stated all those facts as are
mentioned in the plaint. PW1 testifies that plot no.117, Sector 4,
Pocket J, Industrial Area, Bawana was allotted by DSIIDC to
Harbans Singh Sethi and Iqbal Singh Sethi (partners of M/s Kay
Tent Industries), by allotment letter dated 17.10.2003 and
possession letter dated 13.11.2003 Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2
respectively. PW1 says that plan for the said plot was approved
by the MCD vide Ex.PW1/3 and perpetual lease was executed on
11.03.2015 in respect of above mentioned property in favour of
above mentioned allottees which is Ex.PW1/4.
34. PW1 says that above said suit property was
transferred by Harbans Singh Sethi and Iqbal Singh Sethi to one
Pawan Garg for consideration of Rs.39,80,000/- by agreement to
sell, Will, registered GPA, SPA, affidavit, NOC, Indemnity Bond
all dated 30.03.2015 collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/5. PW1
says that said Pawan Garg further transferred the above said
property to Sudhanshu Makkar by executing similar documents
as noted above all dated 02.11.2015 collectively exhibited as
Ex.PW1/6. PW1 says that said Sudhanshu Makkar again
transferred the suit property to one Anil Goel in the same manner
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.18 Digitally signed by
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:13:56 +0530
by similar documents all dated 01.03.2019 for Rs.48 lakhs which
are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/7.
35. PW1 further testifies that Amit Goel further
transferred the suit property to defendant Sanjay Kumar for sale
consideration of Rs.49 lakhs by similar documents like
agreement to sell, Will, registered GPA, SPA, affidavit,
Indemnity Bond all dated 19.09.2020, which are Ex.PW1/8 and
payment receipt is Ex.PW1/9 and agreement to sell is
Ex.PW1/10. PW1 further says that on 03.10.2021 defendant
approached PW1 with the offer to sell the suit property as his
business was running in losses on account of slump in the market
due to onset of Covid-19 outbreak. PW1 says that he visited the
suit property on 05.10.2021, during that visit defendant showed
him title chain of documents of suit property. PW1 says that
relying upon representation given by defendant he agreed to
purchase the suit property from defendant for Rs.49,50,000/- and
therefore on 16.10.2021 PW1 and defendant entered into and
executed an agreement to sell. PW1 says that defendant had
purchased the suit property from earlier owner, by executing
various documents for creating a title in his favour, which
defendant agreed to sell to plaintiff by executing similar
documents.
36. PW1 further says that he paid the entire sale
consideration to defendant by way of RTGS. PW1 says that sale
deed of the property was agreed to be executed and registered as
soon as the permission from DSIIDC would be obtained and
permissible. PW1 referred to registered GPA, agreement to sell,
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.19
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:14:00 +0530
payment receipt all dated 16.10.2021 as Ex.PW1/11 to
Ex.PW1/13 respectively and registered Will dated 24.09.2021 is
Ex.PW1/14, power of attorney and affidavit dated 16.10.2021 are
Ex.PW1/15 and Ex.PW1/16 respectively. PW1 says that on
16.10.2021 defendant handed over the physical possession of the
suit property to him symbolically, although machinery/
equipments of defendant were yet to be removed from the suit
property.
37. PW1 says that despite holding the keys defendant
failed to manage his space for machinery and sought more time
for the removal of the same from the suit property, to which PW1
agreed and in the meantime plaintiff got the electricity
connection energized in his name on 27.10.2021, the bills is
Ex.PW1/17. PW1 says that defendant on 15.12.2021 again asked
from PW1 for three more days to remove his machinery/
equipments and to hand over the key of the suit property,
however defendant failed to do so despite multiple requests made
by PW1. PW1 says that on 25.12.2021, when he visited the suit
property he was shocked to see that defendant’s cousin was
sitting in the premises of the suit property, when PW1 asked for
the possession of the same, defendant and his brother made
illegal demand of Rs.15 lakhs for handing over of possession.
PW1 referred to legal notice dated 27.12.2021 Ex.PW1/18 and
further testified regarding giving of complaint dated 14.01.2022
at PS Bawana and filing of complaint in the court which are
Ex.PW1/19 and Ex.PW1/20.
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.20
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.04
16:14:06 +0530
38. Having examined the evidence, before this court
discuss the relevant portion of cross examination of PW1, taking
the examination in chief of PW1 on the face of it, admittedly the
suit property was allotted to original allottees namely Harbans
Singh Sethi and Iqbal Singh Sethi by documents Ex.PW1/1 to
Ex.PW1/4. Perusal of perpetual lease deed in favour of original
allottees Ex.PW1/4 would show that suit property was allotted to
the allottees on lease hold basis, subject to lessee making
payment of premium/rent regularly. Clause 5(a) of perpetual
lease deed Ex.PW1/4 would show that one of the condition was
that lessee would not sell, transfer or assign his lease hold right
or part with the possession the whole or any part of the suit in
question to anyone except with the previous consent in writing
from lessor (DSIIDC), which lessor was stipulated to be entitled
to refuse permission in its absolute discretion.
39. Thus it is clear from the document Ex.PW1/4 that
there was only lease hold right created in favour of original
allottees, with the rider that original allottees were not supposed
to sell their interest/right in the property to third party without
prior approval from DSIIDC. However without taking prior
permission from DSIIDC original allottees sold the property to
one Pawan Garg by documents i.e. agreement to sell, Will,
registered GPA, SPA, affidavit, NOC, Indemnity Bond etc.
collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/5, said Pawan Garg further sold
to one Sudhanshu Makkar vide documents Ex.PW1/6, said
Sudhanshu Makkar sold to one Amit Goel by documents
Ex.PW1/7 and Amit Goel transferred to defendant by similar
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.21
Digitally signed
SHELENDER by SHELENDER
MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:14:10 +0530
documents i.e. agreement to sell, Will, registered GPA, SPA,
affidavit, NOC, Indemnity Bond all dated 19.09.2020 Ex.PW1/8
to Ex.PW1/10. Whereas such transfer of lease hold right in the
suit property was not with the prior permission from DSIIDC.
As such the transfer of any right in the lease hold property, had
never been lawfully transferred from original allottees to
different transferees including defendant.
40. Since the very basic condition of perpetual lease
deed clause 5(a), was not complied with, it can safely be
concluded that there was no legal right, title or interest stood
transferred lawfully to defendant in respect of suit property.
Therefore defendant was also not having any lawful right or
interest to further transfer it to plaintiff, when prior permission
from DSIIDC was never taken by the original allottees when they
transferred it to other transferees.
41. Now if we examine the case of plaintiff/PW1 further
and examine the documents executed between plaintiff and
defendant which are registered GPA, agreement to sell, payment
receipt all dated 16.10.2021, Ex.PW1/11 to Ex.PW1/13 and
power of attorney and affidavit dated 16.10.2021 are Ex.PW1/15
and Ex.PW1/16 respectively as well as registered Will dated
24.09.2021 which is Ex.PW1/14.
42. Perusal of deed of sale agreement Ex.PW1/12 would
show that first party (defendant Sanjay Kumar herein), is stated
to be owner in possession of suit property, on the basis of chain
of documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/10, whereas it is admitted
position that it was lease hold property allotted by DSIIDC, ther
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.22
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:14:15 +0530
was no proprietary right in the suit property in favour of previous
transferors to defendant. Lease hold rights were never converted
to ownership rights, therefore defendant had never any
proprietary/ownership right in the suit property. Further the
averment of Ex.PW1/12 shows that first party (defendant) agreed
to sell and transfer to plaintiff (second party) regarding which it
is mentioned that sale consideration amount has been received
completely, in consideration thereto first party transfers, conveys
all the right, title and interest in the suit property to second party.
43. Thus from bare reading of Ex.PW1/12 would show
that the sale agreement was executed for transferring the title in
the suit property, which was never with defendant, moreover
even taking the document on the face of it, since the document
purports to transfer a ownership right/interest in the suit property
from first party to second party with handing over of possession
of the suit property to plaintiff, such document dated 16.10.2021
Ex.PW1/12 was required to be registered in terms of the
provisions of Section 17 of Registration Act, if it was an
agreement to sell, coupled with handing over of possession in
part performance of the same, still it was required to be
registered under Section 17(1A) of Registration Act.
44. It is established law that any document containing a
contract to transfer right, title or interest in immovable property
for consideration, required to be registered. If such document is
for the purpose of Section 53A of T.P. Act, mentions that
possession was handed over, still it is required to be registered
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.23
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.04
16:14:19 +0530
(reference in this regard can be given in S. Kaladevi vs. V.R.
Somasundaram and ors. (2010) 5 SCC 401).
45. If we examine the effect of non-registration of the
document Ex.PW1/12 for the purpose of relief of specific
performance as sought by the plaintiff, no doubt even if the
documents of sale are unregistered, still plaintiff can seek relief
of specific performance, on the basis of such unregistered
documents. That aspect has been even laid down in the above
referred judgment of Apex Court in S. Kaladevi‘s case (supra).
Reference can also be given of another judgment in Kalavkurti
Ventakata Subbaiah vs. Bala Gurappagari Guruvi Reddy
(1999) 7 SCC 114. Even if the suit for specific performance can
be maintained, on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell,
however it is still to be seen by the court, upon examining the
recital of the sale documents, regarding sustainability of claim of
the plaintiff.
46. As noted above this court has already noted that
DSIIDC had not allotted any proprietary interest in the suit
property to its original allottees. Rather under the lease deed
Ex.PW1/4 a bar was laid down for transferring even the lease
hold rights, without prior permission from DSIIDC. This court
has already concluded above that when such prior permission
was not taken, successive transfers of even a lease-hold interest
in the suit property from original allottees to defendant, was not
in accordance with law or terms of the lease deed. Beside this,
original of the documents i.e. registered GPA, agreement to sell,
payment receipt all dated 16.10.2021, Ex.PW1/11 to Ex.PW1/13
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.24
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:14:26 +0530
and power of attorney and affidavit dated 16.10.2021,
Ex.PW1/15 and Ex.PW1/16 respectively as well as registered
Will dated 24.09.2021 which is Ex.PW1/14 have not been placed
on record by the plaintiff, for reasons best known to him. Mere
exhibition of these documents, in itself is not proof when as per
PW1 and the averment of Ex.PW1/12 original chain of title
documents were handed over to plaintiff. Moreover plaintiff has
examined only himself as PW1, no attesting witness to the above
said documents has been examined by plaintiff to prove even the
copy of these documents.
47. Moreover above referred documents are
inadmissible for another reason i.e. document of deed of sale
agreement Ex.PW1/12 has been executed on a plain paper,
whereas it was required to be executed on a document duly
stamped. Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act 1899, clearly provides
that no instrument chargeable with stamp duty, shall be admitted
in evidence for any purpose by any person by having law or
consent of parties authority to receive it in evidence. As per
Schedule I attached with the Stamp Act, clause 23 and 23A
provides for the amount of stamp duty payable regarding
documents of conveyance of title of immovable property, in
terms of Section 17 of Registration Act or Section 17(1A) of
Registration Act respectively. Admittedly document Ex.PW1/12
has not been stamped as required u/s 35 of the Act and therefore
is inadmissible, rather ought to have been impounded at the time
when the same has been tendered in the evidence. Be that as it
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.25
Digitally signed
by
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.04
16:14:30 +0530
may, document being copy and on insufficiently stamped, is
certainly inadmissible in evidence.
48. Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the
question of unregistration of documents and insufficient stamp,
has already been taken into consideration, while deciding the
application of defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC which
was declined. However this court finds that the findings given
on application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was without taking
any evidence on the record and therefore was only an observation
of ld. Predecessor of this court, only on the basis of the averment
of plaint and documents annexed and same cannot be considered
to be final verdict on that aspect.
49. Another important aspect of the matter to be
examined is that the possession of the suit property according to
plaintiff was symbolically handed over and further as per clause
6 of Ex.PW1/12 it was agreed that sale deed would be executed
after obtaining sale permission of the property from department/
authority concerned. Taking such stipulation of Ex.PW1/12 on
the face of it when there was no proprietary interest allotted by
DSIIDC, there could not have been any agreement between
plaintiff and defendant for sale of the suit property and
permission if any from DSIIDC could have been only for transfer
of lease hold rights. Even that permission has never been
obtained from DSIIDC at any point of time.
50. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that non obtaining of
permission from DSIIDC for effecting the sale deed, shall not bar
the filing of suit for specific performance. Reliance in this regard
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.26
Digitally signed
SHELENDER by SHELENDER
MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:14:36 +0530
has been placed on judgment in Vishwa Nath Sharma vs.
Shyam Shankar Goel and ors. (2007) 10 SCC 595, B.L. Joshi
and ors. vs. Nitin Jain and ors. 2012 DHC 2622 and Savida
Sadh vs. Narender Pal Malik 2012 DHC 3595 (page no.10 of
written submission of plaintiff).
51. Having examined such submission in the light of the
evidence and the judgments relied upon, this court has already
noted above that since there was only lease hold right in the suit
property, no sale deed could have been executed and registered as
there was no proprietary interest existing with defendant to
transfer it to plaintiff. Even if it is assumed that suit for specific
performance can be maintained even when the parties have not
taken the prior permission from the authorities for effecting the
sale, but suit cannot be sustained in the peculiar facts of the
present case when there was only lease hold right in the suit
property. Judgments as referred to above, relied upon by plaintiff
are therefore completely distinguishable on facts.
52. Let us examine the case of the plaintiff in the light of
evidence as come on record. PW1 in his affidavit of evidence
has testified that defendant approached him on 03.10.2021, with
an offer to sell the suit property to him and thereafter PW1 stated
to have visited the suit property on 05.10.2021 and during that
visit defendant showed him the original title documents of suit
property. Taking such deposition on the face of it, it is not
understandable as to how the Will Ex.PW1/14 has been executed
on 24.09.2021, when according to PW1 defendant offered for the
first time to sell the suit property only on 03.10.2021. Moving
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.27
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.04
16:14:40 +0530
further to examine the evidence of PW1, witness in his
deposition has stated that registered GPA dated 16.10.2021
Ex.PW1/11 was registered at Noida beside registered Will dated
24.09.2021. On the same day i.e. on 16.10.2021 other documents
such as deed of sale agreement Ex.PW1/12, receipt Ex.PW1/13,
power of attorney Ex.PW1/15, affidavit Ex.PW1/16 were also
executed at Delhi and notarized before Notary Public. First of all
the obvious question arises about the need of getting the GPA
Ex.PW1/11 registered before Sub Registrar Noida. As per the
document both plaintiff and defendant were residents of Delhi,
the property regarding which the documents were being executed
is also situated in Delhi, obvious question arises under which
provision of law the GPA Ex.PW1/11 was got registered in
Noida.
53. In cross examination PW1 testified that in the
morning of 16.10.2021 defendant met him at Pitampura and from
there they had gone to Noida in the car of PW1. PW1 says that
his nephew Sunil Harjai was also accompanying him and reached
Noida at 12 noon/01.00 p.m. PW1 further says that they returned
together in the car of PW1 at Pitampura by 3/4 p.m. and dropped
defendant on his home or factory. PW1 says that they have not
stopped for any tea/snacks or for any other purpose, on their way
back from Noida to Delhi till PW1 dropped defendant to his
home/factory.
54. Taking such evidence of PW1 on the face of it,
question arises if the entire day of 16.10.2021 was spent for
visiting to Noida for getting document Ex.PW1/11 registered,
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.28 Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:14:46 +0530
when other documents Ex.PW1/12 to Ex.PW1/16 were executed
on the same day i.e. 16.10.2021 in Delhi. Such evidence of PW1
certainly create doubtful circumstance surrounding to execution
of all above referred documents executed on 16.10.2021.
55. Thus for reasons as discussed above this court finds
that plaintiff has failed to establish any legal right accrued in his
favour for enforcing any relief of specific performance.
Important in this context is to go through the “prayer clause” in
the plaint, wherein plaintiff has only sought the relief of handing
over of possession by decree of specific performance and has not
sought the relief of getting the sale deed executed under the
agreement to sell dated 16.10.2021. It means plaintiff is seeking
‘possession’ of suit property. Whereas neither documents
Ex.PW1/11 to Ex.PW1/16 confer any type of interest in favour of
plaintiff nor possession was with plaintiff which is against the
averments of Ex.PW1/12. Moreover this court has also found
that documents referred to in affidavit of PW1 being inadmissible
in evidence. Thus for the reasons stated above it can safely be
concluded that plaintiff is not entitled for discretion relief of
“specific performance” of agreement to sell dated 16.10.2021.
Issue accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No.(iii) of Suit No.531/2022
(Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to Decree of perpetual
injunction, as prayed for? OPP)
56. In view of the findings already given on issue no.(ii),
it can safely be concluded that plaintiff has failed to prove the
documents in his favour and thereby also failed to establish any
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.29
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:14:50 +0530
legal right, for which relief of injunction can be granted. As such
this issue also stands decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No.(iv) in Suit No.531/2022
57. In view of findings of this court on the above
mentioned issues, Suit No.531/2022 filed by plaintiff Rakesh
Sehgal stands dismissed.
Findings on the issues of Suit No.142/2024
58. Before this court proceed to examine the issues
framed in Suit No.142/2024, it needs to be clarified here that this
suit was not a counter claim rather a separate suit filed at the
instance of defendant Sanjay Kumar of Suit no.531/2022 against
the plaintiff of that suit i.e. Rakesh Sehgal. Although dispute
involved and parties in both the suit were common. Technically
both are different suits between the same parties, therefore have
been taken up together. This court has already noted above that
in respect of Suit No.142/2024, separate issues were framed on
25.07.2024.
59. It is established law that evidence of one suit, as a
general rule cannot be used in the record of another suit even
when both the suits are between the same parties. Unless it is
formally brought on the record in the later filed suit or where the
court taking into consideration that issues involved in both the
suits between same parties is of opinion that both suit need to be
decided on the common evidence. In this case also ld.
Predecessor of this court in order sheet dated 25.07.2024, had
noted that both the above said suits are being clubbed together
and evidence would be recorded in the record of Suit
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.30
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:14:56 +0530
No.531/2022 which shall also be considered as main suit and
shall be read in the Suit no. 142/2024.
Issue no.1 of Suit no.142/2024
(Whether the Plaintiff/Counter Claimant is entitled to Decree
of declaration with respect to the documents and transaction
dated 16.10.2021 between the Plaintiff and Defendant in
respect of the Property No. 117 measuring 250 sq. mtr.
Pocket-J, Sector-4, Bawana Industrial Complex, Delhi-
110039? OPP)
60. Since the evidence in both the suits have been
recorded together and clubbed, therefore since this court has
already given the findings on the basis of evidence of PW1 of
suit no. 531/2022 that plaintiff of that suit failed to establish any
kind of interest in suit property case even by preponderance of
probability, therefore not entitled to relief of specific
performance. Now if we examine whether the plaintiff of Suit
No. 142/2024 Sanjay Kumar is entitled for decree of declaration
to declare all the documents executed on 16.10.2021 in respect of
suit property to be null and void.
61. Let us examine the evidence of Sanjay Kumar
(DW1) who testified that due to Covid 19 pandemic, business
had slowed down, therefore Rakesh Sehgal and Sunil Harjai
along with Sanjay Kumar, discussed the future plan and in that
discussion Rakesh Sehgal and Sunil Harjai offered DW1 (Sanjay
Kumar) to run partnership business by creating a monopoly in
the market. DW1 says that Rakesh Sehgal and Sunil Harjai told
him that they have purchased recently a property no. A-10,
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.31
Digitally signed
by
SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.04
16:15:00 +0530
Mangolpuri Industrial Area for establishing a big manufacturing
unit.
62. DW1 further testifies that Rakesh Sehgal and Sunil
Harjai offered a friendly loan without interest to him of Rs.50
lakhs, if DW1 agrees to do partnership business. DW1 further
states that considering the business relations and the trust on
Rakesh Sehgal and Sunil Harjai, he agreed the offer and therefore
sent of his machine/raw material in premises of A-10,
Mangolpuri Industrial Area. DW1 further says that on
16.10.2021 at the residence of Rakesh Sehgal, Rakesh Sehgal
and Sunil Harjai asked him that for the purpose of taking certain
collateral security for loan some documents were to be executed
and therefore DW1 stated to have handed over complete chain of
original documents of suit property to Rakesh Sehgal. DW1 says
that both Rakesh Sehgal and Sunil Harjai told him that he would
have to execute and sign some documents which shall be done I
Noida only. DW1 stated to have accepted the same and
thereafter he went along with Rakesh Sehgal and Sunil Harjai to
Noida where 4 to 5 persons were already present there and DW1
because of the trust, put thumb impression on certain documents
already prepared, Rakesh Sehgal and Sunil Harjai took DW1 to
Registrar office where DW1 stated to have also signed on certain
document. DW1 says that on the same day Rakesh Sehgal and
Sunil Harjai deposited Rs.49,50,000/- in his account.
63. DW1 was cross examined at length, however
nothing substantive came in the cross examination of DW1 to
disbelieve the version given by the witness.
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.32 Digitally signed
SHELENDER by SHELENDER
MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:15:06 +0530
64. Having examined the evidence, it is evident that
there is no dispute regarding the execution of documents
Ex.PW1/11 to Ex.PW1/16. In view of findings of this court on
issue no. (ii) of Suit no.531/2022, it has already been concluded
that above mentioned documents did not create any kind of legal
right in favour of plaintiff of Suit No. 531/2022. Therefore
keeping in view evidence of DW1 and finding on above referred
issue, since this court has already noted above that those
documents are otherwise inadmissible in evidence. It has also
come on the judicial record that defendant Sanjay Kumar had
already filed a complaint on 25.12.2021 before the Police which
is Ex.DW1/1 regarding illegal trespass and cheating with Sanjay
Kumar. It can safely be concluded that documents Ex.PW1/11 to
Ex.PW1/16 are non est. Thus this court concludes that
documents Ex.PW1/11 to Ex.PW1/16 being inadmissible in
evidence, executed with suspicious circumstances and therefore
are liable to be declared null and void. Issue accordingly decided
in favour of plaintiff of Suit No. 142/2024.
Issue No.2 of Suit No.142/2024
(Whether the Counter Claimant is entitled for return of
entire chain of documents dated 16.10.2021 with respect to
the aforesaid Property No. 117 admeasuring 250 sq. mtrs.
Pocket-J, Sector-4, Bawana Industrial Complex, Delhi-
110039 in possession of the Respondent herein? OPP)
65. In view of my findings on issue no.1 in Suit
No.142/2024, since this court held the documents Ex.PW1/11 to
Ex.PW1/16 being inadmissible in evidence which have been
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.33 Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date:
2026.04.04
16:15:10 +0530
executed with suspicious circumstances and are declared null and
void, therefore Sanjay Kumar (plaintiff in Suit No.142/2024) is
held to be entitled for return of entire chain of documents dated
16.10.2021 with respect to suit property, which are in possession
of respondent. Issue accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff
Sanjay Kumar.
Issue No.3 in Suit No.142/2024
66. In view of my findings on Issue No.1 in Suit
No.142/2024, since this court has already concluded that
documents Ex.PW1/11 to Ex.PW1/16 are inadmissible in
evidence, non est and executed in suspicious circumstances.
Moreover it is even the case of Rakesh Sehgal that original title
documents were handed over to him by Sanjay Kumar (plaintiff
of Suit No.142/2024), therefore since Suit No.521/2022 of
plaintiff Rakesh Sehgal has already been dismissed, plaintiff of
Suit No.142/2024 is entitled for return of documents.
Accordingly Suit No.142/2024 stands decreed.
67. Decree sheet in both the suits be prepared
accordingly. After due compliance, file be consigned to record
room.
Announced in the open court (Shailender Malik)
on 04.04.2026 District Judge (Commercial)-02
North District, Rohini Courts,
Delhi
Digitally signed
by SHELENDER
SHELENDER MALIK
MALIK Date: 2026.04.04
16:15:16 +0530
_____________________________________________________________
Page No.34
