Mr. Rajinder Chaturvedi vs Smt. Shanti Singh
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 13 February, 2026
rd
Pronounced on: 03 June, 2026
+ RFA 379/2022
MR. RAJINDER CHATURVEDI
S/o Sh. Vansh Raj Chaturvedi
R/o D-193, Kali Mandir,
Gauri Shankar Enclave,
Prem Nagar-III, Kirari, Delhi. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradyumna Singh, Advocate.
versus
SMT. SHANTI SINGH
W/o Sh. Chhote Lal
R/o E-4/107 A, Vinay Enclave,
Laxmi Vihar, Prem Nagar-III, Delhi. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumeet Verma, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vijay Kumar Wadhwa,
Mr. Mahinder Pratap Singh and
Mr. Prince, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as “CPC” ) has
been preferred by the Defendant/Appellant, Mr. Rajinder Chaturvedi against
the Judgment and Decree dated 24.09.2021 , whereby the Suit for Specific
Performance, Possession and Rectification of Agreement to Sell filed by
the Plaintiff/Respondent, Smt. Shanti Singh, has been decreed in her
favour, by the learned Additional District Judge.
RFA 379/2022 Page 1 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
2. The Plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 75903/2016 for
Specific Performance, Possession and Rectification of the Agreement to
Sell.
3. The brief facts as narrated in the Plaint are that, an Agreement to Sell
dated 23.07.2011 was executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, in
respect of Property bearing No. D-193, Near Kali Mandir, admeasuring 36
sq. yards, situated in the area of Village Mundka Colony known as Gauri
Shankar Enclave, Prem Nagar-III, Kirari, Delhi-110086 ( hereinafter
referred to as “Suit Property” ). The said Agreement to Sell, was witnessed
by Mr. Chander Prakash Tripathi and Mr. Arvind Mishra.
4. It is claimed by the Plaintiff that an amount of Rs.2,06,000/- had been
paid to the Defendant, as per the terms of the first Agreement to Sell dated
23.07.2011. It was agreed between the parties that the Sale Documents
would be executed within a period of two years and possession of the Suit
Property shall be handed over to the Plaintiff; till then Rs.3,000/- per month
shall be paid by the Defendant to her, as rent towards the suit property.
5. The Plaintiff asserted that thereafter, a second Agreement to Sell
dated 12.05.2012 was executed between the parties, wherein the payment of
Rs.2,06,000/- was acknowledged and a Receipt dated 12.05.2012 was issued
in favour of the Plaintiff, to which Mr. Chander Prakash Tripathi and Mr.
Arvind Mishra, were the witness.
6. Subsequently, in last week of June 2012, the Plaintiff informed the
Defendant that she had arranged the balance sale consideration of
Rs.2,94,000/- and further requested for execution of the Sale documents.
However, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that he would receive the
said payment on 22.06.2012 and further requested the Plaintiff that she
RFA 379/2022 Page 2 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
should make payment of Rs.2,95,000/-, instead of Rs.2,94,000/-, as the
figure 94 was not lucky for the Defendant, as per Numerology.
7. Thereafter, the parties met on 22.06.2012, and the Plaintiff paid the
balance sale consideration of Rs.2,95,000/-, towards full and final payment
of the Suit Property, for which a Receipt dated 22.06.2012 was issued by the
Defendant and the same was duly witnessed by Mr. Chander Prakash
Tripathi and Mr. Arvind Mishra. It was further claimed that the original
documents of the Suit Property, were handed over to the Plaintiff.
8. However, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff that he was not in a
position to shift out and would hand over the vacant possession of the Suit
Property, on 20.07.2012 . The Defendant also assured that he would execute
all the sale documents and hand over the vacant possession, on the same
day.
9. The Plaintiff, thereafter on 20.07.2012, approached the Defendant for
honouring the commitment under the Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012,
but he again expressed his inability to do so. The Plaintiff was not inclined
to grant any more time to the Defendant, but he had called some neighbours
and persons of locality, who requested the Plaintiff to grant some more time
to the Defendant and they assured that the Defendant would hand over the
Possession of the Suit Property to the Plaintiff on the said date. The
Defendant’s assurances and undertaking were reduced in writing, vide
Assurance Letter dated 21.07.2012 .
10. On 06.09.2012, the Plaintiff in terms of the aforesaid Assurance
Letter, requested the Defendant to honour his part of the Agreement,
however, he again made excuses and thereafter, flatly refused to execute the
RFA 379/2022 Page 3 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
sale documents and declined to handover the vacant possession of the suit
property, with mala fide intention to cheat and defraud the Plaintiff.
11. The Plaintiff asserted that a fraud had been played upon her by the
Defendant, who not only took entire sale consideration of Rs.5,01,000/-, but
also failed to execute the sale documents and hand over the vacant
possession of the Suit Property.
12. The Plaintiff issued Legal Notice dated 07.09.2012 upon the
Defendant; however, he failed to either Reply or comply with the terms of
the Sale Agreement. The Plaintiff claimed that she has already performed
her part of the Agreement to Sell, but the Defendant is defaulting in doing
the needful.
13. The Plaintiff also stated that due to mutual mistake of the parties, the
Plot Number and description of the Suit Property was not mentioned in the
Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012, though it was duly mentioned in the
first Agreement to Sell dated 23.07.2011. The Plaintiff stated that
Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012 was required to be rectified in
mentioning the Plot Number of the Suit Property, which is known to the
Defendant.
14. It is further asserted that, in second week of September, 2012, the
Plaintiff and her husband came to know that the Defendant is trying sell the
Suit Property and was negotiating with the Property Dealers in the area for
the same. The Plaintiff also received telephonic calls from various Property
Dealers from the area. On coming to know the illegal intentions of the
Defendant, she confronted the Defendant on 20.09.2012 , but he got
infuriated and threatened to sell the Suit Property to some third party.
RFA 379/2022 Page 4 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
15. The Plaintiff, thus filed the present Suit for Specific Performance and
Rectification of the Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012 and to pass a
Decree of possession in respect of the Suit Property . As warranted in the
circumstances, it was prayed that in case, specific performance of the
Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012 is not possible, then the Defendant be
directed to refund the entire sale consideration with up to date, interest.
16. The Defendant in his Written Statement asserted that the Plaintiff has
not approached the Court with clean hands and she intends to grab the suit
property on the basis of manipulated documents, in connivance with her
associates namely, Mr. Chander Prakash Tripathi, Mr. Arvind Mishra, Mr.
Ajay Pal and Mr. Madan Lal.
17. The Defendant denied that he ever signed the alleged Agreements to
Sell dated 23.07.2011 or 12.05.2012. It was asserted that the present Suit
was an abuse of process of law and did not disclose any cause of action.
18. On merits , the Defendant denied that the parties ever entered into any
Agreements to Sell, dated 23.07.2011 or 12.05.2012. The Defendant
explained that the Plaintiff along with her associates namely, Mr. Chander
Prakash Tripathi, Mr. Arvind Mishra, Mr. Ajay Pal and Mr. Madan Lal are
property dealers and financers in the vicinity of the Suit Property and they,
in connivance and collusion with each other, grab the property of the poor
persons in the area.
19. It was explained that Mr. Vijay Kumar, elder brother of the
Defendant , was in urgent need of money and had approached Mr. Chander
Prakash Tripathi, who introduced him to the Plaintiff. Mr. Vijay Kumar was
assured by the Plaintiff that she would finance a sum of Rs.1,92,000/- along
with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, for a period of two years, on a
RFA 379/2022 Page 5 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
condition that he should furnish some kind security against the said loan
amount. Since, Mr. Vijay Kumar did not possess any property in his name;
on his request, the Defendant furnished his property documents as guarantee
for the loan, whereafter, the Plaintiff gave a loan of Rs.1,92,000/- to Mr.
Vijay Kumar on 23.07.2011.
20. It was asserted by the Defendant that the Plaintiff had obtained
signatures and thumb impressions of the Defendant’s brother on some blank
papers as well as stamp papers. The Defendant’s brother had been regularly
making payment of interest at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month to the
Plaintiff, which was duly acknowledged by her, in her own handwriting. The
Defendant further asserted that he and his brother paid a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- to the Plaintiff in the month of April 2012, in the presence of
Mr. Arvind Mishra.
21. After receiving part-payment towards the loan, Mr. Vijay Kumar
requested the Plaintiff to return the blank signed papers and stamp papers.
The Plaintiff assured him that all documents would be returned to them after
payment of balance loan amount. The Plaintiff further assured that she
would tear/destroy the blank signed papers as well as stamp papers.
22. However, for the remaining amount, the Defendant would have to
sign fresh blank papers and stamp papers. Accordingly, in good faith, the
Defendant signed fresh blank papers and two stamp papers. All these
documents were signed by Mr. Chander Prakash Tripathi, Mr. Arvind
Mishra, as witnesses.
23. The Defendant further denied the terms of Agreements to Sell dated
23.07.2011 or 12.05.2012. The Defendant also denied the fact that an
amount of Rs.2,95,000/- was to be paid by the Plaintiff or that the Defendant
RFA 379/2022 Page 6 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
was under an obligation to execute the transfer papers of the Suit Property in
favour of the Plaintiff.
24. The Defendant further claimed that he never intended to sell his
property nor had he taken any amount from the Plaintiff. It was claimed that
Plaintiff has fabricated the facts, which had no truth in them. The Defendant
further denied that the Plaintiff had approached him in last week of June
2012 and had tendered the balance amount or that the same was received by
him on 22.06.2012.
25. The Defendant further denied that he sought some time for vacating
the Suit Property or for handing over the possession to the Plaintiff. He
submitted that the alleged Receipt filed by the Plaintiff, was without any
date and signatures of the Defendant. If the version of the Plaintiff was to be
accepted that six months’ time was sought by the Defendant for vacating the
Suit Property, it is not understandable as to why the Plaintiff would
approach the Defendant within one month and make the payment, without
execution of the documents or getting possession.
26. The Plaintiff has manipulated the entire facts, as Defendant never sold
the Suit Property nor received any sale consideration, in terms of alleged
Agreements to Sell dated 23.07.2011 or 12.05.2012.
27. The Defendant further denied that he had given any Undertaking
dated 21.07.2012 or had given any assurance to the Plaintiff to honour the
Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012. The documents produced by the
Plaintiff, were claimed to be fabricated and manipulated.
28. The Defendant claimed t hat fraud has been played and he has been
cheated by the Plaintiff for her personal gains and has mala fidely claimed
that the Defendant received a sum of Rs.5,01,100/- as sale consideration
RFA 379/2022 Page 7 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
towards the Suit Property. It is claimed that the Plaintiff along with her
associates, are property dealers and money lenders. It was therefore, prayed
that the Suit filed by the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed .
29. The Plaintiff in her Replication reaffirmed the assertions as made in
the Plaint and denied the allegations made in the Written Statement.
30. The learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues, on
05.02.2014 :
(1) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be
dismissed as it has not been signed or verified by the
plaintiff? OPD
(2) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not
maintainable as it has not been properly valued for
the purposes of Court Fees and proper advorum
have not been filed as per Court Fees Act? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific purpose
of agreement dated 12.05.2012 directing the
defendant to execute sale deed, GPA etc with respect
to suit property bearing No. D-193, Near Kali
Mandir, measuring 36 sq. yds out of Khasra No.
24/20/2/2, 25/16/1/1 & 25/16/2/2, situated in the
area of Village Mundka? OPP
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of
possession of the suit property in question? OPP
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation, if
specific performance is not granted in his favour
against the defendant with respect to suit property in
question? OPP
(6) Whether plaintiff is entitled to rectification of
documents i.e. agreement to sell dated 12.05.2012 as
prayed for? OPP
RFA 379/2022 Page 8 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
(7) Any other relief.
31. The Plaintiff, Smt. Shanti Singh examined herself as PW-1 and
reiterated her assertions as made in the Plaint. She further relied on
documents exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A to Ex.PW-1/I.
32. PW-2 Mr. C. P. Tripathi and PW-3 Mr. Arvind Mishra, were the
witnesses to the Agreements to sell as well as the Receipts, and proved these
documents.
33. PW-4 Mr. Hari Om, Oath Commissioner , proved the signatures of
the Defendant, in his register.
34. PW-5 , Mr. Ritu Raj, Senior Manager, Corporation Bank, Mundka
Branch produced the relevant bank documents.
35. PW-6 Mr. Ajay Pal deposed about the Assurance given by the
Defendant to the Plaintiff, on 21.07.2012.
36. PW-7 Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Customer Associate, State Bank of India,
Mundka Branch , produced the statement of the Savings Account of the
Defendant.
37. The Defendant, Mr. Rajinder Chaturvedi examined himself as DW-1
and deposed on similar lines, as the defence taken by him in the Written
Statement.
38. The learned Additional District Judge considered the rival
contentions of the parties and held that the Agreement to Sell dated
23.07.2011 Ex.PW-1/D had been duly proved, as the stamp papers, on
which the document was executed, had been purchased by the Defendant
himself. Moreover, the Defendant in his cross-examination as DW-1 , had
RFA 379/2022 Page 9 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
admitted the execution of this document. It was thus, held that Agreement to
Sell dated 23.07.2011 was duly executed between the parties.
39. Likewise, on appreciation of evidence, the learned Additional District
Judge held that, the Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012, which had been
duly witnessed by PW-2 Mr. Chander Prakash Tripathi and PW-3 Mr.
Arvind Mishra, was proved, not only by the Plaintiff, but also by the said
witnesses. The stamp papers for this document as well, had been purchased
by the Defendant. It was thus, held that the Agreement to Sell dated
12.05.2012 had been executed between the parties.
40. Furthermore, the Written Statement, which had been initially prepared
on behalf of the Defendant, though not filed on the judicial record ( Ex.DW-
1/P1 ), was confronted to the Defendant, wherein it was admitted that the
Defendant had received earnest money from the Plaintiff in respect of the
Suit Property and that he had demanded the balance amount from the
Plaintiff. There were specific averments concerning the parties entering into
Agreements to Sell and of receiving the earnest money.
41. The Learned Additional District Judge further referred to the
testimony of PW-4 , Mr. Hari Om, Oath Commissioner , in whose Register
the Defendant had duly signed at the time of notarization of the documents.
42. Though the Defendant had claimed that PW-2 Mr. Chander Prakash
Tripathi and PW-3 Mr. Arvind Mishra were in collusion, but PW-6 , Mr.
Ajay Pal, an independent person living in the locality of the parties, had
proved the Assurance dated 21.07.2012 Ex.PW-1/G given by the
Defendant, and there was no ground to disbelieve him.
43. The defence of the Defendant that a loan was taken by his elder
brother, Mr. Vijay Kumar and on his request the Defendant had furnished
RFA 379/2022 Page 10 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
the document of the Suit Property as a security, was not accepted. It was
thus, held that the Plaintiff was entitled to the Decree of Specific
Performance, in terms of Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012 Ex.PW-1/A ,
therefore, the Defendant was directed to execute the title documents in
respect of the Suit Property and rectification in the Agreement to Sell dated
12.05.2012 Ex.PW-1/A for including the complete details of the Property
was also allowed. The Suit of the Plaintiff was accordingly, decreed vide
impugned Judgment and Decree dated 24.09.2021.
44. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 24.09.2021,
the Defendant has filed the present Regular First Appeal under Section 96
read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the CPC.
45. The Grounds of Challenge are that the impugned Judgement is
based on conjectures and surmises, without appreciation of the evidence and
the pleadings of the parties. The Learned Additional District Judge has not
given any cogent finding on the issue of whether the Defendant had stood as
a guarantor for his elder brother Mr. Vijay Kumar, for having taken a loan of
Rs.1,90,000/- or Rs.2,06,000/-.
46. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were contradictory in their cross-examination
regarding payment of the alleged amount, as well as the place of payment.
The Learned Additional District Judge has wrongly concluded in favour of
execution of Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012. In fact, the Defendant had
neither executed Agreement to Sell dated 23.07.2011 Ex.PW-1/D nor
Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012 Ex.PW-1/A . The signatures and Left
Thumb Impression of the Defendant have evidently been forged and
fabricated on all the documents and the signatures of the Defendant on these
RFA 379/2022 Page 11 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
documents are different from his admitted signatures on his Vakalatnama
and Written Statement.
47. It has not been considered by the learned Additional District Judge
that, Mr. Vijay Bahadur Chaturvedi alias Mr. Vijay Kumar was a necessary
party to the present Suit, as he had allegedly executed the Agreement to Sell
dated 23.07.2011 Ex.PW-1/D along with the Defendant.
48. The Learned Additional District Judge erroneously failed to give a
finding in favour of a loan having been taken by Mr. Vijay Kumar for a sum
of Rs.1,92,000/- and that the Defendant had merely stood as a guarantor.
49. In the end, it was asserted that the Suit Property is a builder property
of two floors over an area of 36 square yards and its value is more than
Rs.30,00,000/-. It is unbelievable that the Defendant would have entered
into any Agreement to Sell towards the Suit Property, for a sale
consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-.
50. The Application of the Defendant dated 20.09.2017 under Section 151
of CPC read with Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to examine by an
Expert or from a Forensic Science Laboratory for establishing the
genuineness of signatures on Ex.PW-1/A to Ex.PW-1/G, has been wrongly
dismissed.
51. It was claimed that there is no proof of payment of Rs.2,95,000/- to
the Defendant by the Plaintiff; hence, it was prayed the impugned
Judgement and Decree dated 24.09.2021 is liable to be set aside.
52. The Defendant as well as the Plaintiff, in their respective Written
Submissions have reaffirmed their respective assertions / defences as have
been discussed above.
RFA 379/2022 Page 12 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
Submissions heard and Record Perused.
53. Essentially, the main issue for adjudication in the present Appeal is
whether the Defendant had executed Agreements to Sell dated 23.07.2011
and 12.05.2012, to sell the suit property, in favour of the Plaintiff.
54. The Plaintiff in her plaint as well as in her testimony as PW-1 had
explained that the Defendant had approached her for sale of Suit Property
and the parties entered into an Agreements to Sell dated 23.07.2011 Ex.PW-
1/D . The sale consideration was agreed as Rs.5,00,000/- after which
Rs.2,06,000/- was paid by the Plaintiff, while the parties agreed for
execution of the sale documents, within a period of two years.
55. It is significant to observe that in this Agreement to Sell dated
23.07.2011 Ex.PW-1/D , specifically stated that the Defendant would sell the
Suit Property for a sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and that Rs.2,06,000/-
had been received by him, while the balance amount of Rs.2,94,000/- was
agreed to be paid within a period of two years. It was further agreed that in
case the money is given before the said time frame; he would hand over the
peaceful possession of the suit property to Plaintiff. It was further agreed
that from the said date, Rs.3,000/- per month shall be payable to the
Plaintiff as rent by the Defendant. In case, there was any delay in making
such payment, they would not have any objection to the same.
56. As per the testimony of PW-1, a second Agreement to Sell dated
12.05.2012 was executed between the parties, wherein the receipt of
Rs.2,06,000/- was acknowledged. It was further mentioned in this
Agreement that the balance amount would be paid up to six months from
the date of execution of the aforesaid Agreement to Sell and that the vacant
position shall be handed over to Plaintiff, on receiving the entire payment
RFA 379/2022 Page 13 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
and complete set of documents pertaining to the Suit Property would also be
handed over to the Plaintiff.
57. The Plaintiff in her testimony had explained that though she had time
of six months to make balance payment of Rs.2,95,000/-, but she
approached the Defendant earlier on 22.06.2012 with the balance sale
consideration and indeed paid the balance amount of Rs.2,95,000/- vide
Receipt dated 22.06.2012 Ex.PW-1/E , which had the signatures of
Defendant and was duly witnessed by PW-2 Mr. Chander Prakash Tripathi
and PW-3 Mr. Arvind Mishra, who also, in their respective testimony, have
endorsed their signatures on the said receipt.
58. The stamp papers for execution of Agreements to Sell dated
23.07.2011 Ex.PW-1/D and 12.05.2012 Ex.PW-1/A had been purchased by
the Defendant. Not only this, these documents were duly witnessed by Mr.
PW-2 Chander Prakash Tripathi and PW-3 Mr. Arvind Mishra, who both,
in their respective testimony, had re-affirmed about the execution of these
two documents, which were signed by the Defendant.
59. Not only this, the Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012 had even been
notarised by an Oath Commissioner, who appeared as PW-4 and produced
his Register Ex.PW-4/A , wherein the notarization of this Agreement to Sell
dated 12.05.2012 was recorded.
60. According to the Plaintiff, after having received the entire sale
consideration of Rs.5,01,000/- on 22.06.2012, the Defendant sought more
time till September, 2012 for vacating the Suit Property and executing the
sale documents. The Plaintiff has deposed that on 21.07.2011. It is only with
the intervention of neighbours and well-wishers that she conceded to grant
RFA 379/2022 Page 14 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
some more time to the Defendant to vacate the Suit Property and he
executed an Assurance Letter dated 21.07.2012 Ex.PW-1/G .
61. Pertinently, this document was witnessed by PW-6 , Mr. Ajay Pal , the
neighbour of the Plaintiff, who in his testimony has corroborated that the
aforesaid Assurance Letter had been prepared by him, in his handwriting
and that the Defendant had undertaken to vacate these Suit Premises and
hand over the possession to the Plaintiff.
62. However, the Defendant had questioned the authenticity of both the
Agreements to Sell and had put a counter defence that in fact, a loan of
Rs.1,92,000/- had been taken by Mr. Vijay Kumar, elder brother of the
Defendant. Since Mr. Vijay Kumar did not own any Property, Defendant
agreed to stand as a guarantor. On this account, they were made to sign on
some blank papers and stamp papers, which admittedly had the signatures of
PW-2 Mr. Chander Prakash Tripathi and PW-3 Mr. Arvind Mishra, as well.
63. From the defence of the Appellant, it emerges that the documents
were executed and he did indeed signed all the documents, on all the
occasions. Once the execution of documents has been established, his
defence which is contrary to the contents of the documents, is not tenable.
64. The Defendant had taken a defence that a loan of Rs.1,92,000/- was
taken by his brother Mr. Vijay Kumar. However, there is neither any
document to this effect nor Mr. Vijay Kumar has been examined by him, in
support of his defence. On the other hand, all the documents, which were
executed between the parties, as discussed above, have been duly proved by
the Plaintiff as well as her witnesses.
65. Another significant fact is that a Written Statement ( Ex.DW-1/P1 )
was prepared on behalf of the Defendant, though the same was not
RFA 379/2022 Page 15 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
submitted in the Court, while the copy of the same had been provided to the
Plaintiff. DW-1 during his cross-examination was confronted with this
Written Statement ( Ex.DW-1/P1 ), wherein, he admitted his signatures on
the same. This Written Statement contained certain admissions of the
Defendant and thus was not filed in Court. In this Written Statement, the
Defendant had also admitted that he had received earnest money from the
Plaintiff in respect of the Suit Property and that he had also demanded
balance amount from the Plaintiff. Thus, there are specific submissions of
the Defendant in regard to selling the Suit Property and receiving earnest
money, in terms of first Agreement to Sell dated 23.07.2011 ( Ex.PW-1/D )
and he had also admitted his signatures on the said Agreement to Sell.
66. It is also pertinent to note that in the Agreement to Sell dated
23.07.2011 Ex.PW-1/D , it was agreed that the Suit Property would be sold
by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for a total sale consideration of
Rs.5,00,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs.2,06,000/- had been received
by the Defendant and the balance amount of Rs.2,94,000- was to be paid
within a period of two years.
67. It was further recorded in Ex.PW-1/D that in case, the balance
amount is paid on an earlier date, the possession of the Suit Property shall be
handed over to the Plaintiff and there would be no objection taken by either
party. It was further recorded that the Defendant and Mr. Vijay Kumar
Chaturvedi, would start paying rent of Rs.3000/- per month to the Plaintiff,
Smt. Shanti Singh from the date of Agreement to Sell dated 23.07.2011
Ex.PW-1/D .
68. In this context, it is also pertinent to refer to another document, i.e.
Ex.PW-1/D1 , which has though been denied by the Plaintiff in his cross-
RFA 379/2022 Page 16 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
examination, but can still be against the Defendant. As per this document,
the rent of Rs.3000/- per month was being paid from July, 2011 till
10.02.2013.
69. Though the Defendant denied the document Ex.PW-1/D1 , but in this
Written Statement he himself had stated about payment of rent of Rs.3,000/-
per month by his brother Mr. Vijay Kumar, from the date of execution of the
Agreement to Sell. It clearly corroborates that the Suit Property stood sold to
the Plaintiff and that Defendant was therefore, liable to pay the rent at the
rate of Rs.3000/- per month for their continued use and occupation charges.
70. These documents and the admissions of the Defendant further
corroborate, not only the execution of the initial Agreement to Sell dated
23.07.2011, but also that the same was implemented as the Defendant had
continued to pay rent to the Plaintiff, till 10.02.2013.
71. The Defendant had taken a plea that PW-2 Mr. Chander Prakash PW-
3 , Tripathi and Mr. Arvind Mishra in fact, were property dealers / financer,
in whose connivance the Plaintiff had manipulated the documents. However,
both Mr. Chander Prakash Tripathi and Mr. Arvind Mishra, in their
respective testimony, have deposed that they both are working as Teachers
and were not property dealers. There is no cross-examination of these two
witnesses, on this aspect, to establish them to be property dealers / financers,
acting in connivance with the Plaintiff. Therefore, this challenge of the
Appellant was dispelled by the testimony of PW-2 Mr. Chander Prakash
Tripathi and PW-3 Mr. Arvind Mishra.
72. The Appellant had taken a defence that the bare perusal of the
documents i.e. Ex.PW-1/A to Ex.PW-1/G, would reflect that they do not
bear his signatures, when compared to his admitted signatures on his Written
RFA 379/2022 Page 17 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
Statement and vakalatnama , etc.. It was vehemently contended that these
documents do not have Appellant’s signatures and cannot be held binding
upon him. It was claimed that he had filed an Application under Section 45
of Indian Evidence Act for sending the documents for forensic examination
of the signatures, which was not even considered.
73. Though, on perusal of the Agreements to Sell etc. with the admitted
signatures of the Appellant, it is evident that there is a marked difference,
but merely because the signatures vary, it cannot be of any consequence, he
himself has admitted his signatures on Ex.PW-1/D i.e. first Agreement to
Sell dated 23.07.2011. He has also admitted his signatures on PW-4/A i.e.
the Register of the Notary Public, wherein he had signed once, at the time of
notarization of the documents. In the light of the overwhelming evidence,
where the Appellant has admitted that he had signed the documents, i.e.
blank and stamped papers, which were duly witnessed by PW-2 Mr.
Chander Prakash Tripathi and PW-3 Mr. Arvind Mishra, the variation in
signatures becomes irrelevant.
74. The Appellant may have put his signatures differently on these
documents, but from the overwhelming evidence, it is firmly established that
there was a transaction between the parties and that the Appellant, who is
admittedly the owner of the Suit Property, had agreed to sell the same to
Plaintiff. All the documents were admittedly, signed by the Appellant and
therefore, difference in signatures is the doing of the Appellant; he by
putting his signatures, cannot now claim the benefit.
75. The learned Additional District Judge in the impugned Judgement, in
detail, has referred to the evidence of the Plaintiff as well as the admissions
made by the Defendant and rightly held that these documents duly had the
RFA 379/2022 Page 18 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21
signatures of the Defendant and there was overwhelming evidence proving
the execution of these documents and the payment of the entire sale
consideration . But the Defendant had failed to honour his part of the
Agreement to Sell and execute the document of title, in favour of the
plaintiff.
76. The Plaintiff had also sought rectification of Agreement to Sell dated
12.05.2012, wherein the Property Number had not been indicated. It is
significant to note that along with this Agreement to Sell, other documents
namely Will, Receipt and GPA had been executed, wherein the property
number has been mentioned. Merely because the Property Number was left
blank in the Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012, is of little consequence for.
it has been established in evidence that the transaction pertained to the Suit
Property Therefore, the learned District Court has rightly permitted the
rectification of Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012 Ex.PW-1/A .
77. Learned District Court has therefore, rightly appreciated the evidence
to allow the Suit of the Plaintiff for Specific Performance as well as for
rectification of the Agreement to Sell dated 12.05.2012.
Conclusion:
78. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that there is no merit in
the present Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed along with pending
Applications.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JUNE 03, 2026/ R
RFA 379/2022 Page 19 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:05.06.2026
16:33:21