Ajay Gupta And Anr vs Shri Prakash Chand Gupta Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision:17 August, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010349042023
+ RFA 720/2023
1. AJAY GUPTA
S/o Late Shri K C Gupta ....Appellant No.1
2. SMT. SANGEETA GUPTA
W/O Sh. Ajay Gupta
st
Both R/o A-23, 1 Floor,
Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar
Complex, Delhi-110092 .....Appellant No.2
Through: Mr. Arup Sinha Adv and Mr. Shivam
Srivastava, Advocate.
versus
1. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND GUPTA
S/o Late Shri K C Gupta ...Respondent No.1
2. SMT. SEEMA GUPTA
W/o Sh. Prakash Chand Gupta ....Respondent No. 2
nd
Both R/o A-23, 2 Floor,
Ganesh Nagar,
Pandav Nagar Complex,
Delhi-110092.
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
RFA 720/2023 Page 1 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
13:09:36
CM APPL. 54761/2026 (to restrain the Respondents)
1. Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) has been filed on behalf of the
Appellants to restrain the Respondents from creating any third party rights
in respect of the First Floor and roof rights of the Third Floor of the Property
bearing No. A-23, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex, Delhi-110092,
during the pendency of the Appeal.
2. The Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants, against the
Judgment and decree dated 24.04.2023,of the learned ADJ, Delhi in Civil
Suit bearing CS No. 102/2017 , whereby the Suit under Order XII Rule 6
CPC of the Plaintiffs for Recovery of Rs.43,68,000/- along with the interest
@9% p.a., has been decreed.
3. The Respondents have filed an Execution Petition No. 83/2023 on
08.07.2023, for execution of the Impugned decree. The Executing Court had
issued Warrants of Attachment on 18.08.2023, 16.10.2023 and 27.10.2023
against the Appellants.
4. The Appellants filed Application bearing CM APPL. 45707/2023 for
stay of the execution proceedings. On 06.11.2023, this Court in the Appeal,
granted a conditional stay subject to deposit of 50% of the decretal amount
along with the up-to-date interest, within six weeks from the date of Order,
and the remaining 50% along with the interest, within the next six weeks.
5. However, due to severe financial constraints, the Appellants were
unable to comply with the condition of deposit of decretal amount, within
the stipulated period. Consequently, on 08.01.2024, the Executing Court
RFA 720/2023 Page 2 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
13:09:36
issued a Notice to the Appellants, to show cause why the coercive steps
should not be taken for the satisfaction of the impugned Judgment and
decree.
6. Thereafter, on the request of the parties, the Executing Court referred
them to Mediation on 02.03.2024 and the matter was adjourned. However,
the fresh Warrants of Possession had again been issued and the matter was
listed for 23.04.2024.
7. The matter could not be settled in the Mediation and fresh Warrants of
Attachment werere-issued,on 23.04.2024.
8. Thereafter, on 06.05.2024, the Appellants handed over the keys of
the Floors of the suit property to the Respondents, and the statement of
the Appellant No. 1, was recorded, accordingly. On 08.05.2024, separate
statements of Appellants and the Respondents, were recorded in regard to
the market value of the subject Floors. Thereafter, the Executing Court
recorded in the Order dated 08.05.2024, that the execution stood satisfied .
9. The matter was listed before the National Lok Adalat on 11.05.2024
wherein it was recorded that the decree stands satisfied and the matter was
disposed of.
10. It is claimed in the Application that the undisputed facts are that the
Respondents had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- to the Appellants,
towards the purchase of the Ground Floor of the suit property and vacant
and peaceful possession had been handed over to the Appellants, by the
Respondents. It is further undisputed that Rs.9,00,000/- were paid by the
Respondents to the Appellants, in furtherance of the said Agreement. The
balance of Rs.21,00,000/-, however,was not paid to the Appellants.
RFA 720/2023 Page 3 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
13:09:36
11. The Appellants have admitted receiving Rs.41,00,000/- out of total
sale consideration of Rs.62,00,000/-i.e. 32,00,000/- for sale of the ground
floor and third floor of the subject property, and Rs. 9,00,000/- in respect of
the said floors.
12. The learned Trial Court has passed a decree for Rs.43,48,000/- along
with the interest @9% p.a. in favour of the Respondents. It is claimed that
the decree suffers from apparent error in computation, as there was no
proper calculation of how the liability of Rs.26,00,000/- as claimed by the
Plaintiffs, could result in a decree of Rs.43,48,000/-. There has been no
proper reconciliation of the amounts already received by the Plaintiffs and
the amount that was legally recoverable from the Appellants.
13. The impugned Judgment and decree has resulted in a manifestly
inequitable and prejudicial situation wherein they have been dispossessed
from the entire share in the suit property against the total consideration of
Rs.41,00,000/-, notwithstanding that pursuant to a Settlement inter se the
parties, the Plaintiffs had agreed to pay a total consideration of
Rs.62,00,000/- in the year, 2012. The Appellants have been completely
deprived of their rights in the subject property, without receiving full
consideration, as agreed between the parties.
14. The Appellants have claimed that there is a genuine apprehension that
the Respondents may create the third-party rights in the suit property. There
is a strong prima facie case in favour of the Appellants inasmuch as the
corresponding portions of the suit property, have been handed over to the
Plaintiffs, yet they have been deprived of the remaining portion, without
payment of the due amount. The Appellants have already been dispossessed
RFA 720/2023 Page 4 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
13:09:36
from the suit property, without payment of the agreed amount and any
further action would aggravate the prejudice caused to the Appellants.
15. Moreover, irreparable loss and injury shall be caused to the
Appellants in case, the Application is not allowed and the Respondents are
not restrained from creating third party rights in the suit property.
Submissions heard and Record perused
16. The brief facts as per the Plaint are that the Plaintiff No. 1 and the
Defendant No. 1 are real brothers. The Plaintiff No. 2 and the Defendant No.
2 are their respective wives. Smt. Shakuntala, the mother of the Plaintiff No.
1 and the Defendant No. 1, was the owner of Property No.A-23, Ganesh
Nagar, Pandav Nagar, admeasuring 100 square yards . She died intestate
on 14.11.2007, leaving behind six legal heirs i.e. the husband, three sons and
two daughters. All children relinquished their share vide Relinquishment
Deed dated 03.08.2010 in favour of the Mr. K.C. Gupta, who then became
the absolute owner of the Property. Mr. K.C. Gupta executed a Will dated
16.12.2010 bequeathing the one shop on the Ground Floor and the
Basement and the entire Second Floor and Third Floor to the Plaintiff No. 2,
while entire First Floor and roof rights of the Third Floor, were bequeathed
to the Defendant No. 2. Mr. K.C. Gupta died on 19.02.2013.
17. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that, Defendant No.1 assessed the market
value of the Property at approximately Rs.1.04 crore and Plaintiff No.1
agreed, in order to maintain peace and harmony in the family, to pay
Rs.52,00,000/- towards the said share. It was agreed that upon receipt of the
said amount, the Defendants would vacate the portion in their possession
and execute a registered sale deed in favour of the Plaintiffs.
RFA 720/2023 Page 5 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
13:09:36
18. On 13.08.2012, the parties allegedly arrived at a further settlement
whereby the total consideration was enhanced from Rs.52,00,000/- to
Rs.62,00,000/- , with the Defendants agreeing to vacate the entire First Floor
and execute the requisite sale documents in favour of the Plaintiffs.
Defendant No.1 allegedly acknowledged in writing the receipt of
Rs.32,00,000/- and a further Rs.9,00,000/-, leaving a balance of
Rs.21,00,000/-.
19. The Plaintiffs further pleaded that upon further efforts by the family
members, a subsequent settlement was arrived at on 25.12.2012, whereby
the Defendants agreed to return Rs.27,00,000/- to Plaintiff No.1 along with
interest. It was further agreed that, in the event of failure to make the
repayment with interest, the Defendants would vacate the First Floor and
execute the requisite sale deed in favour of the Plaintiffs.
20. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2, in their joint Written Statement ,
admitted that the Property was assessed at approximately Rs.1.04 crore and
it was amicably agreed that each side would receive Rs.52,00,000/-, which
was subsequently enhanced to 62,00,000/-. Plaintiff No.1 undertook to pay
the said amount to Defendant No.1, within one year. According to the
Defendants, however, the Plaintiff No.1 failed to make the balance payment
within the stipulated period, despite repeated requests. The Defendants
acknowledged receipt of Rs.32,00,000/- plus Rs.9,00,000/-, aggregating to
Rs.41,00,000/-, as on 14.08.2012 , with the balance remaining payable and
their willingness to quit their rights in the Property upon receipt of the
balance amount out of Rs.62,00,000/- .
21. The learned Trial Court considered the Application under Order
RFA 720/2023 Page 6 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
13:09:36
XII Rule 6 CPC. Relying upon the admission in the Written Statement that
the Defendants had received Rs.41,00,000/- as on 14.08.2012 , the learned
Trial Court held that the Plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for recovery and
accordingly, passed a decree for Rs.43,48,000/- along with interest @9%
per annum from the date of filing of the Suit till realization .
22. The Impugned Judgment thereafter, has been satisfied in the
Execution Proceedings on 08.05.2024, as the possession of the First Floor
and roof rights of the Third Floor was handed over by the Appellants to the
Respondents on 06.05.2024.
23. The suit was for recovery of Rs. Rs.41,00,000/-with interest , but what
has been taken by the plaintiff in the Execution, is the property worth
Rs.62,00,000/- .A question arises as to whether , having obtained possession
of the very property which formed the subject matter of the alternative relief,
the Respondent’s claim to the balance sale consideration out of
Rs.62,00,000/- arising from the same transaction, needs to be yet considered.
24. In the aforesaid circumstances, a prima facie case is made out in
favour of the Appellants, since they ought not to be subjected to the
consequence of having handed over possession of the suit property pursuant
to execution of the decree, while its claim for remaining amount is to be yet
determined. The value of the property taken by the Plaintiffs in the
Execution is more than the decretal amount. The Execution may have been
satisfied, but it is subject to the outcome of the present Appeal. The balance
of convenience, accordingly, lies in preserving the suit property during
pendency of the Appeal.
25. The Respondents/Plaintiffs are, therefore, restrained from creating
RFA 720/2023 Page 7 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
13:09:36
any third-party rights in the suit property, till the disposal of the Appeal.
26. The Application under S.151 CPC is allowed and accordingly
disposed of.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
AUGUST 17, 2026/RS
RFA 720/2023 Page 8 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:31.08.2026
13:09:36