Narender Kumar Gola vs Kishitiz Goel & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 27 March, 2026
th
Pronounced on: 18 May, 2026
+ RFA 472/2022
NARENDER KUMAR GOLA
S/o Sh. Ram Kishan Gola,
R/o S-39, 3rd Floor, Pandav Nagar, Delhi. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Praveen K. Chauhan, Ms. Deepti
Dogra, Ms. Karishma Rao, Mr.
Narender Chauhan and Ms. Garvita
Verma, Advocates.
versus
1. KISHITIZ GOEL
2. NILANSH GOEL
Both S/o Sh. Shiv Sagar Goel,
Both R/o J-3, Leela Homes, Sector-4,
Vaishali, Ghaziabad, U.P. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rishav Dubey and Mr. Manish
Kumar, Advocates.
Mr. Shaad Anwar, Ms. Shabnam
Farooqui and Mr. Parvez Alam, Advs.
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 Plaintiff/Appellant Mr. Narendra Kumar Gola against
the Judgment dated 22.02.2021 and Decree dated 30.10.2021 , whereby the
RFA 472/2022 Page 1 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.05.2026
16:28:38
Suit for Recovery of Rs.11,00,000/- filed by the Plaintiff under Order
XXXVII of CPC, has been rejected , under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, by
the Learned Additional District Judge.
2. The Brief facts as stated in the Plaint, were that Plaintiff was an
absolute owner of Property bearing Plot No.4, Sector 4, Vaishali, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh ( hereinafter referred to as “Suit Property” ). Subsequently, the
Plaintiff entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 14.04.2019 for the Suit
Property for a sale consideration of Rs.1,20,00,000/-, with the Defendants.
However, at the time of execution of the Sale Deed dated 23.09.2019 , the
Defendants cunningly convinced the Plaintiff to show the sale consideration
as Rs.66,12,000/- in the Sale Deed, in order to avoid certain taxes. It is
claimed by the Plaintiff that he could not sense the mala fide and dishonest
intention of the Defendants and fell into their trap.
3. It was further claimed by the Plaintiff that the Defendants had already
paid an amount Rs.1,09,00,000/- and thereafter, issued three post-dated
cheques dated 23.09.2019 , out of which two were of Rs.5,00,000/- each and
one for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, at the time of registration of the documents.
All the aforesaid cheques were towards payment of balance amount of
Rs.11,00,000/- from the actual sale consideration.
4. However, Defendants requested the Plaintiff to deposit the said
cheques for encashment after a period of three months and assured that the
cheques would be honoured at the time of their presentation. However, the
aforesaid cheques, on presentation got dishonoured vide Return Memos
dated 23.12.2019 and 31.12.2019 .
RFA 472/2022 Page 2 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.05.2026
16:28:38
5. The Plaintiff, thereafter, approached the Defendants and apprised
them about the dishonour of said cheques. However, the Defendants kept on
delaying the payment on one pretext or the other.
6. The Plaintiff, thus, served the Defendants with a Legal Notice dated
03.01.2020, to which a Reply dated 14.01.2020 was given wherein the
Defendants claimed that the sale consideration for the Suit Property was
Rs.66,12,000/-, which already stood paid.
7. The Plaintiff thus, filed a Suit for Recovery bearing No. 53/2021
under Order XXXVII of CPC for recovery of Rs.11,00,000/-.
8. The Learned District Judge in the Judgment dated 22.02.2021,
observed that even though in the Agreement to Sell dated 14.04.2019, the
sale consideration was mentioned as Rs.1,20,00,000/-, however, in the Sale
Deed dated 23.09.2019, the sale consideration mentioned was
Rs.66,12,000/-, which implied that there was a novation of the original
Agreement in terms of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 .
9. It was thus, not open to the Plaintiff to claim that the actual sale
consideration was Rs.1,20,00,000/-. Such a contention was in the teeth of
the bar contained in Sections 91 and 92 Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Reference was made to Om Prakash vs. IOCL Officers Welfare Society and
Another , 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6719, Jai Bhagwan vs. Rajesh , 2008 Indlaw
Delhi 419.
10. The Learned District Judge held that once the Sale Deed clearly
reflected that the entire payment of Rs.66,12,000/- had been made by the
Defendants, the claim of the Plaintiff that the cheques had been issued for
RFA 472/2022 Page 3 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.05.2026
16:28:38
payment of the balance sale consideration, was not tenable and the Suit for
Recovery filed by the Plaintiff was rejected.
11. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 22.02.2021 and Decree dated
30.10.2012, the Plaintiff has preferred the present Regular First Appeal
under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC .
12. The grounds of challenge are that in the Agreement to Sell dated
14.04.2019, it was clearly indicated that the sale consideration for the Suit
Property was Rs.1,20,00,000/- and the Respondents had already paid a sum
of Rs.1,09,00,000/- on the date of the execution of the Sale Deed, while the
three cheques had been issued by the Defendants for the balance amount of
Rs.11,00,000/-.
13. If it was to be accepted that the total sale consideration was
Rs.66,12,000/-, there were no requirement for the Defendants to have made
a payment of Rs.1,09,00,000/-, which itself reflects that the actual sale
consideration, mutually agreed between the parties was Rs.1,20,00,000/- and
the three cheques had been issued towards the payment of the balance sale
consideration. In the Plaint, it was specifically pleaded that after
negotiations, the sale consideration for the Suit Property was agreed at
Rs.1,20,00,000/-, though the sale consideration of Rs.66,12,000/- was
mentioned in the Sale Deed, for the Defendants to avoid taxes.
14. It was further contended that the Plaintiff has not been given an
opportunity to explain the actual sale consideration and the Suit has been out
rightly rejected. The Appellant/Plaintiff ought to have been given an
opportunity to the to prove his case and it was only at the stage of evidence
RFA 472/2022 Page 4 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.05.2026
16:28:38
that Sections 91 and 92 of India Evidence Act, 1872 would have come into
the picture.
15. The Learned District Judge has also not considered the fact that the
sale bargain had to be completed within three months from 14.04.2019 to
13.07.2019. However, the Defendants kept on extending the time period on
one pretext or the other.
16. The Learned District Judge therefore, has not appreciated the facts of
the case correctly and has erroneously rejected the Suit of the Plaintiff.
Hence, the impugned Judgments dated 22.02.2021 and Decree dated
30.10.2021is liable to be set aside.
Submissions heard and record perused.
17. It is the case of the Plaintiff himself that, in the Agreement to Sell
dated 14.04.2019 , the sale consideration was mentioned as Rs.1,20,00,000/-.
However, in the Sale Deed dated 23.09.2019 which was executed
subsequently, the total sale consideration was mentioned as Rs.66,12,000/-.
18. The Plaintiff further claimed that a total sum of Rs.1,09,00,000/- had
been paid by the Defendants to him by way of cash and through cheques and
a balance amount of Rs.11,00,000/- remained, for which three cheques had
been given by the Defendants.
19. While the parties may have earlier negotiated for a sale consideration
of Rs.1,20,00,000/- for the Suit Property, as mentioned in the Agreement to
Sell dated 14.04.2019 , however, at the time of execution of the Sale Deed
dated 23.09.2019 , the sale consideration mentioned was Rs.66,12,000/-.
20. In the present case, the Learned District Judge has rightly observed
that from the documents executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants,
RFA 472/2022 Page 5 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.05.2026
16:28:38
it was evident that there was a novation of the contract in terms of Section
62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the final sale consideration as
negotiated was Rs.66,12,000/-.
21. The Learned District Judge has further rightly observed that the terms
of written documents cannot be ignored and overlooked in the light of
Sections 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act. Section 91 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 states that, when the terms of a contract of any other
disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, no
evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract.
22. Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 excludes oral evidence
which states that, when the terms of any such contract, have been proved
according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or
statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument .
23. In the present case, the duly registered Sale Deed was admittedly
executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, wherein the sale
consideration was clearly mentioned as Rs.66,12,000/-. Any evidence that
may be led by the Plaintiff, would be contrary to the registered documents
and will be barred under Sections 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
24. In the case of Om Prakash vs. IOCL Officers Welfare Society and
Another , 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6719, it was held that once a registered Sale
Deed records that the entire agreed sale consideration stands paid, a Suit for
Recovery seeking recovery of balance sale consideration, will be barred by
Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
25. Similarly in Jai Bhagwan vs. Rajesh , 2008 Indlaw Delhi 419, a Suit
seeking Cancellation of a Registered Sale Deed, on the ground that the entire
RFA 472/2022 Page 6 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.05.2026
16:28:38
sale consideration had not been paid, was dismissed by observing that once
the Plaintiff had signed the registered Sale Deed, he cannot seek cancellation
of the same, on the ground that he had not read the contents thereof.
26. It is also pertinent to note that according to the case of the Plaintiff,
there were cash transactions undertaken by the Defendants in order to avoid
payment of tax and duty. Once it is shown that the purpose was to avoid the
liability under law, the Plaintiff cannot seek redressal in the Court for
implementation of the said transactions. Therefore, the Learned District
Judge has rightly rejected the Suit filed by the Plaintiff, as not disclosing any
cause of action.
27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the present
Appeal, which is hereby, dismissed along with pending Applications.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
MAY 18, 2026/ R
RFA 472/2022 Page 7 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ANIL
KUMAR BHATT
Signing Date:18.05.2026
16:28:38