Suraj Pal vs Sat Narayan Bansal And Ors

IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(i) RSA No.5326 of 2019 (O&M)
Suraj Pal . . . Appellant
vs.
Karishma Floricultures Limited and others . . . . Respondents
(ii) RSA No.5336 of 2019 (O&M)
Dev Bhushan Gupta . . . Appellant
vs.
Sat Narayan Bansal and others . . . . Respondents

(iii) RSA No.5337 of 2019 (O&M)
Suraj Pal . . . Appellant
vs.
Sat Narayan Bansal and others . . . . Respondents

(iv) RSA No.5338 of 2019 (O&M)
Dev Bhushan Gupta . . . Appellant
vs.
Karishma Floricultures Limited and others . . . . Respondents

(v) COCP No.1945 of 2025 (O&M)
Bimla Jain . . . Pe 99oner
vs.
Sat Narayan Bansal and another . . . . Respondents

(vi) COCP No.265 of 2025 (O&M)
Prabhat Kumar and another . . . Pe99oners
vs.
Sat Narayan Bansal and others . . . . Respondents

SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
Reserved on: August 11, 2026
Pronounced on: September 02, 2026
Pronounced fully/opera 9ve part : Fully

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued By:- Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gaurav Da #a, Mr. S.K. Tiwani and
Mr. Shubham Goyal, Assis&ng counsels
for the appellant(s) in RSA No.5336 & 5338 of 2019.
Mr. Aashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Varun Aryan Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant(s) in RSA Nos.5326 & 5337 of 2019.
Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate, with
Ms. Aeshna Jain, Advocate, for the applicant
in CM-5129-C-2022 in RSA-5336-2019.
Mr. Suvir Sidhu and Mr. Mandeep Singla, Advocates,
for the applicant in CM-396-C-2020 in RSA-5336-2019.
Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vishal Pundir and Mr. Lokesh Bhola, Advocates
for the applicant(s) in CM-2827-C-2021 in RSA-5338-2019,
CM-2828-C-2021 in RSA-5336-2019, CM-2833-C-2021 in RSA-
5337-2019, CM-2839-C-2021 in RSA-5326-2019 and
for pe&&oner(s) in COCP-265-2025.
Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Bhavya Vats, Advocate
for the pe&&oner(s) in COCP No.1945 of 2025.
for the applicant in CMs.2875 & 2881-2020.
Mr. Rupinder Singh Khosla, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Aman Sharma, Chirag Suri, Yogendar Verma,
Mankreet Sangar, Mr.Aryan Katoch, Mr.Sandeep Sharma and
Mr. Sartej Singh Sudan, Assis&ng counsels for the respondent(s).
Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocates
for the respondent(s) in RSA No.5326, 5336, 5337
& 5338 of 2019.
Mr. Rakesh Dhiman and Mr. Kamaljeet Dahiya, Advocates,
for the respondent (in CM-10490-C-2026 in RSA-5336-2019).
Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Aruindpal Singh Grover, Advocate
for the applicant in CM No.2881-C of 2020 in RSA-5336-2019.
Mr. Kamaljeet Dahiya, Advocate for the applicant in
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 2 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
CM-10490-C-2026 in RSA-5336-2019.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Introduc on:
This common judgment shall dispose of four Regular Second
Appeals, two contempt pe &&ons and the connected miscellaneous
applica&ons ﬁled during pendency of the appeals. Since all the proceedings
arise out of the same li&ga&on and concern overlapping ques&ons rela&ng to
the &tle to and possession of the same property, they are being considered
together. The applica&ons concerning impleadment, subsequent transac&ons
and withdrawal/ compromise shall be dealt with separately at the
appropriate stage.
Background Facts :
2. The li &ga&on has its origin in Civil Suit No.308 of 1990, ins&tuted
ini&ally by plain&ﬀ No.1-Dev Bhushan Gupta against defendants No.1 to 5.
The scope of suit was subsequently enlarged, during its pendency, by
impleadment of defendants No.6 and 7 and, aBer restora&on of the ex parte
decree, by impleadment of plain&ﬀ Nos.2 to 5 and defendant No.8. Thus, by
the &me the suit was ﬁnally adjudicated aBer due contest, there were ﬁve
plain&ﬀs and eight defendants.
3. The suit was one for declara&on with consequen&al relief of
permanent injunc&on in respect of the land described in paragraphs 1 (a) and
1(b) of the plaint. The major controversy was whether plain&ﬀ No.1-Dev
Bhushan Gupta had executed a General Power of A#orney dated 26.07.1990
in favour of defendant No.1-Devender Kumar Vashisht and, if so, whether the
ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of
defendants No.2 to 4 on the strength of the said GPA were valid and binding
upon the plain&ﬀ.
Plain ﬀ’s Case:
4. The case of plain &ﬀ No.1 was that he had acquired &tle to the
suit property through registered sale deeds dated 30.01.1989, followed by
muta&ons Nos.396 and 397 sanc&oned on 23.02.1989. According to him, he
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 3 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
never executed any General Power of A #orney in favour of defendant No.1.
His case further was that he came to know that an a#empt was being made
to fabricate or misuse a GPA in his name and, accordingly, he approached the
registra&on authori&es by telegrams and wri#en communica&ons before the
subsequent sale transac&ons were registered. Despite those objec&ons, a
GPA dated 05.07.1990, shown as registered on 26.07.1990, came to be relied
upon by defendant No.1 for execu&on of ﬁve sale deeds, all dated
28.07.1990, in favour of defendants No.2 to 4.
5. Plain&ﬀ No.1 accordingly challenged the GPA as forged,
fabricated and unauthorised and consequen&ally assailed the ﬁve sale deeds
dated 28.07.1990 as null, void, illegal and not binding upon his rights. The
subsequent transac&ons made by defendants No.2 to 4 in favour of
defendants No.6 and 7 were also brought within the challenge.
Stand of Defendants:
6.1 Defendants No.1 and 5 did not contest the suit and were
proceeded against ex parte.
6.2 Defendants No.2 to 4 contested the suit and claimed themselves
to be bona ﬁde purchasers.
6.3 Defendants No.6 and 7, who subsequently became the principal
contestants, denied the allega &ons and supported the validity of the GPA and
the transac&ons ﬂowing therefrom.
Proceedings before Courts below:
7. The procedural history of the suit is somewhat unusual. A Ber
defendants No.6 and 7 had ini&ally been proceeded ex parte, an ex parte
decree came to be passed on 12.04.1999. On an applica&on moved by
defendants No.6 and 7, the said ex parte decree was subsequently set aside
and the suit was restored for adjudica&on on merits. In the restored
proceedings, plain&ﬀ Nos.2 to 5 were impleaded on the basis of transac&ons,
through which they claimed &tle from plain&ﬀ No.1 or his subsequent
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 4 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
vendee, while defendant No.8-IDBI Bank was impleaded on the ground that
defendant No.6 had mortgaged the property with the Bank.
8. The Trial Court, a Ber recording evidence of the par&es and
considering the documentary material, decreed the suit vide judgment and
decree dated 07.01.2013. The Trial Court accepted the plain&ﬀ's challenge to
the GPA and consequently held the sale transac&ons founded thereon to be
ineﬀec&ve against the rights claimed by the plain&ﬀs.
9. Two appeals came to be preferred against the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court, one by defendant No.6-Sat Narayan Bansal and the
other by defendant No.7-Karishma Floriculture Limited.
10. The learned First Appellate Court, vide common judgment dated
18.09.2019, allowed both appeals and reversed the decree of the Trial Court.
The First Appellate Court accepted the GPA as genuine and consequently
upheld the transac&ons ﬂowing therefrom, resul&ng in dismissal of the suit.
11. It is against the aforesaid reversal that the present four Regular
Second Appeals have been preferred. Two appeals have been ﬁled by plain&ﬀ
No.1-Dev Bhushan Gupta, and two by plain&ﬀ No.5-Suraj Pal.
12. Since all four appeals arise from the same common judgment
and involve substan&ally overlapping ques&ons concerning the &tle to the
suit property besides the validity of the GPA and the transac&ons emana&ng
therefrom, they are being decided together.
Subsequent developments:
13. The li &ga&on, however, did not end with the ﬁling of the present
appeals. During their pendency, several transac&ons concerning diﬀerent
por&ons of the suit property were brought to the no&ce of this Court. This
Court, vide order dated 04.12.2019, directed maintenance of status quo in
respect of the suit property.
14. Despite pendency of the appeals and the aforesaid interim
order, further transac&ons have been placed on record, resul&ng in several
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 5 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
applica &ons for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 and/or Order XXII Rule
10 CPC, besides applica&ons for taking subsequent compromises on record
and applica&ons seeking withdrawal of the appeals.
15. One set of applicants claim through plain&ﬀ No.1-Dev Bhushan
Gupta and the subsequent vendees deriving &tle through him; whereas
another set claims through defendant No.6-Sat Narayan Bansal and persons
deriving &tle from him. The respec&ve claims of these applicants cannot be
examined in isola&on from the result of the present appeals because the
validity of the compe&ng chains of &tle ul&mately will depend on the ﬁnding
to the ques&on as to whether the GPA relied upon by defendant No.1 was
validly executed by Dev Bhushan Gupta.
16. During pendency of the appeals, plain&ﬀ No.1-Dev Bhushan
Gupta also moved applica&ons seeking withdrawal of his appeals on the basis
of subsequent se#lements. Plain&ﬀ No.5-Suraj Pal similarly sought
withdrawal of his appeals on the basis of se#lements stated to have been
entered into with persons represen&ng the opposite chain of &tle. These
applica&ons have been opposed by various applicants claiming that their
interests would be prejudiced if the appeals are permi#ed to be withdrawn
without considera&on of their asserted rights.
17. The Court has before it, therefore, two dis&nct but
interconnected aspects. The ﬁrst concerns the rights of persons, who claim to
have acquired interests in the suit property during pendency of the li&ga&on.
The second concerns the substan&ve adjudica&on of the four appeals, in
which the central issue remains the validity and genuineness of the GPA.
18. The subsequent applica&ons shall be considered separately. At
this stage, it is suﬃcient to observe that the pendency of such applica&ons
and the subsequent transac&ons do not alter the original controversy, which
this Court is required to determine in the four Regular Second Appeals.
Rival cases on the main controversy:
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 6 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
19. The case of plain &ﬀ No.1, in substance, is that he remained the
owner of the suit property; that he never authorised defendant No.1 to
alienate the same; that the GPA dated 05.07.1990 was not executed by him;
and that the ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990 were consequently executed
without authority and could not aﬀect his &tle. The plain&ﬀ relies, inter alia,
upon the disputed signatures appearing on the GPA, the opinions of the
handwri&ng expert, the telegrams and no&ces preceding the sale
transac&ons, and his prompt ins&tu&on of the suit aBer coming to know of
the aliena&ons.
20. The contes&ng defendants, on the other hand, maintain that the
plain&ﬀ had been dealing in property along with defendant No.1; that
nego&a&ons for sale of the property were in progress; that an amount of
₹3,50,000/- was paid to the plain&ﬀ; that the GPA was voluntarily executed
by him; that it was thereaBer duly registered; and that defendant No.1 acted
within the authority conferred upon him while execu&ng the ﬁve sale deeds
dated 28.07.1990. They further rely upon the tes&mony of the a#es&ng
witness and the Sub-Registrar, the presence of several signatures of the
plain&ﬀ on the GPA and the subsequent possession of the original &tle
documents by the purchasers.
21. The controversy is complicated by the handwri&ng evidence. The
plain&ﬀ's expert ques&oned the genuineness of the signatures on GPA relied
upon by the defendants, whereas the defence expert accepted several
signatures appearing on the GPA as those of Dev Bhushan but also opined
that Q6/D1 were not his signatures and had been subsequently inserted.
Thus, the eviden&ary ques&on is not capable of being answered merely by
saying that the en&re GPA is either wholly genuine or wholly forged. The
Court is required to determine what inference, if any, follows from the
conﬂic&ng expert evidence when considered with the remaining evidence.
Substan al ques on of law and scope of interference
22. Since the present proceedings arise under Sec &on 100 CPC, this
Court cannot convert the second appeal into a third round of apprecia&on of
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 7 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
evidence merely because another view of the evidence may be possible. The
First Appellate Court is the ﬁnal Court on facts and its conclusion is ordinarily
en &tled to acceptance. Interference is jus&ﬁed, where the ﬁnding is vi&ated
by a substan&al error of law, perversity, considera&on of irrelevant material,
exclusion of material evidence, or where the evidence taken as a whole is
incapable of reasonably suppor&ng the conclusion reached. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has reiterated that perversity in a ﬁnding of fact may itself
furnish a substan&al ques&on of law, but has equally cau&oned that the High
Court cannot subs&tute its own apprecia&on merely because it may prefer
another view. Reliance can be placed on Hero Vinoth (minor) v. Seshammal,
(2006) 5 SCC 545; Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali, (2010) 12 SCC 740; and
Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan, (2010) 11 SCC 483.
23. In the present case, the ques &on is therefore not whether this
Court, if siNng as the ﬁrst appellate Court, might have reached a diﬀerent
conclusion. The ques&on is whether the conclusion reached by the learned
First Appellate Court that the GPA was genuinely executed by Dev Bhushan,
is legally sustainable on the evidence, and whether the reasoning adopted in
support thereof suﬀers from such inﬁrmity as would warrant interference
under Sec&on 100 CPC.
Standard of Proof:
24. The ﬁrst aspect requiring considera &on is the standard on which
the allega&on that the GPA is forged and fabricated has to be examined. The
learned First Appellate Court, while dealing with the allega&on of fraud and
forgery, appears to have proceeded on the premise that such allega&on was
required to be established beyond reasonable doubt. That proposi&on,
insofar as it equates the standard in the present civil proceedings with the
standard applicable to a criminal prosecu&on, cannot be accepted.
25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ra :an Singh and others v.
Nirmal Gill and others, 2021 (15) SCC 300 , while dealing with a challenge to a
General Power of A #orney of the year 1990 on the allega&on of fraud and
forgery, reiterated that the standard of proof in a civil dispute is
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 8 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
preponderance of probabili &es and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
Court, while considering discrepancies in the disputed GPA, assessed the
evidence of the a#es&ng witness, scribe and other witnesses cumula&vely
and held that the surrounding evidence had to be seen as a whole.
26. The seriousness of an allega&on of fraud or forgery undoubtedly
calls for careful scru&ny and cogent evidence; but the civil standard remains
that of preponderance of probabili&es. The gravity of the allega&on does not,
by itself, convert the civil standard into the criminal standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
27. The burden, therefore, ini&ally lay upon plain&ﬀ No.1, who
asserted that he had never executed the GPA and that the document relied
upon by the defendants was fabricated in his name. The ques&on before this
Court is whether, on considera&on of the en&re evidence, that asser&on is
more probable than the defence version that the GPA was voluntarily
executed by him.
28. The Court is conscious that the document in ques&on is not an
isolated piece of paper produced for the ﬁrst &me during the li&ga&on. It
bears a speciﬁc date of execu&on, was registered shortly thereaBer, was
acted upon by defendant No.1 through the ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990,
and was followed by subsequent transac&ons in respect of the property. Each
of these circumstances has to be examined, without trea&ng any one of them
as conclusive.
Handwri ng expert evidence:
29. Considerable emphasis has been placed by both sides upon the
handwri &ng evidence. Plain&ﬀ's expert ques&oned the genuineness of the
signatures relied upon by the defendants. The defendant’s expert, on the
other hand, accepted several signatures appearing on the GPA as genuine
signatures of Dev Bhushan, though he opined that Q6/D1 were not his
signatures and had subsequently been inserted.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 9 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
30. Thus, the expert evidence does not present a simple situa &on in
which one expert says that the en&re document bears forged signatures and
the other says that every signature is genuine. The defence expert himself
has accepted the possibility of interpola&on in respect of Q6/D1. That
circumstance has to be given its due weight.
31. At the same &me, expert opinion regarding handwri&ng is only
opinion evidence and is not conclusive by itself. The reason for requiring
cau&on is also inherent in the nature of handwri&ng comparison. Unlike
iden&ﬁca&on through ﬁngerprints or thumb impressions, where the
iden&fying characteris&cs are highly dis&nc&ve and the science of
comparison has a#ained a very high degree of reliability, handwri&ng is a
product of human movement and may vary depending upon the age, health,
physical condi&on, wri&ng instrument, speed, pressure, circumstances and
other factors a#ending the act of wri&ng. Consequently, even an expert
opinion based upon comparison of admi#ed and disputed signatures is not
infallible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (1980) 1 SCC 704 , while explaining the dis &nc&on, observed that the
science of iden&ﬁca&on of ﬁngerprints had a#ained near-perfec&on, whereas
iden&ﬁca&on of handwri&ng was not equally perfect and therefore carried a
higher risk of error. The Court consequently held that the reasons suppor&ng
the expert's opinion must be carefully examined and the opinion assessed in
the light of the other evidence on record.
32. This dis&nc&on assumes par&cular implica&on in the present
case because the Court is confronted with conﬂic&ng opinions of two
handwri&ng experts. The Court is not required to choose between the two
opinions merely by coun&ng the number of signatures found to be similar or
dissimilar. What is required is to examine the reasons forming the basis of
each opinion and then test those opinions against the proved and admi#ed
circumstances. As explained in Murari Lal’s Case (supra), an expert deposes
but does not decide; the ul &mate determina&on remains that of the Court
aBer considering the expert's reasoning together with the other evidence.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 10 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
33. The circumstance that several signatures appearing on the GPA
have been found to be genuine is therefore of considerable signiﬁcance. It
cannot be treated as equivalent to a ﬁngerprint match, nor does it by itself
conclusively establish execu &on of the document. But it is also not a
circumstance, which can be brushed aside. The Court has to consider what
probability arises, when those genuine signatures are viewed alongside the
disputed signature, the registra&on of the document, the admi#ed
nego&a&ons between the par&es, the receipt of ₹3,50,000/-, the evidence
concerning custody of the original &tle documents and the subsequent
conduct of the par&es.
34. The eviden&ary value of the expert opinions, therefore, lies not
in their mere existence but in the extent to which they ﬁt with the proved
and admi#ed circumstances of the case.
35. In the present case, ﬁve signatures appearing on the document
have been found by the defendant’s expert to be genuine signatures of Dev
Bhushan. That circumstance cannot be treated as insigniﬁcant. If the
plain&ﬀ's case is that he never executed the GPA at all, the existence of
several admi#ed or otherwise established genuine signatures of his on the
same instrument requires an explana&on.
36. It is true that a person may have signed blank papers or may
have signed a document without understanding its contents. But that was
not the speciﬁc case pleaded by Dev Bhushan. His case was substan&ally one
of complete non-execu&on of the GPA.
37. Once several signatures are found to be genuine, the Court
cannot simply assume that the document was fabricated in its en&rety. Nor
would it be appropriate to reason that because Q6/D1 are disputed, all the
other genuine signatures must necessarily have been used fraudulently.
38. There is another aspect, which deserves no&ce. If the en&re GPA
was fabricated by the defendants with the object of crea&ng a false
appearance of authority, there would ordinarily be no apparent reason for
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 11 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
inser &ng a number of genuine signatures of Dev Bhushan and thereaBer
deliberately introducing only one disputed signature so as to create an
instrument capable of being acted upon. The presence of the genuine
signatures therefore cons&tutes a circumstance suppor&ng the existence of
an underlying genuine dealing, though it cannot by itself establish the precise
manner in which the document came to be completed.
39. The possibility that Q6/D1 were subsequently inserted,
therefore, cannot be equated with proof that Dev Bhushan never executed
the GPA. The former circumstance may create doubt about the manner of
comple&on of the document; it does not necessarily destroy the la#er.
40. If the plain&ﬀ had never executed the GPA, the presence of
several genuine signatures of his on the same instrument becomes a
circumstance requiring a cogent explana&on. The disputed signature may
cast doubt upon the manner in which that par&cular por&on of the document
came to be incorporated, but it does not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that
the en&re instrument was fabricated. The Court must, therefore, dis&nguish
between a possible irregularity or interpola&on in one part of the document
and the much broader allega&on that the GPA itself was never executed by
the plain&ﬀ.
41. The Court accordingly treats Q6/D1 as a circumstance crea&ng
suspicion, but not as a circumstance which is conclusive of the plain&ﬀ's plea
of total non-execu&on.
Registra on of the GPA:
42. The GPA was stated to have been executed on 05.07.1990 and
registered on 26.07.1990. The registra &on assumes signiﬁcance because the
document was presented before a statutory registra&on authority
contemporaneously with the transac&on.
43. Registra&on by itself does not make a forged document genuine.
A registered document can undoubtedly be challenged and its execu&on can
be disproved by appropriate evidence. At the same &me, registra&on is a
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 12 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
relevant circumstance in assessing whether the document relied upon by the
defendants was merely a subsequently fabricated instrument.
44. The evidence of the registra &on oﬃcial shows that the
instrument was presented and registered in the ordinary course. The fact
that iden&ﬁca&on may have been undertaken through iden&fying witnesses
rather than by an independent veriﬁca&on of the executant does not render
the registra&on meaningless. It merely limits the extent to which the
registra&on evidence can independently establish iden&ty.
45. Thus, the registra&on evidence cannot be treated as conclusive
proof of execu&on; but neither can it be excluded from considera&on while
assessing the probability of the rival versions.
A :es ng witness and other witnesses:
46. The defendants also rely upon the tes &mony of DW8-Hemant
Vashisht, an a#es&ng witness to the GPA. He speciﬁcally deposed that Dev
Bhushan had executed the GPA in favour of defendant No.1 and that he had
a#ested the document. The plain&ﬀ has seriously ques&oned the credibility
of this witness on the ground that he is the real brother of defendant No.1.
The rela&onship is undoubtedly a circumstance, which requires the Court to
examine his tes&mony with cau&on. It does not, however, cons&tute a legal
ground for discarding his evidence altogether.
47. The fact that the witness was related to defendant No.1 was
within the knowledge of the plain&ﬀ. The plain&ﬀ had full opportunity to
cross-examine him on the circumstances, in which the GPA was allegedly
executed and a#ested and to bring on record material, if available, indica&ng
that his asser&on regarding the execu&on of the GPA was false. The mere fact
that the witness was a close rela&ve of defendant No.1 cannot, therefore, be
treated as suﬃcient cause to reject his tes&mony. Rela&onship is a
circumstance relevant to the apprecia&on of evidence, but not by itself a
ground for discarding otherwise admissible tes&mony.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 13 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
48. More importantly, the evidence of DW8 does not stand alone.
His tes &mony has to be considered along with the contemporaneous
registra&on of the GPA, the evidence of the Sub-Registrar, the presence of
several signatures of Dev Bhushan, which the defendant’s expert found to be
genuine, the admi#ed nego&a&ons and receipt of ₹3,50,000/-, and the
circumstances concerning the original &tle documents. The ques&on,
therefore, is not whether DW8 can be regarded as an en&rely independent
witness, but whether his tes&mony, when tested against the other evidence
on record, adds probability to the defendants' version. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Ra :an Singh ’s Case (supra) cau &oned against discarding the
evidence of a witness merely because he was acquainted with the party,
whose case he supported, where his tes&mony was otherwise consistent
with the surrounding evidence.
49. The plain&ﬀ has also relied upon the opinion of his handwri&ng
expert and the evidence concerning Q6/D1 to contend that the statement of
DW8 that Dev Bhushan signed the GPA in his presence cannot be accepted.
That circumstance certainly aﬀects the weight of his tes&mony. But the Court
must be cau&ous not to reason backwards from the disputed signature to the
complete rejec&on of the witness's evidence. The expert opinion itself has to
be evaluated along with the other circumstances, and the ul&mate ques&on
remains whether the plain&ﬀ has established that he never executed the GPA
at all.
Telegram and no ces issued by Dev Bhushan:
50. The plain &ﬀ has relied strongly upon the telegrams and wri#en
communica&ons sent by him in July 1990, before registra&on of the GPA,
reques&ng the authori&es not to register any sale deed through an alleged
a#orney.
51. This is undoubtedly a noteworthy circumstance in favour of the
plain&ﬀ. A person who apprehends misuse of a power of a#orney in his name
would ordinarily be expected to alert the registra&on authori&es. The Court
cannot, however, stop the enquiry at this point. The existence of the
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 14 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
telegrams establishes that Dev Bhushan had, by that &me, developed
apprehension concerning an alleged GPA or its possible misuse. It does not
by itself establish that no GPA had been executed by him on 05.07.1990.
52. The chronology is important. The GPA bears the date
05.07.1990; the plain&ﬀ's ﬁrst telegram was sent on 07.07.1990; the GPA was
registered on 26.07.1990; the ﬁve sale deeds were executed on 28.07.1990;
and the suit was ins&tuted on 03.08.1990.
53. The plain&ﬀ's prompt ins&tu&on of the suit is wholly consistent
with his case that he objected to the transac&ons immediately upon learning
of them. It is not, by itself, evidence that he had an&cipated the execu&on of
the sale deeds. At the same &me, the telegrams do not answer the anterior
ques&on whether the GPA had actually been executed two days before the
ﬁrst telegram. They are therefore an important circumstance, but not a
decisive one.
Admi :ed nego a ons and receipt of ₹3,50,000/-:
54. A further circumstance, which requires par &cular considera&on
is the admi#ed receipt of ₹3,50,000/- by Dev Bhushan. The amount was not
disclosed by him in the plaint and came to light during his cross-examina&on,
when the defendants confronted him with their case. Dev Bhushan admi#ed
receipt of the amount, but explained that it had been received during
nego&a&ons and bargaining and that the nego&a&ons ul&mately did not
culminate in a concluded transac&on.
55. The mere receipt of money during nego&a&ons cannot, by itself,
establish that a concluded transac&on had taken place. Par&es may exchange
money by way of advance, earnest money or otherwise even while
nego&a&ons are con&nuing. The explana&on oﬀered by Dev Bhushan is,
therefore, not inherently impossible. However, once receipt of such a
substan&al amount is admi#ed, his subsequent conduct assumes
signiﬁcance. If the nego&a&ons had failed and there was no concluded
transac&on, the Court would reasonably expect some explana&on as to what
happened to the amount thereaBer and, in par&cular, why the money was
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 15 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
retained instead of being promptly returned to the person from whom it had
been received. No sa &sfactory explana&on in this regard emerges from the
evidence.
56. The omission to disclose the receipt of ₹3,50,000/- in the plaint
is also not an irrelevant circumstance. The plain&ﬀ was himself asser&ng that
there had been no genuine transac&on or dealing, which could have led to
the disputed GPA and sale deeds. In that background, the existence of a
substan&al monetary transac&on between him and persons connected with
the subsequent conveyances was a material fact. Its disclosure only when
speciﬁcally confronted in cross-examina&on aﬀects the weight of the
explana&on subsequently oﬀered by him.
57. At the same &me, this circumstance cannot be elevated into
proof that the GPA was necessarily executed or that the disputed sale
transac&ons were concluded pursuant to a prior bargain. Its proper
signiﬁcance is narrower but important, as it establishes that there were real
ﬁnancial dealings and nego&a&ons concerning the very property between
Dev Bhushan and persons connected with the subsequent transac&ons.
58. When this circumstance is considered cumula&vely with the
other evidence, it makes the defendants' version of some genuine underlying
dealings more probable than a case of a wholly fabricated transac&on having
no connec&on whatsoever with Dev Bhushan. This circumstance materially
weakens the theory that the en&re transac&on was fabricated without any
genuine dealing between the par&es.
Original tle deeds and Ex.D12
59. The circumstance concerning sale deed Ex.D12 deserves
separate and detailed considera &on because it relates to the very root of
&tle. This original registered sale deed, through which Dev Bhushan had
acquired ownership of the suit property ul&mately came to be produced
from the custody of persons claiming through the disputed GPA and the
subsequent transac&ons. An original &tle deed rela&ng to valuable
immovable property is not ordinarily expected to come into the possession of
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 16 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
a stranger without some underlying transac &on or explana&on. Its custody,
therefore, is a circumstance of considerable eviden&ary signiﬁcance.
60. The learned Trial Court viewed this circumstance with suspicion,
par&cularly with regard to the manner in which the document came to be
produced and the explana&on oﬀered by the defendants regarding its
custody. That aspect cannot be brushed aside. At the same &me, while
apprecia&ng this circumstance, the Court has to consider not merely whether
the defendants have explained every detail concerning the custody of
Ex.D12, but also whether the plain&ﬀ's own explana&on as to how his original
&tle deed leB his possession and ul&mately came into the hands of persons
claiming under the disputed transac&on is sa&sfactory.
61. Dev Bhushan explained that the documents had been misplaced
while he was staying at the house of the sister of defendant No.1. The
explana&on is not inherently impossible. Documents can undoubtedly be
misplaced or lost. However, the document in ques&on was the original &tle
deed of valuable immovable property. In such circumstances, the Court
would ordinarily expect some contemporaneous conduct indica&ng that the
plain&ﬀ had no&ced its disappearance and had taken steps for its recovery or
had reported its loss.
62. No contemporaneous police report, DDR, public no&ce or other
independent material has been brought on record to show that the plain&ﬀ
had treated the disappearance of the original &tle deed as an event requiring
immediate ac&on. More importantly, there is no sa&sfactory evidence
explaining when the plain&ﬀ discovered that the original &tle deed was no
longer in his possession, what steps he took thereaBer to recover it, or how it
ul&mately came to be traced to persons claiming through the disputed
transac&on. The explana&on, therefore, remains essen&ally an asser&on
made in the course of the li&ga&on and is not supported by
contemporaneous conduct.
63. The implica&on of this circumstance becomes greater, when the
nature of the compe&ng cases is kept in view. The defendants' case is that
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 17 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
the original &tle documents formed part of the chain of transac&ons
pursuant to which the property was dealt with and thereaBer remained with
the purchasers. If that version is accepted, the presence of the original &tle
deed with persons claiming through the transac&ons is readily
understandable. If, on the other hand, the plain&ﬀ's case that he never
executed the GPA and that the en&re transac&on was fabricated is accepted,
the presence of his original &tle deed with the persons claiming under that
very transac&on requires a further explana&on.
64. The Court is conscious that custody of an original &tle deed
cannot, by itself, establish execu&on of the GPA or validate an otherwise
forged transac&on. Equally, the mere fact that the defendants were found in
possession of the original document cannot conclusively establish that the
plain&ﬀ voluntarily delivered it to them. The circumstance is therefore not
being treated as conclusive. Its consequence lies in its corrobora&ve value
while tes&ng the compe&ng versions on the standard of preponderance of
probabili&es.
65. In this context, the absence of contemporaneous evidence
regarding the alleged loss of the original &tle deed assumes importance. The
plain&ﬀ took the posi&on that he had an&cipated misuse of the alleged GPA
and, according to his own case, took several precau&ons by sending
telegrams and no&ces to the registra&on authori&es. Yet, when the original
&tle deed itself was allegedly lost or misplaced, there is no corresponding
contemporaneous record of his having reported or otherwise acted upon
such loss. This contrast in his conduct is a circumstance, which cannot be
ignored.
66. When Ex.D12 is considered cumula&vely with the admi#ed
nego&a&ons and receipt of ₹3,50,000/-, the several signatures of Dev
Bhushan found to be genuine by the defendant’s expert, the
contemporaneous registra&on of the GPA and the evidence surrounding its
execu&on, the custody of the original &tle deed materially strengthens the
defendants' version. It is not, by itself, proof of execu&on; but taken together
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 18 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
with these other circumstances, it makes the existence of a genuine
underlying transac &on substan&ally more probable than the plain&ﬀ's
version of a wholly fabricated transac&on in which he had no par&cipa&on
whatsoever.
Subsequent conduct and investment:
67. The defendants have also relied upon the subsequent
possession, development, investment and mortgage of the property.
68. The subsequent conduct can neither retrospec &vely validate an
instrument which was void from incep&on, nor can substan&al investment
create &tle where none existed. Its eviden&ary implica&on is narrower. When
compe&ng versions are being tested on the standard of preponderance of
probabili&es, the conduct of par&es, who acted upon registered documents
for years may cons&tute corrobora&ve evidence of the manner in which the
par&es themselves understood the transac&on.
69. The fact that purchasers dealt with the property, obtained
possession of original &tle documents, created mortgage rights and invested
substan&al amounts is thus not being treated as proof of execu&on of the
GPA. However, it is a circumstance, which ﬁts more naturally with the
existence of a transac&on than with the theory that the en&re chain was
fabricated without any genuine dealing.
Cumula ve assessment of the evidence:
70. A Ber considering the material circumstances relied upon by both
sides individually, the ques&on before the court now is whether those
circumstances, when placed together and viewed in their proper
chronological and eviden&ary seNng, establish the plain&ﬀ's case that he
never executed the GPA or, on the contrary, make the defendants' version
that the GPA was genuinely executed by him the more probable one. Since
the issue is one of fact to be determined on the civil standard of
preponderance of probabili&es, the Court must assess the overall probability
emerging from the en&re evidence, rather than a#aching decisive
signiﬁcance to any isolated circumstance.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 19 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
71. The plain &ﬀ's case is founded upon a speciﬁc and empha&c
asser&on that he never executed the GPA dated 05.07.1990 and that the
document relied upon by the defendants was a forged and fabricated
instrument. The allega&on, therefore, is not merely that the document was
subsequently misused, or that its terms were exceeded, or that some part of
it was subsequently altered. The case set up by the plain&ﬀ is substan&ally
one of complete non-execu&on.
72. The following are the circumstances relied upon by the plain&ﬀ
in support of that case, which are not immaterial.

He sent telegrams and no &ces to the concerned authori&es in July
1990;

he objected to registra &on of any transac&on through an alleged
a#orney;

he ins &tuted the civil suit within a few days of the execu&on of the ﬁve
sale deeds;

he consistently denied execu &on of the GPA; and

his handwri &ng expert disputed the genuineness of the signatures in
ques&on.

The opinion of the defendant’s expert regarding Q6/D1 also does not
completely support the defendants, as that expert himself opined that
the said signature was not that of Dev Bhushan.
73. These circumstances undoubtedly create suspicion and have,
therefore, been given due considera &on. In par&cular, the telegrams
preceding registra&on of the GPA cannot be brushed aside. A person, who
apprehends misuse of an alleged power of a#orney would ordinarily be
expected to take steps to alert the registra&on authori&es. Likewise, the
prompt ins&tu&on of the suit is consistent with the plain&ﬀ having objected
to the transac&ons at the earliest opportunity.
74. But the existence of the above circumstances does not, by itself,
answer the anterior ques&on, as to whether Dev Bhushan had in fact
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 20 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
executed the GPA on 05.07.1990. The telegrams establish his apprehension
and objec &on; the prompt suit establishes his subsequent challenge. Neither
circumstance conclusively establishes that the GPA was never executed. The
Court must, therefore, examine these circumstances against the evidence
concerning what preceded and followed them.
75. The ﬁrst circumstance , which materially weighs with the Court is
the admi #ed receipt of ₹3,50,000/- by Dev Bhushan. This was not a
transac&on, which the defendants were required to establish solely through
disputed documentary evidence. The plain&ﬀ himself admi#ed receipt of the
amount, though he explained it as money received during nego&a&ons,
which ul&mately failed.
76. The explana&on is possible and the Court does not treat the
receipt of money as proof by itself of execu&on of the GPA. But two aspects
of the plain&ﬀ's conduct assume signiﬁcance. Firstly , the receipt of such a
substan &al amount was not disclosed in the plaint, despite the plain&ﬀ's case
that there had been no genuine transac&on concerning the property.
Secondly , if the nego &a&ons had failed and there was no concluded
transac&on, the reten&on of the amount called for some explana&on. There
is no sa&sfactory evidence showing its prompt return or explaining why the
amount con&nued to remain with the plain&ﬀ.
77. The importance of this circumstance is not that reten&on of the
money necessarily establishes a completed sale. It does not. Its implica&on is
that it validates the existence of real and substan&al ﬁnancial dealings
between Dev Bhushan and persons connected with the subsequent
transac&ons. That circumstance sits uneasily with a theory that the en&re
transac&on was fabricated by the defendants without any genuine underlying
dealing with the plain&ﬀ.
78. The second and more important circumstance is the custody of
the original &tle deed, Ex.D12. The original document through which Dev
Bhushan had acquired &tle to the property ul&mately came into the
possession of persons claiming through the disputed transac&on. The
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 21 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
plain &ﬀ's explana&on that the documents had been misplaced while he was
staying at the house of the sister of defendant No.1 is possible, but it lacks
contemporaneous corrobora&on. There is no sa&sfactory material showing
when the document was discovered to be missing, what steps were taken for
its recovery, or that its alleged loss was contemporaneously reported.
79. The signiﬁcance of Ex.D12 becomes apparent, when the rival
theories are compared. If the plain&ﬀ's case of complete fabrica&on is
accepted, the presence of his original &tle deed with persons claiming under
the very transac&on alleged to be fabricated requires an addi&onal and
convincing explana&on. If, on the other hand, the defendants' case of an
actual transac&on is accepted, the presence of the original &tle document in
the transac&on chain becomes readily understandable. The Court is not
trea&ng custody of the original &tle deed as conclusive proof of the GPA; but
as a circumstance in the cumula&ve assessment, it carries substan&al weight.
80. The third circumstance concerns the signatures appearing on
the GPA. The defendant’s expert found several signatures of Dev Bhushan to
be genuine. The plain &ﬀ's case of complete non-execu&on necessarily
requires the Court to explain how several genuine signatures of Dev Bhushan
came to appear on the same instrument. The possibility of subsequent
inser&on or altera&on cannot be ruled out merely because one signature,
Q6/D1, has been found disputed. But that possibility does not, without
further evidence, establish that the en&re instrument was fabricated.
81. The dis&nc&on between Q6/D1 and the other signatures is
therefore material. If one par&cular signature is found to be doubRul or
subsequently introduced, the Court has to determine whether that
circumstance destroys the en&re transac&on or merely raises a ques&on
concerning that par&cular part of the document. In the present case, there is
no suﬃcient evidence to establish that the existence of Q6/D1 necessarily
means that all the other genuine signatures were procured or u&lised
without the plain&ﬀ's knowledge.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 22 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
82. The Court has also considered the tes &mony of DW8-Hemant
Vashisht, the a#es&ng witness to the GPA. His rela&onship with defendant
No.1 undoubtedly requires cau&on in apprecia&ng his tes&mony. But
rela&onship is a circumstance aﬀec&ng weight and not an automa&c ground
for rejec&on. His tes&mony has to be examined alongside the documentary
and other independent circumstances. When so examined, it cannot be said
that his evidence stands wholly isolated from the rest of the record.
83. The fact of registra&on of the GPA also assumes some
signiﬁcance. Registra&on does not conclusively establish execu&on, and a
registered document can undoubtedly be challenged on the ground of
forgery. Nevertheless, the GPA was presented before the registra&on
authority, was got registered on 26.07.1990 and was immediately acted upon
by execu&on of ﬁve sale deeds on 28.07.1990. The registra&on evidence,
therefore, cons&tutes a contemporaneous circumstance, which is more
consistent with an instrument being treated as opera&ve at that &me than
with a document fabricated much later for purposes of li&ga&on.
84. The plain&ﬀ's conduct aBer the transac&on, though suppor&ng
his prompt challenge, also contains aspects, which require considera&on
against him. He took several precau&ons by sending telegrams and no&ces to
prevent registra&on through the alleged a#orney, yet there is no
contemporaneous criminal complaint or other independent material showing
that, aBer discovery of the alleged forgery and execu&on of the sale deeds,
he treated the ma#er as one of forgery or impersona&on requiring
immediate criminal ac&on. The prompt ﬁling of the civil suit is undoubtedly
relevant; the absence of such contemporaneous ac&on is also a
circumstance, which the Court is en&tled to weigh. Neither circumstance is
conclusive by itself.
85. The Court has thus not approached the ma#er by asking
whether the defendants have removed every suspicion arising from the
plain&ﬀ's evidence. That would impose a standard higher than that required
in a civil proceeding. The proper ques&on is whether, on the en&re evidence,
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 23 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
the plain &ﬀ has established his asser&on of complete non-execu&on, or
whether the circumstances relied upon by the defendants make execu&on of
the GPA the more probable explana&on.
86. On such cumula&ve assessment, the Court ﬁnds that the
defendants' version, with following circumstances, carries greater
probability.

The admi #ed payment of ₹3,50,000/- establishes genuine ﬁnancial
dealings;

the plain &ﬀ's failure to disclose that material fact in the plaint and the
absence of a sa&sfactory explana&on regarding its reten&on aﬀect the
credibility of his subsequent explana&on;

the presence of several genuine signatures of Dev Bhushan on the GPA
materially weakens the theory of complete fabrica &on;

the registra &on of the GPA and the evidence surrounding its
a#esta&on provide contemporaneous support; and

the custody of the original &tle deed, Ex.D12, is a par&cularly
signiﬁcant circumstance, which the plain&ﬀ has not sa&sfactorily
explained.
These circumstances reinforce one another.
87. Against this cumula&ve body of evidence, stand the telegrams
and no&ces issued by Dev Bhushan, his prompt ins&tu&on of the suit, his
consistent denial of execu&on and the opinion concerning Q6/D1. These
circumstances create genuine doubt and cannot be discarded. But the
ques&on is not whether they create doubt in the abstract; the ques&on is
whether they outweigh the cumula&ve probabili&es arising from the
evidence suppor&ng execu&on. In the considered view of this Court, they do
not.
88. The Court accordingly holds, on the preponderance of
probabili&es, that Dev Bhushan executed the GPA dated 05.07.1990 in favour
of defendant No.1, which was thereaBer registered on 26.07.1990. This
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 24 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
conclusion does not mean that every circumstance surrounding the
document stands sa &sfactorily explained or that the possibility of altera&on
of a par&cular por&on, including Q6/D1, has been conclusively eliminated.
The Court is only recording that such circumstance, viewed in the context of
the en&re evidence, is insuﬃcient to establish the much broader allega&on
that Dev Bhushan never executed the GPA at all.
89. It is also necessary to clarify that the Court reaches this
conclusion independently, and not merely because the First Appellate Court
reached the same result. Certain observa&ons made by the First Appellate
Court concerning the conduct of Dev Bhushan, fraud, conspiracy or the
standard applicable to an allega&on of fraud cannot be endorsed in their
en&rety. The present conclusion rests upon the evidence as appreciated on
the correct civil standard.
90. The error, therefore, in the approach of the First Appellate Court
regarding the standard of proof does not necessarily vi&ate its ul&mate
ﬁnding. Once the evidence is reassessed on the correct standard of
preponderance of probabili&es, the same ul&mate conclusion follows, though
for reasons which are more circumspect and, in some respects, materially
diﬀerent from those assigned by the First Appellate Court.
91. The ﬁnding of the First Appellate Court that the GPA was
genuinely executed by Dev Bhushan is consequently not perverse. Even aBer
excluding the observa&ons, which are not necessary for sustaining that
ﬁnding, the material evidence, considered cumula&vely, is capable of
reasonably suppor&ng the conclusion reached. This Court is, therefore, not
persuaded that the ﬁnding is one, which no reasonable Court, properly
apprecia&ng the evidence, could have arrived at.
92. The ul&mate ﬁnding concerning execu&on of the GPA is
accordingly aﬃrmed. The consequence is that defendant No.1 cannot be said
to have acted without authority when he executed the ﬁve sale deeds dated
28.07.1990 pursuant to the GPA. The challenge to those transac&ons must,
therefore, be examined on that foo&ng.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 25 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
Eﬀect of GPA on ﬁve sale deeds:
93. Once the GPA is held to have been validly executed, defendant
No.1 possessed the authority conferred upon him thereunder. The ﬁve sale
deeds dated 28.07.1990 executed by him pursuant to the said authority,
therefore, cannot be invalidated on the ground that they were executed
without the authority of Dev Bhushan Gupta.
94. The subsequent transac &ons executed by defendants No.2 to 4
in favour of defendants No.6 and 7 consequently derive their &tle from a
chain, which originated in the GPA and the sale deeds dated 28.07.1990.
95. The later registered sale deed dated 13.05.2004 executed by Dev
Bhushan in favour of Kaptan Singh cannot confer upon Kaptan Singh a &tle
superior to the &tle, which had already passed through the earlier
transac&ons. Consequently, the subsequent purchasers claiming through
Kaptan Singh cannot obtain a be#er &tle than that possessed by their
transferor.
96. The compe&ng chains of &tle must therefore be determined on
the foo&ng that the GPA and the transac&ons of 28.07.1990 are valid.
Plea of bonaﬁde purchase by defendants N: 6 & 7:
97. Defendants No.6 and 7 had also pleaded that they were bona
ﬁde purchasers for valuable considera &on aBer examining the &tle
documents. Since the founda&onal GPA and sale deeds of 28.07.1990 have
been upheld, their &tle does not require the protec&ve umbrella of Sec&on
41 of the Transfer of Property Act for its founda&on.
98. Nevertheless, the plea deserves considera&on because it was
speciﬁcally raised and was also considered by the Courts below.
99. Sec&on 41 protects a transferee from an ostensible owner,
where the real owner has consented, expressly or impliedly, to the ostensible
ownership; the transferee has taken reasonable care to ascertain the
transferor's authority; and the transferee has acted in good faith.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 26 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
100. The present case, however, stands on a diﬀerent foo &ng.
Defendants No.6 and 7 were not dealing with a person, who merely
appeared to be owner because of possession. Their immediate transferors
held registered sale deeds executed through a registered GPA and there was
an apparent documentary chain of &tle. The original &tle documents were
also stated to have travelled through the transac&on chain. The purchasers
accordingly had documentary material which, on its face, traced the &tle
from Dev Bhushan through the GPA and defendants No.2 to 4 to themselves.
101. Since the founda&onal transac&ons are now upheld, it is
unnecessary to rest their &tle upon Sec&on 41. Their &tle follows from the
chain of conveyances itself.
Pendente lite purchase:
102. There is, however, a dis &nct legal consequence arising from the
date of their purchases. Defendants No.6 and 7 purchased the property in
March 1995, whereas the present suit had already been ins&tuted on
03.08.1990. They were, therefore, transferees pendente lite and their
transac&ons fall within Sec&on 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
103. The doctrine of lis pendens does not rest upon actual no&ce. Its
object is to prevent the subject ma#er of li&ga&on from being dealt with in a
manner, which may prejudice the eﬃcacy of the eventual adjudica&on.
104. In Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors (P)
Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 397 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained that a
transferee pendente lite is a representa &ve-in-interest of the transferor and
remains bound by the proceedings. The Court further recognised that such a
transferee may, in an appropriate case, be impleaded so that he may protect
his interest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also reiterated that Sec&on 52
does not render a pendente lite transfer void, and that the transfer remains
subject to the result of the li&ga&on and the transferee takes the same legal
posi&on as ul&mately determined in respect of his transferor.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 27 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
105. Consequently, the absence of actual no &ce of the telegrams or
objec&ons raised by Dev Bhushan cannot take defendants No.6 and 7 outside
the opera&on of Sec&on 52. Their purchases are accordingly subject to the
result of the present li&ga&on.
106. Since the founda&onal GPA and sale deeds of 28.07.1990 have
now been upheld, their subsequent transac&ons remain eﬀec&ve, subject to
the doctrine of lis pendens and the other orders governing the property.
Earlier li ga on concerning the property:
107. Another conten &on raised by the plain&ﬀ concerns certain
earlier proceedings ins&tuted by defendants No.6 and 7 in rela&on to the
property and the subsequent transac&ons through which plain&ﬀ No.1 had
conveyed por&ons of the suit property to Kaptan Singh and others. The
plain&ﬀ seeks to rely upon the dismissal of those proceedings and contends
that the same operates as res judicata against defendants No.6 and 7. The
record shows that while one of the earlier suits was dismissed on merits
under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC, another was dismissed for default.
108. The plea of res judicata cannot be determined merely by
no&cing that the earlier and present proceedings relate to the same
property. The applicability of Sec&on 11 CPC depends upon the iden&ty of
the ma#er directly and substan&ally in issue, the par&es or persons claiming
under them, the competence of the earlier Court and, importantly, whether
the par&cular issue now sought to be raised was heard and ﬁnally decided in
the earlier proceedings.
109. The material relied upon in the present proceedings does not
establish that the earlier proceedings ﬁnally and conclusively determined the
very ques&on which arises in these appeals, namely, whether Dev Bhushan
executed the GPA dated 05.07.1990 in favour of defendant No.1 and whether
the transac&ons founded upon that GPA were valid. The dismissal of an
earlier proceeding cannot operate as res judicata in respect of an issue which
was neither directly and substan&ally in issue nor ﬁnally adjudicated therein.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 28 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
The proceeding dismissed for default, in any event, does not furnish a basis
for such a plea in the absence of an adjudica &on on merits.
110. The earlier li&ga&on may nevertheless form part of the factual
background and may have such eviden&ary relevance as is otherwise
permissible in law, par&cularly with regard to the history of the dispute and
the conduct of the par&es. It does not, however, displace the independent
adjudica&on required in the present proceedings on the speciﬁc issue of
execu&on and validity of the GPA. The plea of res judicata is, accordingly,
rejected.
Impleadment of subsequent transferees:
111. Numerous applica &ons have been ﬁled by persons claiming
through one or the other chain of &tle. Some invoke Order I Rule 10 CPC,
while others rely upon Order XXII Rule 10 CPC . [Details of such applicants are
given in a Chart, which is annexed with this judgment as Annexure ‘A’ and
will form part of this judgment.]
112. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thomson Press (supra) has
recognised that a transferee pendente lite, being a representa &ve-in-interest
of the transferor, may be impleaded, where his interest in the subject ma#er
is substan&al and where his presence is necessary to eﬀec&vely adjudicate
the controversy.
113. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently clariﬁed the
rela&onship between the two provisions in H. Anjanappa and others v. A.
Prabhakar and others, 2025 INSC 121 . It has held that the scope of Order I
Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC is similar and that the principles
applicable to Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, for bringing a purchaser pendente lite
on record, are applicable while considering impleadment under Order I Rule
10 CPC. The Court further emphasised that the ques &on of impleadment is to
be determined judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 29 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
114. The above principle assumes par &cular signiﬁcance in the
present case. Numerous transac&ons have taken place during the pendency
of the li&ga&on, as a result whereof several persons have acquired
substan&al interests in the very property which is the subject ma#er of these
proceedings. Their interests may be directly aﬀected by the adjudica&on in
the present appeals. Their presence before the Court is, therefore,
considered appropriate to enable them to protect such interests, par&cularly
in view of the subsequent transac&ons and the conduct of some of the
original par&es. The fact that they are impleaded, however, does not alter
the nature or extent of the substan&ve rights claimed by them.
115. The individual applica&ons for impleadment have accordingly
been examined with reference to the nature of the transac&on relied upon
by each applicant, the person from whom the applicant claims and the stage
at which the relevant transac&on took place. In view of the conclusions
recorded hereinabove, the applicants seeking impleadment are en&tled to be
brought on record for the limited purpose of protec&ng their respec&ve
interests in the pending li&ga&on.
116. It must, however, be made clear that impleadment is only a
procedural measure intended to facilitate eﬀec&ve adjudica&on and to
enable an aﬀected person to protect his or her interest. It does not amount
to an adjudica&on or recogni&on of any independent &tle in favour of the
applicant. The validity, extent and enforceability of the interest claimed by
each applicant shall con&nue to depend upon the &tle of the person from
whom such interest is derived and the law applicable to the transac&on
through which that interest is claimed.
117. Consequently, no transferee can acquire a &tle be#er than that
possessed by his or her transferor. A person claiming through Dev Bhushan or
Kaptan Singh cannot acquire a be#er &tle than that available in that chain;
likewise, a person claiming through Sat Narayan Bansal or any other
transferor cannot acquire a &tle superior to that possessed by such
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 30 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
transferor. Impleadment of a transferee, therefore, shall neither enlarge nor
improve the substan &ve rights ﬂowing from the respec&ve chain of &tle.
118. Further, every transfer eﬀected during the pendency of the suit
or the appeals shall remain subject to Sec&on 52 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, as applicable, and to the orders passed by this Court from &me to
&me. The transferees pendente lite shall accordingly remain bound by the
result of the present li&ga&on. Their impleadment shall neither validate a
transac&on which is otherwise invalid nor confer upon them any
independent equity or priority merely by reason of their having been brought
on record.
Individual Applica ons for Impleadment:
119. The individual applica &ons have been examined in the light of
above legal discussion. Since the applicants claim through diﬀerent chains of
&tle and rely upon transac&ons executed at diﬀerent stages of the li&ga&on,
their respec&ve claims are dealt with separately, not for adjudica&ng any
independent &tle in their favour, but for determining whether they have a
suﬃcient interest in the subject ma#er to warrant their presence in the
proceedings.
A. Applicants claiming through Dev Bhushan Gupta/Kaptan Singh
120. Prabhat Kumar : CM Nos. 2839-C of 2021, 2827-C of 2021 and
2833-C of 2021 have been ﬁled by Prabhat Kumar. He claims on the basis of a
sale deed dated 23.07.2004 concerning 8 kanals and a subsequent transfer
deed dated 07.01.2005 concerning 6 kanals 8 marlas executed by B.S.
Kapoor, who claims through Kaptan Singh. His asserted interest thus traces
back to the chain origina &ng from Dev Bhushan Gupta. Since the &tle in that
chain is directly aﬀected by the adjudica&on made in the present
proceedings, the applicant has a direct and substan&al interest in the subject
ma#er. The applica&ons are accordingly liable to be allowed.
121. Jaswant Singh: CM No.5129-C of 2022 has been ﬁled by Jaswant
Singh. He claims through Kaptan Singh and subsequent vendees under sale
deeds dated 11.03.2005 and 14.03.2005 concerning an aggregate area of 32
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 31 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
kanals 5 marlas. His asserted interest similarly arises from the chain
origina &ng from Dev Bhushan Gupta and is liable to be aﬀected by the
adjudica&on in these appeals. The applica&on is accordingly liable to be
allowed.
122. Omkar Singh: CM Nos.10761-C, 10762-C, 10763-C and 10764-C
of 2026 have been ﬁled by Omkar Singh under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with
Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and Sec &on 151 CPC. His claim is founded upon sale
deed dated 29.11.2012 concerning 13 kanals, executed by plain&ﬀ Nos.2 to 4,
who themselves claim through Kaptan Singh. The stated considera&on is
₹89,37,500/-. His interest is, therefore, directly connected with the chain of
&tle, which is the subject ma#er of adjudica&on. The applica&ons are
accordingly liable to be allowed.
123. Ja n Bhagat: CM Nos.2316-C of 2026 and 1910-C of 2026 have
been ﬁled by Ja &n Bhagat under Order I Rule 10 CPC. He claims under sale
deed dated 11.12.2018 concerning 2 kanals 19 marlas 6 sarsai executed by
Parvesh and Roshni, who claim through Kaptan Singh. His asserted interest is
consequently deriva&ve of the chain origina&ng from Dev Bhushan Gupta and
may be directly aﬀected by the outcome of the present proceedings. The
applica&ons are accordingly liable to be allowed.
B. Applicants claiming through Sat Narayan Bansal/Karishma Floricultures
124.1 Bimla Jain and Anil Jain: CM Nos.2875-C of 2020, 2876-C of 2020,
2880-C of 2020 and 2881-C of 2020 have been ﬁled by Bimla Jain and Anil Jain
under Order I Rule 10 read with Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. They rely upon an
agreement to sell dated 06.01.2009 stated to have been executed with Sat
Narayan Bansal for a considera &on of ₹3.20 crore in respect of 104 kanals 4
marlas. It is further pleaded by them that pursuant to a subsequent
compromise between the applicants and Sat Narayan Bansal in a civil suit
ins&tuted by them, a decree dated 14.09.2019 came to be passed in their
favour.
124.2 Their claim, therefore, is not founded merely upon an
agreement to sell but also upon the rights claimed under the aforesaid
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 32 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
decree. They consequently have an iden &ﬁable and substan&al interest in the
subject ma#er of the present proceedings. They have also ins&tuted COCP
No.1945 of 2025, alleging wilful viola&on by Sat Narayan Bansal and Karishma
Floricultures of the order dated 04.12.2019 by which status quo in respect of
the suit property was directed to be maintained, par&cularly in rela&on to the
subsequent sale transac&ons executed in favour of Sunil Saini in 2024.
124.3 In above facts and circumstances, their presence before the
Court is directly connected with the protec&on of the interests asserted by
them in the property and with the proceedings arising from the alleged
viola&on of the Court's order. The applica&ons are accordingly allowed. Bimla
Jain and Anil Jain are impleaded as par&es. It is, however, clariﬁed that their
impleadment does not amount to an independent adjudica&on of the nature
or extent of the rights ﬂowing from the decree dated 14.09.2019, which shall
remain subject to the terms and legal eﬀect of that decree and the ﬁndings
and direc&ons contained in this judgment.
125. Kamla: CM No.396-C of 2020 has been ﬁled under Order I Rule
10 CPC by Kamla, widow of Balbir, on the basis of sale deed dated 27.06.2012
concerning 6 kanals 2 marlas, stated to have been purchased from Inderjit
Singh. Since the applicant asserts an interest derived through a transac &on
forming part of the subsequent chain of dealings with the suit property, her
presence is appropriate for protec&ng the interest so claimed. The
applica&on is accordingly liable to be allowed.
C. Subsequent purchasers during pendency of the appeals
126. Sunil Saini: CM Nos.11597-C of 2025 and 11602-C of 2025 have
been ﬁled by Sunil Saini under Order I Rule 10 CPC. He claims under two sale
deeds dated 30.08.2024 executed by Sat Narayan Bansal concerning 63
kanals 19 marlas and 32 kanals 5 marlas respec &vely, for stated considera&on
aggrega&ng to ₹14 crore. These transac&ons were eﬀected during pendency
of the present appeals and aBer the order dated 04.12.2019 direc&ng
maintenance of status quo. Sunil Saini nevertheless has an iden&ﬁable and
substan&al claimed interest in the subject ma#er. His applica&ons are
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 33 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
accordingly liable to be allowed, subject to the ﬁndings and direc &ons
recorded herein. His impleadment shall not, however, be construed as
valida&on of the transac&ons or as conferring any equity arising from a
transac&on allegedly entered into in viola&on of the order of this Court.
127. Rajinder Sharma: CM No.10490-C of 2026 has been ﬁled by
Rajinder Sharma under Order I Rule 10 CPC. He claims under sale deed dated
05.11.2024 executed by Sunil Saini concerning 32 kanals 5 marlas for stated
considera &on of ₹25 crore. His claim is deriva&ve of the interest asserted by
Sunil Saini and is likewise liable to be aﬀected by the adjudica&on in the
present proceedings. The applica&on is accordingly liable to be allowed,
subject to the ﬁndings and direc&ons recorded herein.
Conclusion on impleadment:
128. For the foregoing reasons, the applicants referred to in the
preceding paragraphs have established an iden &ﬁable interest in the subject
ma#er of the li&ga&on suﬃcient to warrant their presence on record. Their
impleadment is necessary to enable them to protect the respec&ve interests
claimed by them and also to ensure that the adjudica&on in these
proceedings operates eﬀec&vely upon all persons whose claimed interests
are directly connected with the property in dispute.
129. Accordingly, CM Nos. 2839-C of 2021, 2875-C of 2020, 10762-C
of 2026, 2880-C of 2020, 2316-C of 2026, 2827-C of 2021, 2876-C of 2020,
10764-C of 2026, 2828-C of 2021, 5129-C of 2022, 2881-C of 2021, 396-C of
2020, 10763-C of 2026, 1910-C of 2026, 11597-C of 2025, 11602-C of 2025
and 10490-C of 2026, seeking impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC and/or
Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, are allowed. The respec&ve applicants shall stand
impleaded as par&es to these proceedings, subject to the limita&ons and
observa&ons recorded hereinabove.
Applica ons for withdrawal and recording of compromises:
130. The Court now turns to the applica &ons moved by plain&ﬀ No.1-
Dev Bhushan Gupta, and plain&ﬀ No.5-Suraj Pal seeking withdrawal of their
respec&ve appeals on the basis of subsequent compromises. This aspect
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 34 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
requires separate considera &on because, during the pendency of the
appeals, substan&al interests in the suit property have devolved upon
persons, who have approached this Court seeking impleadment and
protec&on of their interests; and their applica&ons for impleadment has been
allowed as per above discussion.
131. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants have relied
upon Anurag Mi :al v. Shaily Mishra Mi:al, (2018) 9 SCC 691 and
Thammanna v. K. Veera Reddy, (1980) 4 SCC 62 , to contend that an
appellant has an uncondi &onal right to withdraw his appeal under Order XXIII
Rule 1 CPC.
132. The general proposi&on that an appellant may seek withdrawal
of an appeal cannot be disputed. In Anurag Mi :al (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court considered the eﬀect of an applica &on for withdrawal of an
appeal and recognised the right of the appellant to withdraw the appeal.
133. The ques&on before this Court, however, is not whether an
appellant ordinarily possesses such a right. The ques&on is whether, in the
peculiar circumstances of the present li&ga&on, such right can be exercised in
a manner, which would eﬀec&vely terminate the adjudicatory process aBer
substan&al interests have devolved upon third par&es, par&cularly when
those persons have approached the Court, and the original par&es
themselves have subsequently altered their posi&on by entering into
arrangements, which may adversely aﬀect the interests of those claiming
through them.
134. The dis&nc&on is important. A transferee pendente lite is
ordinarily bound by the result of the li&ga&on. But that principle does not
mean that, once such a transferee approaches the Court and seeks to protect
a substan&al interest, which has devolved upon him, the Court must shut its
eyes to the circumstances in which the original party seeks to bring the
li&ga&on to an end.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 35 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
135. In Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors (P)
Ltd.’s case (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised that a transferee
pendente lite having a substan &al interest in the subject ma#er may be
impleaded under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and heard. The Court speciﬁcally
no&ced that where the transferor has ceased to have an interest in the
property, there may be a possibility that he may not properly defend the
li&ga&on and may even collude with the opposite party. The purpose of
impleadment in such circumstances is to enable the transferee to protect his
interest in the pending li&ga&on.
136. The above principle has great signiﬁcance in the present case.
Plain&ﬀ No.1-Dev Bhushan Gupta has, during the course of the li&ga&on,
parted with his interest in the suit property. He has thereaBer entered into a
compromise with Sat Narayan Bansal, whose claim of &tle is directly opposed
to the case, which Dev Bhushan had originally set up in the suit. He has now
sought withdrawal of his appeals on the basis of such subsequent
arrangement.
137. The Court is not required, for deciding the withdrawal
applica&ons, to record a posi&ve ﬁnding that the compromise between Dev
Bhushan Gupta and Sat Narayan Bansal is the result of collusion. Such a
ﬁnding would require a separate eviden&ary founda&on. The circumstances,
however, certainly give rise to a legi&mate apprehension that the original
par&es may no longer have the same interest in prosecu&ng or defending the
li&ga&on as they had, when the proceedings commenced, and that persons,
who have subsequently acquired substan&al interests through them, may
consequently be leB without an eﬀec&ve opportunity to protect those
interests.
138. This concern is not merely theore&cal. The record discloses
mul&ple subsequent transac&ons through both compe&ng chains of &tle. The
original plain&ﬀ has substan&ally parted with his interest, whereas the
persons claiming through him assert that their rights would be seriously
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 36 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
prejudiced, if the appeals were simply permi #ed to be withdrawn pursuant
to a private arrangement between the original par&es.
139. The Court is conscious of the decision in Anurag Mi :al (supra).
It would not be appropriate to circumvent that authority by merely labelling
every subsequent purchaser as a person, whose presence defeats the right of
withdrawal. The ques &on has to be examined on the par&cular facts and in
the context of the rights, which have intervened during the pendency of the
proceedings.
140. In this regard, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.
Rathinavel Che Kar and another v. V. Sivaraman and others, (1999) 4 SCC
89, though arising in a somewhat diﬀerent factual se Nng, is instruc&ve.
There, aBer a decree had been passed in favour of the plain&ﬀ, the property
was transferred to third par&es, who were impleaded in the pending appeal.
When the original plain&ﬀ subsequently sought withdrawal of the suit on the
basis of a compromise with the contes&ng defendant, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court declined to permit withdrawal, which would destroy or prejudice rights
that had accrued to the transferees. The Court emphasised that once rights
had vested in persons, who had been brought on record, the proceedings
could not be brought to an end in a manner, which destroyed those rights
without strong jus&ﬁca&on.
141. In another case Petakamse :y Ramaswamy Naidu and others v.
Kandrupu Kondadu and others, 2005 (3) ALD 853 : 2005 (4) ALT 313 , the
Andhra Pradesh High Court considered an applica &on by an appellant under
Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC seeking withdrawal of the appeal, alongside an
applica&on by persons claiming through subsequent transac&ons seeking
impleadment. The Court, aBer considering the law rela&ng to transferees
pendente lite and withdrawal, declined to permit withdrawal, where doing so
would prejudice the interests claimed by the persons seeking to come on
record. Signiﬁcantly, the Court also no&ced the allega&on of fraud and
collusion between the original par&es and held that the appeal could not be
permi#ed to be withdrawn in such circumstances.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 37 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
142. The said decision is not being treated as laying down an
inﬂexible rule that every transferee pendente lite can prevent withdrawal of
an appeal. Its relevance lies in the principle that the Court, while considering
an applica &on for withdrawal, cannot remain oblivious to the substan&al
interests, which have devolved upon persons, who have been brought before
it and to the possibility that withdrawal may operate to their prejudice.
143. The present case presents an unusual combina&on of
circumstances. The li&ga&on concerns valuable immovable property; the
original plain&ﬀ has parted with his interest; mul&ple transferees have
acquired interests through the compe&ng chains; some of those transferees
have approached this Court for impleadment; and the original plain&ﬀ has
subsequently entered into a compromise with the very party, whose &tle is
opposed to the case originally pleaded by him. In these circumstances,
permiNng withdrawal as a ma#er of course, would have the prac&cal eﬀect
of leaving the persons, who have acquired substan&al interests during the
li&ga&on to pursue their remedies elsewhere, notwithstanding that their
interests have been brought before this Court in the pending appeals.
144. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the judicial process is
intended to resolve disputes eﬀec&vely and not to permit its termina&on in a
manner which creates further rounds of li&ga&on. If the original par&es, aBer
having altered their respec&ve interests, are permi#ed to terminate the
proceedings by a private arrangement without considering the interests of
those, who have subsequently acquired substan&al stakes and approached
the Court, the result may be mul&plicity of proceedings rather than ﬁnality.
145. This Court is, therefore, not refusing withdrawal merely because
it considers the subsequent compromises undesirable. The Court is required
to balance the appellant's right to seek withdrawal against the legi&mate
right of persons, who have acquired substan&al interests in the subject
ma#er and have approached the Court for protec&on of those interests. The
la#er considera&on assumes par&cular importance, where the circumstances
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 38 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
give rise to a legi &mate apprehension that the original par&es may no longer
adequately protect the interests of their respec&ve transferees.
146. More importantly, the controversy concerning the GPA has been
fully adjudicated in the present judgment. The Court has found that the GPA
was not proved to be a wholly forged and unauthorised document and that
the ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990 cannot be annulled on that ground.
147. In these circumstances, permiNng withdrawal of the appeals
simpliciter would serve no useful purpose and may create avoidable
uncertainty concerning the rights of the numerous subsequent transferees.
The be#er course is to decide the appeals on merits.
148. In the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, the
applica&ons seeking withdrawal of the appeals cannot be permi#ed to
terminate the adjudicatory process. The appeals are accordingly being
decided on merits. The compromise documents placed on record may be
taken into considera&on for the limited purpose of determining the inter se
rights of the par&es thereto, but shall not be permi#ed to prejudice the
rights of the impleaded applicants or to alter the adjudica&on of &tle made in
the present judgment.
Subsequent Transac ons during pendency of the Appeals:
149. Having dealt with the applica &ons for withdrawal and
compromise, the Court now proceeds to consider the eﬀect of the
subsequent transac&ons brought on record during pendency of the present
appeals. This aspect requires considera&on separately from the substan&ve
controversy regarding the validity of the GPA and also separately from the
ques&on, whether any such transac&on cons&tutes viola&on of an order of
this Court.
150. As no&ced hereinbefore, during pendency of the appeals, this
Court, vide order dated 04.12.2019, directed maintenance of status quo in
respect of the suit property. The said order con&nued to operate and was
neither vacated nor modiﬁed so as to permit aliena&on of the property.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 39 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
151. Notwithstanding the subsistence of the said order, Sat Narayan
Bansal executed two registered sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 in favour of
Sunil Saini concerning 63 kanals 19 marlas, and 32 kanals 5 marlas
respec &vely, for an aggregate stated considera&on of ₹14 crore. Sunil Saini
thereaBer executed a sale deed dated 05.11.2024 in favour of Rajinder
Sharma concerning 32 kanals 5 marlas for a stated considera&on of ₹25
crore. The said transac&ons have been brought on record through the
respec&ve applica&ons for impleadment.
152. Two dis&nct ques&ons consequently arise. The ﬁrst is as to the
substan&ve legal eﬀect of these subsequent transac&ons upon the rights in
the property. The second is whether the execu&on of the sale deeds dated
30.08.2024, notwithstanding the order dated 04.12.2019, cons&tutes wilful
disobedience of the said order. These ques&ons cannot be commingled.
153. The prac&cal eﬀect of the subsequent transac&ons has to be
determined in the light of the ﬁnding already recorded by this Court
regarding the founda&onal transac&ons of 1990. This Court has held that the
GPA dated 05.07.1990 was executed by Dev Bhushan Gupta in favour of
defendant No.1-Devender Kumar Vashisht and that the ﬁve sale deeds dated
28.07.1990 executed pursuant thereto were within the authority conferred
by the said GPA.
154. Once the aforesaid ﬁnding is recorded, the &tle ﬂowing from the
ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990 cons&tutes the legally sustainable chain of
&tle. The subsequent sale deed dated 13.05.2004 executed by Dev Bhushan
Gupta in favour of Kaptan Singh could not convey a &tle which, on the
ﬁndings recorded herein, had already stood dealt with through the earlier
authorised transac&ons.
155. Consequently, Kaptan Singh could not acquire any valid &tle
under the sale deed dated 13.05.2004 to the extent it purported to deal with
property, which had already been validly conveyed through the transac&ons
of 28.07.1990. He could not, in turn, transmit any be#er &tle to persons
claiming through him, than what he himself had.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 40 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
156. The posi &on of the persons claiming through Dev Bhushan
Gupta or Kaptan Singh is, therefore, clear. They cannot claim &tle to the suit
property on the strength of that subsequent chain, as their respec&ve
transferors themselves had no subsis&ng &tle, which could lawfully be
conveyed to them. Their impleadment in the present proceedings does not
alter that substan&ve posi&on.
157. On the other hand, the chain of &tle ﬂowing from the ﬁve sale
deeds dated 28.07.1990 is upheld by this judgment. Consequently, persons
claiming through Sat Narayan Bansal or Karishma Floricultures, to the extent
their respec&ve transfers are traceable to and covered by the said valid chain
of &tle, derive &tle through a legally sustainable source. Their &tle cannot be
impeached merely on the ground that the original plain&ﬀ subsequently
executed the sale deed dated 13.05.2004 in favour of Kaptan Singh.
158. This dis&nc&on is being recorded expressly so that there remains
no ambiguity regarding the compe&ng chains of &tle. The persons claiming
through Dev Bhushan Gupta/Kaptan Singh do not acquire &tle through that
chain to the property already covered by the valid 1990 transac&ons;
whereas the persons claiming through Sat Narayan Bansal/Karishma
Floricultures derive their &tle through the chain, which this Court has upheld.
159. The above conclusion is, however, subject to the extent of the
property actually covered by the respec&ve conveyances and to the validity
of the individual transac&ons by which subsequent purchasers claim. The
mere fact that a person traces his claim to the upheld chain does not
dispense with proof or validity of his own conveyance, where such issue
independently arises. Equally, no subsequent transac&on can enlarge the
extent of &tle beyond that possessed by the transferor.
160. As regards transac&ons eﬀected during pendency of the
li&ga&on, the addi&onal consequence of Sec&on 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 shall apply wherever a#racted. Such pendente lite
transac&ons do not acquire any superiority over the &tle of the transferor
and remain subject to the result of the pending li&ga&on.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 41 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
161. Accordingly, the subsequent transferees shall stand governed by
the following se #led posi&on emerging from this judgment:

the chain origina &ng from the authorised sale deeds dated 28.07.1990
is the valid chain of &tle;

the subsequent chain origina &ng from the sale deed dated 13.05.2004
in favour of Kaptan Singh cannot confer &tle to property already
covered by the earlier valid conveyances; and

every subsequent transferee can claim only such right, &tle and
interest as his transferor was legally competent to convey, subject,
where applicable, to Sec&on 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the
orders passed by this Court.
Eﬀect of the decree dated 14.09.2019 upon the subsequent transac ons:
162. Before proceeding to the contempt pe &&ons, a speciﬁc
conten&on raised by Ld. Senior Advocate for applicants Bimla Jain and Anil
Jain requires considera&on. As no&ced while dealing with their impleadment,
the applicants rely upon an agreement to sell dated 06.01.2009 entered into
with Sat Narayan Bansal in respect of 104 kanals 4 marlas, followed by a
compromise between the par&es and a decree dated 14.09.2019 passed in
terms thereof. Their claim, therefore, is not founded merely upon an
agreement to sell but also upon rights secured under a decree of a
competent Court.
163. The compromise, the terms whereof have been placed before
this Court in the impleadment applica&on, records substan&al payments
made by Bimla Jain and Anil Jain towards the agreed sale considera&on. It
further provides for execu&on and registra&on of the sale deed in their
favour aBer the pending li&ga&on concerning the property, is ﬁnally decided.
Pointedly, it also contains a s&pula&on that Sat Narayan Bansal and his legal
representa&ves would not sell the suit property to any person other than the
plain ﬀs (of that case – Bimla Jain & Anil Jain) or their nominee and that, in
the event of such sale to a third party, the same would not bind the plain &ﬀs.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 42 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
The compromise further provides for refund of the amounts received, with
interest, in the eventuality contemplated therein.
164. The suit was therea Ber decreed in terms of the compromise on
14.09.2019. The compromise, therefore, cannot be treated merely as a
private arrangement having no legal consequence. Its terms, having been
incorporated in the decree, became binding upon the par&es to that
proceeding. Sat Narayan Bansal was consequently under a subsis&ng
obliga&on to act in accordance with the terms of the decree.
165. The Court is, however, conscious of the dis&nc&on between a
decree, which secures or recognises contractual rights and a decree which
itself operates as a conveyance of &tle. The compromise contemplated
execu&on of a sale deed in favour of Bimla Jain and Anil Jain upon fulﬁlment
of the condi&ons s&pulated therein. The decree cannot, therefore, be
treated, merely by reason of its having been passed in terms of the
compromise, as a conveyance transferring ownership to the applicants. Its
legal eﬀect must be determined from the terms of the decree itself. What is
material for present purposes is that the decree created enforceable rights in
favour of the applicants and corresponding obliga&ons upon Sat Narain
Bansal.
166. The subsequent sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 executed by Sat
Narayan Bansal in favour of Sunil Saini must, therefore, be examined not
merely as ordinary subsequent conveyances but in the backdrop of the
subsis&ng decree dated 14.09.2019. Sat Narayan Bansal could not, by a
subsequent unilateral transac&on, defeat or render nugatory rights, which
had already accrued to Bimla Jain and Anil Jain under the decree.
167. The express s&pula&on contained in the compromise assumes
par&cular signiﬁcance. Sat Narayan Bansal had undertaken not to sell the
property to a third party except in favour of Bimla Jain, Anil Jain or their
nominee. The subsequent sale deeds in favour of Sunil Saini were, therefore,
transac&ons, which were directly inconsistent with an obliga&on already
incorporated in the decree.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 43 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
168. The conten &on of Ld. Counsel for Bimla Jain and Anil Jain that
the sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 are wholly void in every respect, however,
requires some qualiﬁca&on. The Court is not called upon in these
proceedings to pronounce upon the validity of those instruments as against
every person in the world. The appropriate declara&on is with reference to
the rights of the decree-holders. The sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 in favour
of Sunil shall not be binding upon Bimla Jain and Anil Jain and shall not
operate to defeat, ex&nguish, dilute or otherwise prejudice any right
enforceable by them under the decree dated 14.09.2019.
169. Sunil Saini, being a subsequent transferee from Sat Narayan
Bansal, cannot acquire a be#er right than that which Sat Narayan Bansal was
legally competent to convey. The subsequent sale deeds cannot, therefore,
be relied upon by Sunil Saini to defeat or circumvent the rights secured to
Bimla Jain and Anil Jain under the decree. The same principle necessarily
applies to any person subsequently claiming through Sunil Saini.
170. This conclusion is not inconsistent with Sec&on 52 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The doctrine of lis pendens ordinarily does
not render a transfer made during pendency of li&ga&on void ab ini&o;
rather, the transferee takes the property subject to the rights ul&mately
determined in the li&ga&on. In the present case, however, there is the
addi&onal circumstance of an exis&ng decree, which speciﬁcally regulated Sat
Narayan Bansal's right to alienate the property. The subsequent transac&ons
cannot be permi#ed to defeat rights already secured under that decree.
171. It is, accordingly, declared that the sale deeds dated 30.08.2024
executed by Sat Narayan Bansal in favour of Sunil Saini shall not bind Bimla
Jain and Anil Jain and shall not aﬀect, defeat or prejudice their rights under
the decree dated 14.09.2019. This declara&on is conﬁned to the rights of the
said applicants under that decree and shall not be understood as conferring
upon them any right beyond what is lawfully secured by the decree.
Contempt Proceedings – (COCP No.1945 of 2025 and COCP No.265 of 2025):
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 44 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
172. The Court now proceeds to consider COCP No.1945 of 2025 and
COCP No.265 of 2025. Both pe &&ons arise mainly from the subsequent
transac&ons dated 30.08.2024 and allege viola&on of the order dated
04.12.2019, whereby this Court had directed maintenance of status quo in
respect of the suit property. The two pe&&ons are being considered together
on the common ques&on of viola&on of the said order, while the liability of
each alleged contemnor shall be examined separately.
173. COCP No.1945 of 2025 has been ins &tuted by Bimla Jain and Anil
Jain against Sat Narayan Bansal and Karishma Floricultures. Their grievance is
that, notwithstanding the subsis&ng order dated 04.12.2019 and the rights
claimed under the decree dated 14.09.2019, transac&ons were entered into
on 30.08.2024, whereby substan&al por&ons of the property were dealt with
in favour of Sunil Saini, including the surrender of the leasehold interest held
by Karishma Floricultures.
174. COCP No.265 of 2025 has been ins &tuted by Prabhat Kumar and
Jaswant Singh against Sat Narayan Bansal, Sunil Saini and the Sub-Registrar,
Sohna. The allega&on relevant for the present adjudica&on is also viola&on of
the order dated 04.12.2019 on account of the sale transac&ons executed in
favour of Sunil Saini on 30.08.2024. Though reference has been made to the
subsequent order of High Court dated 29.07.2021 concerning construc&on,
no independent viola&on of that order is alleged for adjudica&on in the
present contempt pe&&on. The present contempt controversy is conﬁned to
the order dated 04.12.2019.
Principles governing contempt:
175. Sec &on 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deﬁnes civil
contempt as wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direc&on, order,
writ or other process of a Court. The expression "wilful disobedience"
postulates a conscious and deliberate act of disobedience. Mere
inadvertence, accidental omission or a bona ﬁde inability to comply would
not ordinarily a#ract the jurisdic&on.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 45 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
176. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Niaz Mohammad and others v.
State of Haryana and others, (1994) 6 SCC 332 , has explained that the
disobedience must be wilful before it can cons &tute as a civil contempt. The
jurisdic&on is undoubtedly serious, but its exercise is equally necessary to
preserve the authority of judicial orders. The Court is, therefore, required to
determine as to whether the alleged contemnor had knowledge of the order
and consciously acted in disregard thereof.
177. At the same &me, a party cannot jus&fy viola&on of a subsis&ng
order by subsequently asser&ng that the substan&ve right, which he sought
to exercise was ul&mately found to exist. An interim or interlocutory order
remains binding un&l it is varied, modiﬁed or vacated. The eventual result of
the substan&ve proceedings does not retrospec&vely suspend the obliga&on
to obey such order.
Case of Sat Narayan Bansal
178. The case of Sat Narayan Bansal stands on a dis &nct foo&ng. He
was himself a party to this li&ga&on before this court, in which the order
dated 04.12.2019 was passed. He was represented in the proceedings and
con&nued to par&cipate in the li&ga&on thereaBer. There is no material
before the Court to suggest that the said order was unknown to him.
179. The order directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the
very property concerning which Sat Narayan Bansal was asser&ng his rights
before this Court. The restraint was, therefore, directly connected with the
subject ma#er of the li&ga&on and was not an order concerning some
collateral or unrelated ma#er.
180. Notwithstanding the subsistence of the said order, Sat Narayan
Bansal executed two registered sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 in favour of
Sunil Saini. One sale deed concerned 63 kanals 19 marlas, and the other 32
kanals 5 marlas, for an aggregate stated considera&on of ₹14 crore. These
transac&ons concerned substan&al por&ons of the very property, which was
the subject ma#er of the pending appeals.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 46 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
181. The execu &on of two registered sale deeds for such substan&al
areas and considera&on cannot reasonably be characterised as an accidental
or inadvertent act. Sat Narayan Bansal was a principal party to the li&ga&on,
was aware of the order direc&ng maintenance of status quo and nevertheless
himself executed the conveyances.
182. If Sat Narayan Bansal entertained any doubt concerning the
scope of the order or believed that he was en&tled to deal with any part of
the property notwithstanding the restraint, the proper course was to
approach this Court for clariﬁca&on or modiﬁca&on before undertaking the
transac&ons. No such permission or clariﬁca&on was sought.
183. The circumstances are further signiﬁcant because, as already
no&ced, Sat Narayan Bansal was also bound by the decree dated 14.09.2019
in favour of Bimla Jain and Anil Jain, which contained an express s&pula&on
against aliena&on of the property to third par&es. The Court is not recording
a separate ﬁnding of contempt for viola&on of that decree in these
proceedings; nevertheless, the existence of that decree is relevant to the
assessment of the conduct of Sat Narayan Bansal and establishes that he was
fully conscious that his dealings with the property were subject to binding
judicial obliga&ons.
184. This Court has ul&mately found in the present judgment that the
&tle ﬂowing from the 1990 transac&ons is legally sustainable. That ﬁnding
though does not furnish a defence to the contempt allega&on. The ques&on
whether Sat Narayan Bansal possessed substan&ve &tle and the ques&on
whether he obeyed the order dated 04.12.2019 are dis&nct. His &tle, even if
valid, did not authorise him to disregard an order of this Court, which was
binding upon him.
185. The subsequent execu&on of the sale deeds was consequently a
posi&ve act undertaken in the teeth of the subsis&ng restraint. The Court is
sa&sﬁed that Sat Narayan Bansal had knowledge of the order dated
04.12.2019 and consciously acted contrary to it.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 47 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
186. The ingredients of wilful disobedience are, therefore,
established. So, Sat Narayan Bansal is held guilty of civil contempt for wilful
and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 04.12.2019.
Case of Karishma Floricultures
187. The posi &on of Karishma Floricultures requires separate
considera&on. Karishma Floricultures is a concern and not a natural person.
The material placed before the Court shows that it had a leasehold interest in
the property and that such leasehold interest was surrendered in favour of
Sunil Saini by a deed dated 30.08.2024.
188. The surrender assumes implica&on because it was an aﬃrma&ve
transac&on concerning an exis&ng interest in the very property which was
subject to the order of status quo. It was also contemporaneous with the two
sale deeds executed by Sat Narayan Bansal in favour of Sunil Saini and
formed part of the same overall dealing with the property.
189. Karishma Floricultures was represented by Sat Narayan Bansal.
The Court does not hold the concern guilty merely because of that
representa&on. The ques&on is whether the transac&on undertaken on
behalf of the concern, in the circumstances established on record, amounted
to conscious and deliberate disregard of the subsis&ng order.
190. The surrender deed was executed on 30.08.2024, the very date
on which Sat Narayan Bansal executed the sale deeds in favour of Sunil Saini.
The transac&on was not an accidental consequence of some unrelated event.
It was a posi&ve dealing with the leasehold interest in the very property
which was subject to the order of this Court.
191. In these circumstances, the Court is sa&sﬁed that the surrender
of the leasehold interest by Karishma Flouriculture, ac&ng through its
authorised representa&ve, was a conscious and deliberate act undertaken
notwithstanding the subsis&ng order dated 04.12.2019 and cons&tuted
disobedience of the status quo directed by this Court.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 48 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
192. Karishma Floricultures is, accordingly, held guilty of wilful and
deliberate disobedience of the order dated 04.12.2019 through the act
undertaken on its behalf in surrendering its leasehold interest in favour of
Sunil Saini.
Case of Sunil Saini
193. The allega &on against Sunil Saini stands on a diﬀerent foo&ng.
He is the transferee under the sale deeds dated 30.08.2024. In COCP No.265
of 2025, the principal allega&on against him is that he intended to further
alienate the property notwithstanding the order of this Court.
194. Mere inten&on or apprehension of a future aliena&on cannot, by
itself, cons&tute completed civil contempt. The Court must be sa&sﬁed that
the alleged contemnor has actually undertaken an act prohibited by the
order or has otherwise consciously acted in a manner amoun&ng to its wilful
viola&on.
195. The fact that Sunil Saini accepted the sale deeds executed in his
favour does not establish that he himself commi#ed contempt of the order
dated 04.12.2019. His substan&ve rights under those transac&ons and the
ques&on whether those transac&ons can bind the decree-holders or other
persons claiming rights in the property are separate ma#ers, which have
been dealt with elsewhere in this judgment.
196. No suﬃcient material has been brought on record to establish
that Sunil Saini, aBer acquiring the property, actually proceeded to eﬀect a
further aliena&on or undertook any other speciﬁc act in viola&on of the order
dated 04.12.2019. An apprehension that he may do so in future cannot
subs&tute proof of a completed wilful viola&on.
197. As such, the Court ﬁnds no suﬃcient basis to hold Sunil Saini
guilty of contempt.
Case of Sub-Registrar, Sohna
198. The allega &on against the Sub-Registrar, Sohna, is s&ll diﬀerent.
The grievance of the applicants is that, aBer the sale deeds dated 30.08.2024
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 49 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
had been registered in favour of Sunil Saini, the Sub-Registrar was requested
to cancel the said sale deeds but did not do so.
199. The order dated 04.12.2019 directed maintenance of status quo
in respect of the suit property. No material has been shown to establish that
the said order imposed upon the Sub-Registrar a posi &ve obliga&on to cancel
a registered sale deed aBer its execu&on and registra&on. Nor is there any
subsequent order speciﬁcally direc&ng him to cancel the instruments.
200. The failure of the Sub-Registrar to accede to a request for
cancella&on of a registered conveyance cannot, by itself, amount to wilful
disobedience of the order dated 04.12.2019. The ques&on whether the sale
deeds were legally liable to be cancelled is dis&nct from the ques&on
whether the registering authority commi#ed contempt by not cancelling
them.
201. A ﬁnding of contempt must rest upon viola&on of a speciﬁc and
binding direc&on of the Court. In the absence of material establishing such
direc&on and its conscious viola&on by the Sub-Registrar, no ﬁnding of civil
contempt can be recorded against him.
202. The proceedings against the Sub-Registrar, Sohna, are
accordingly liable to be dismissed.
Eﬀect of the contemptuous transac ons:
203. Before proceeding to the ﬁnal orders in the contempt pe &&ons,
it is necessary to clarify the rela&onship between the ﬁnding of contempt and
the substan&ve eﬀect of the transac&ons dated 30.08.2024. The two
ques&ons are dis&nct. A transfer pendente lite does not ordinarily become
void ab ini&o merely by reason of Sec&on 52 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882. The transferee takes the property subject to the result of the li&ga&on.
204. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v.
Nanak Builders & Investors (P) Ltd.’s case (supra) and T. Ravi v. B. Chinna
Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342 has explained the eﬀect of lis pendens in these
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 50 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
terms. The subsequent transferee remains bound by the adjudica &on and
cannot acquire a &tle superior to that of his transferor.
205. At the same &me, the present case contains an addi&onal
feature in as much as the transac&ons dated 30.08.2024 were entered into in
deliberate viola&on of a speciﬁc order of this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor,
2023 INSC 805, has recognised that where transac &ons are entered into in
deliberate disobedience of a subsis&ng order or undertaking, the contempt
jurisdic&on may require appropriate direc&ons so that the contemnor does
not obtain an advantage from his own contumacious act.
206. In the present case, however, having regard to the fact that the
substan&ve &tle controversy has already been adjudicated and the
subsequent transferees have been brought before this Court, it is
unnecessary to pronounce a general declara&on that every transac&on
ﬂowing from the sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 is void for all purposes.
207. What is necessary to clarify, and is hereby declared, is that the
sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 executed by Sat Narayan Bansal in favour of
Sunil Saini, and every transac&on ﬂowing from them, shall remain subject to
the ﬁndings recorded in this judgment; the rights of Bimla Jain and Anil Jain
under the decree dated 14.09.2019; the doctrine of lis pendens embodied in
Sec&on 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the order dated
04.12.2019.
208. In par&cular, no right arising from the said transac&ons shall be
asserted so as to defeat, dilute, circumvent or prejudice the rights of Bimla
Jain and Anil Jain under the decree dated 14.09.2019. Likewise, Sunil Saini
cannot convey to any subsequent transferee a &tle superior to that which he
himself acquired from Sat Narayan Bansal.
209. The sale deed dated 05.11.2024 executed by Sunil Saini in favour
of Rajinder Sharma shall consequently stand on no be#er foo&ng. Rajinder
Sharma can claim only such right, &tle and interest as Sunil Saini was legally
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 51 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
competent to convey and shall remain bound by the ﬁndings and direc &ons
contained in this judgment.
Conclusion in the contempt pe ons:
210. The Court has considered the conduct of each alleged
contemnor separately. Sat Narayan Bansal was a party to the proceedings,
had knowledge of the order dated 04.12.2019 and nevertheless himself
executed substan &al registered conveyances concerning the subject property
in favour of Sunil Saini. Karishma Floricultures, through its authorised
representa&on, simultaneously surrendered its leasehold interest in favour of
the same transferee.
211. The Court is sa&sﬁed that the conduct of Sat Narayan Bansal and
Karishma Floricultures cons&tuted conscious and deliberate disobedience of
the order dated 04.12.2019.
212. The case against Sunil Saini is diﬀerent. No completed act of
further aliena&on or other speciﬁc viola&on of the order has been
established against him. Similarly, no speciﬁc direc&on of this Court requiring
the Sub-Registrar, Sohna, to cancel the registered sale deeds has been
shown. The material is, therefore, insuﬃcient to record a ﬁnding of contempt
against either of them.
213. Accordingly, Sat Narayan Bansal and Karishma Floricultures are
held guilty of wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated
04.12.2019. Sunil Saini and the Sub-Registrar, Sohna are not held guilty of
contempt.
Ques on of sentence:
214. Having recorded a ﬁnding of guilt against Sat Narayan Bansal and
Karishma Floricultures, the Court is now required to consider the appropriate
consequence. The ques &on of sentence is to be addressed separately aBer
hearing the contemnors speciﬁcally on that aspect. The Court, therefore,
considers it appropriate not to impose sentence at this stage.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 52 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
215. The ﬁnding of guilt recorded herein shall, however, remain
opera &ve. The ma#er shall be listed separately for hearing Sat Narayan
Bansal and Karishma Floricultures on the ques&on of sentence, aBer
aﬀording them an opportunity to address the Court on that aspect.
Conclusions and opera ve direc ons:
216. In view of the foregoing discussion and ﬁndings, the following
conclusions and direc &ons shall govern the disposal of the appeals and the
connected proceedings:
(i) The General Power of A#orney dated 05.07.1990, registered on
26.07.1990, and the ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990 executed pursuant
thereto are held valid, subject to the ﬁndings recorded herein regarding the
extent of the property covered by the respec&ve conveyances.
(ii) The subsequent chain origina&ng from the sale deed dated
13.05.2004 executed by Dev Bhushan Gupta in favour of Kaptan Singh cannot
confer any &tle in respect of the property already covered by the valid
transac&ons of 28.07.1990. Persons claiming through Dev Bhushan
Gupta/Kaptan Singh cannot, therefore, acquire &tle to such property through
that subsequent chain.
(iii) Persons claiming through Sat Narain Bansal/Karishma
Flouriculture, to the extent their respec&ve transac&ons are traceable to the
valid chain origina&ng from the transac&ons of 28.07.1990, derive their rights
through that chain, subject to the validity and extent of their individual
transac&ons and the other ﬁndings recorded herein.
(iv) The impleadment of any subsequent transferee does not, by
itself, amount to an independent declara&on or recogni&on of &tle in his or
her favour. Every transferee shall remain subject to the &tle of the transferor
through whom the claim is made and, wherever applicable, to Sec&on 52 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
(v) The sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 executed by Sat Narain Bansal
in favour of Sunil Saini shall not bind Bimla Jain and Anil Jain and shall not
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 53 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
aﬀect, defeat, ex &nguish, dilute or prejudice any right enforceable by them
under the decree dated 14.09.2019. The sale deed dated 05.11.2024
executed by Sunil Saini in favour of Rajinder Sharma shall likewise remain
subject to the aforesaid rights and to the ﬁndings and direc&ons contained in
this judgment.
(vi) No subsequent transac&on shall confer upon any transferee any
right or equity contrary to the ﬁndings and direc&ons contained in this
judgment, the decree dated 14.09.2019, the order dated 04.12.2019 or
Sec&on 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
(vii) Sat Narain Bansal and Karishma Flouriculture are held guilty of
civil contempt for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated
04.12.2019. No ﬁnding of contempt is recorded against Sunil Saini or the Sub-
Registrar, Sohna.
(viii) The ques&on of sentence in respect of Sat Narain Bansal and
Karishma Flouriculture shall be considered separately aBer hearing them on
sentence.
217. Consequently, all the four Regular Second Appeals stand
dismissed. The two appeals preferred by plain&ﬀ No.1-Dev Bhushan Gupta
and the two appeals preferred by plain&ﬀ No.5-Suraj Pal are accordingly
dismissed. The judgments and decrees under challenge shall stand aﬃrmed,
subject to the clariﬁca&ons, declara&ons and direc&ons contained in this
judgment.
218. The Registry shall prepare and place on record an amended
cause &tle in each of the four appeals in conformity with the orders of
impleadment passed in the present proceedings. The persons impleaded
claiming through the Dev Bhushan Gupta/Kaptan Singh chain shall be
assigned appropriate serial numbers in the appellants' array, whereas the
persons impleaded claiming through the Sat Narain Bansal chain shall be
assigned appropriate serial numbers in the respondents' array. The amended
cause &tle shall be made consistent across all four appeals.
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 54 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
219. The aforesaid re-arrangement of the party array is consequen &al
to the orders of impleadment and shall not, merely by reason of the
placement of any person in the appellants' or respondents' array, be
construed as an independent declara&on or recogni&on of &tle. The
substan&ve rights of all impleaded persons shall remain governed by the
ﬁndings, declara&ons and direc&ons contained in this judgment and by the
respec&ve chain of &tle through which they claim.
220. All pending miscellaneous applica&ons, except those speciﬁcally
dealt with by separate direc&ons in this judgment, shall stand disposed of
accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs, except as speciﬁcally directed
herein.
221. In view of the ﬁndings of guilt recorded in COCP Nos.265 and
1945 of 2025 against Sat Narayan Bansal and Karishma Floricultures Limited,
both these contempt pe&&ons be separated and be listed on 17.09.2026 for
hearing on quantum of sentence.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case ﬁles.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
02.09.2026
Sarita
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
Uploaded on.: 03.09.2026
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 55 of 63

SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
Annexure ‘A’
Sale Deed dt. Dev Bhushan (Plain &ﬀ) sold 104-4M to Kaptan Singh for ₹13
13.05.2004 Lacs
Sale Deed dt. Kaptan Singh sold 8K-0M to Smt. Kiran Bala
08.11.2004
Sale Deed dt. Kaptan Singh sold 8K-0M to Munish Kumar
08.11.2004
CM N: Provisio Applicants /
n
Basis Vendor Land Area
Vendees
RSA No. 5326 of 2019 ‘Suraj Pal (plain ﬀ N: 5) vs Krishna Flouriculture & Others
(remaining plain ﬀs & defendants)

Prabhat
Kumar

[Anuj
Dewan
Adv.]
CM N:
2839
C-
2021
Under
Order 22
Rule 10
CPC
Sale Deed
dt.
23.07.2004
[8K for
₹16.5 Lacs]
& Transfer
Deed dt.
07.01.2005
[6K-08M for
₹2.5 Lacs
from
B.S.Kapoor,
vendee of
Kaptan
Singh vide
sale deed
dt.14.09.20
04
Kaptan Singh,
vendee of
Plain &ﬀ N: 1 –
Dev Bhushan
8K + 6K
8M =
14K—8M

Bimla Jain

Anil Jain

[Lokesh
Sinhal
Adv.]
CM N:
2875
C-
2020
Under
Order I
Rule 10
CPC read
with
Order 22
Rule 10
CPC
ATS
dt.06.01.20
09
Sat Narayan 104K-4M
Bansal
[₹3.2 Crore]

Omkar
Singh
[Rakesh
Dhiman
Adv]
CM N:
10762
C-
2026
13 Kanal
Under
Order I
Rule 10
CPC +
O.22
R.10 CPC
read
Sale Deed
dated
29.11.2012
Plain &ﬀs N: 2
to 4, vendees
of Kaptan
Singh, vendee
of Dev
Bhushan
[₹89,37,500
/-]
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 1 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
with
Sec &on
151 CPC

Sat
Narayan
Bansal &
Krishma
Flouricultu
re
(Defendan
ts N: 6 &
7)
CM N:
3167
C-
2023
Under
Order 23
Rule 3
read
with
Sec &on
151 CPC
To take on
record
Se #lement
Deed/ MoU
dt.
6.12.2021 &
disposal of
RSA N:
5326/ 2019
Between Suraj
Pal (Pl. N: 5 –
appellant and
applicants-Def
N: 6 & 7) –
Earlier
purchased by
Krishma (Def.
N: 7) vide sale
deed dt.
28.07.1990 –
relinquished
rights in favour
of Suraj Pal –
Pl. N: 5
w.r.t 18K-
14M
(For
considera&o
n of ₹1
Crore)
[Pankaj Gupta
Adv.]

Sat
Narayan
Bansal &
Krishma
Flouricultu
re
CM N:
11411
-C of
2023
Under
Order 39
Rule 1 &
2 CPC
To stay
further
aliena &on

Sat
Narayan
Bansal &
Krishma
Flouricultu
re

To ini &ate ac&on against Dev
Bhushan, Kaptan & Others, as
despite status quo order dated
04.12.2019 of HC, various
aliena&ons have been made.

Breach of order dated 29.07.2021

Breach of Aﬃdavit dated
24.09.2021
CM N:
11412
-C of
2023
Under
Order 39
Rule 2A
CPC

Appellant
– Suraj Pal
(plain ﬀ
N: 5)
CM N:
1291
C-
2025
For withdrawal of Appeal based on
se Dlement agreement dt. 03.02.2025 with
Krishma Flouriculture
Under
Order 23
Rule 3
CPC
[G.S.Sullar
Adv.]
RSA No. 5337 of 2019 ‘Suraj Pal (plain ﬀ N: 5) vs Sat Narayan Bansal & Others
(remaining plain ﬀs & defendants)

Prabhat
Kumar

[Anuj
Dewan
Adv.]
CM N:
2833
C-
2021
8K + 6K
8M =
Under
Order 22
Rule 10
CPC
Sale Deed
dt.
23.07.2004
[8K for
₹16.5 Lacs]
& Transfer
Kaptan Singh,
vendee of
Plain &ﬀ N: 1 –
Dev Bhushan
14K—8M
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 2 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
Deed dt.
07.01.2005
[6K-08M for
₹2.5 Lacs
from
B.S.Kapoor,
vendee of
Kaptan
Singh vide
sale deed
dt.14.09.20
04

Bimla Jain

Anil Jain

[Lokesh
Sinhal
Adv.]
CM N:
2880
C-
2020
Under
Order I
Rule 10
CPC read
with
Order 22
Rule 10
CPC
ATS
dt.06.01.20
09
Sat Narayan 104K-4M
Bansal
[₹3.2 Crore]

Omkar
Singh

[Rakesh
Dhiman
Adv]
CM N:
10761
C-
2026
Under
Order I
Rule 10
CPC +
O.22
R.10 CPC
read
with
Sec &on
151 CPC
Sale Deed
dated
29.11.2012
Plain &ﬀs N: 2
to 4, vendees
of Kaptan
Singh, vendee
of Dev
Bhushan
13 Kanal
[₹89,37,500
/-]

Ja &n
Bhagat
CM N:
2316
C-
2026
2K-19M-6
Sarsai
Under
Order 1
Rule 10
CPC
Sale Deed
dt.
11.12.2018
Parvesh & Smt.
Roshni,
vendees from
Kaptan Singh,
vendee of
Plain &ﬀ N: 1 –
Dev Bhushan
[Shreenath
Khemka,
Adv.]
[₹73,80,000
/-]

Sat
Narayan
Bansal &
Krishma
Flouricultu
re
(Defendan
ts N: 6 &
7)
CM N:
3186
C-
2023
w.r.t 18K-
14M
To take on
record
Se #lement
Deed/ MoU
dt.
6.12.2021 &
disposal of
RSA
Between Suraj
Pal (Pl. N: 5 –
appellant and
applicants-Def
N: 6 & 7) –
Earlier
purchased by
Krishma (Def.
N: 7) vide sale
deed dt.
28.07.1990 –
Under
Order 23
Rule 3
CPC
(For
considera&o
[Pankaj Gupta
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 3 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
Adv.] n of ₹1 relinquished
Crore) rights in favour
of Suraj Pal –
Pl. N: 5

Appellant
– Suraj Pal
(plain ﬀ
N: 5)
CM N:
1301
C-
2025
Under
Sec &on
151 CPC
For withdrawal of Appeal based on
se Dlement agreement dt. 03.02.2025 with
Krishma Flouriculture
[G.S.Sullar
Adv.]
RSA No. 5338 of 2019 ‘Dev Bhushan Gupta (plain ﬀ N: 1) vs Krishna Flouriculture
& Others (remaining plain ﬀs & defendants)

Prabhat
Kumar

[Anuj
Dewan
Adv.]
CM N:
2827
C-
2021
Under
Order 22
Rule 10
CPC
Sale Deed
dt.
23.07.2004
[8K for
₹16.5 Lacs]
& Transfer
Deed dt.
07.01.2005
[6K-08M for
₹2.5 Lacs
from
B.S.Kapoor,
vendee of
Kaptan
Singh vide
sale deed
dt.14.09.20
04
Kaptan Singh,
vendee of
Plain &ﬀ N: 1 –
Dev Bhushan
8K + 6K
8M =
14K—8M

Bimla Jain

Anil Jain
CM N:
2876
C-
2020
ATS
dt.06.01.20
09
Sat Narayan 104K-4M
Bansal
Under
Order I
Rule 10
CPC read
with
Order 22
Rule 10
CPC
[Lokesh Sinhal
Adv.]
[₹3.2 Crore]

Omkar
Singh
CM N:
10764
C-
2026
& CM
N:
10446
C-
2021
Under
Order I
Rule 10
CPC +
O.22
R.10 CPC
read
with
Sec &on
Sale Deed
dated
29.11.2012
Plain &ﬀs N: 2
to 4, vendees
of Kaptan
Singh, vendee
of Dev
Bhushan
13 Kanal
[Rakesh
Dhiman Adv]
[₹89,37,500
/-]
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 4 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
151 CPC

Appellant
– Dev
Bhushan
(plain ﬀ
N: 1)
CM N:
3941-
C of
2024
Under
Sec &on
151 CPC
For withdrawal of Appeal based on
compromise dt. 04.04.2024 with Kaptan
Singh

Sunil Saini
CM N:
11602
C-
2025
Under
Order I
Rule 10
CPC
Two Sale
Deeds dt.
30.08.2024
Sat Narayan 63K-19M
Bansal + 32K-5M
[Aman
Sharma Adv.]
[₹9.3 Crore
+ ₹4.7 Crore
= 14 Crore]

Sat
Narayan
Bansal
CM N:
12397
-C of
2024
Under
Sec &on
151 CPC
To place on record Compromise Deed dt.
07.12.2024 between plain &ﬀ – Appellant
Dev Bhushan & Sat Narayan Bansal,
whereby Dev Bhushan has relinquished all
his rights in favour of Sat Narayan Bansal
[Abhilaksh
Grover, Adv.]
RSA No. 5336 of 2019 ‘Dev Bhushan Gupta (plain ﬀ N: 1) vs Sat Narayan Bansal
& Others (remaining plain ﬀs & defendants)

Prabhat
Kumar
CM N:
2828
C-
2021
Kaptan Singh,
vendee of
Plain &ﬀ N: 1 –
Dev Bhushan
8K + 6K
8M =
Sale Deed
dt.
23.07.2004
[8K for
₹16.5 Lacs]
& Transfer
Deed dt.
07.01.2005
[6K-08M for
₹2.5 Lacs
from
B.S.Kapoor,
vendee of
Kaptan
Singh vide
sale deed
dt.14.09.20
04
Under
Order 22
Rule 10
CPC
14K—8M
[Anuj Dewan
Adv.]

Jaswant
Singh s/o
Durga
Prashad
CM N:
5129
C-
2022
32K-5M
Under
Order I
Rule 10
CPC +
O.22
R.10 CPC
+ Sec &on
151 CPC
Sale Deed
dt.11.03.20
05 [16K-5M]
+ Two sale
deeds dt.
14.03.2005
[8K + 8K]
Kaptan Singh,
vendee of Dev
Bhushan +
Kiran Bala &
Munish Kumar,
vendees of
Kaptan Singh
[Chetan
Slathia Adv.]
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 5 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
[Total –
₹
4,03,000/-]

Bimla Jain

Anil Jain
CM N:
2881
C-
2021
Under
Order I
Rule 10
CPC read
with
Order 22
Rule 10
CPC
ATS
dt.06.01.20
09
Sat Narayan 104K-4M
Bansal
[Lokesh
Sinhal
Adv.]
[₹3.2 Crore]

Kamla w/o
Balbir
[Suvir
Sidhu
Adv.]
CM N:
396 C-
2020
Under
Order I
Rule 10
CPC
Sale Deed
dated
27.06.2012
Inderjit Singh 6K-2M
[₹41,94,000
/-]

Omkar
Singh

[Rakesh
Dhiman
Adv]
CM N:
10763
C-
2026
Under
Order I
Rule 10
CPC +
O.22
R.10 CPC
read
with
Sec &on
151 CPC
Sale Deed
dated
29.11.2012
Plain &ﬀs N: 2
to 4, vendees
of Kaptan
Singh, vendee
of Dev
Bhushan
13 Kanal
[₹89,37,500
/-]

Ja &n
Bhagat
CM N:
1910
C-
2026
2K-19M-6
Sarsai
Parvesh & Smt.
Roshni,
vendees from
Kaptan Singh,
vendee of
Plain &ﬀ N: 1 –
Dev Bhushan
Under
Order 1
Rule 10
CPC
Sale Deed
dt.
11.12.2018
[Shreenath
Khemka,
Adv.]
[₹73,80,000
/-]

Sat
Narayan
Bansal &
Krishma
Flouricultu
re
CM N:
11426
-C of
2023
Under
Order 39
Rule 1 &
2 CPC
To stay
further
aliena &on
CM N:
11427
-C of
2023
Under
Order 39
Rule 2A
CPC
Sat Narayan
Bansal & Krishma
Flouriculture
To ini &ate ac&on against Dev Bhushan,
Kaptan & Others, as despite status quo
order dated 04.12.2019 of HC, various
aliena&ons have been made

CM N: Under Appellant For
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 6 of 63

RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476
COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M)
3968
C-
2024
Sec &on – Dev
151 CPC Bhushan
(plain ﬀ
N: 1)

[Vaibhav
Bhargav
Adv.]
withdrawal
of Appeal
based on
compromise
dt.
04.04.2024
with Kaptan
Singh

Sunil Saini
[Aman
Sharma
Adv.]
CM N:
11597
C-
2025
Under
Order I
Rule 10
CPC
Two Sale
Deeds dt.
30.08.2024
Sat Narayan 63K-19M
Bansal + 32K-5M
[₹9.3 Crore
+ ₹4.7 Crore
= 14 Crore]

Rajinder
Sharma
[Kamaljeet
Dahiya,
Adv.]
CM N:
10490
C-
2026
Under
Order I
Rule 10
CPC
Sale Deed
dt.
05.11.2024
Sunil Saini,
vendee of Sat
Narayan
Bansal
32K-05M
[₹25 Crore]
CM N:
12413
C-
2024
Under
Sec &on
151 CPC
Appellant
– Dev
Bhushan
(plain ﬀ
N: 1)
To place on
record
compromise
dated
07.12.2024
[Abhilaksh
Grover, Adv.]
COCP N: 238 of 2020 in RSA N: 5338/2019 – ‘Sat Narayan vs Dev Bhushan &
Others’ – dismissed as withdrawn on 10.01.2023 a Ber undertaking Dev Bhushan &
Suraj Pal
COCP N: 1945 of 2025 ‘ Bimla Jain vs. Sat Narayan Bansal & Krishma Floriculture’

For viola &ng Order dated 04.12.2019

Due to selling of property to Sunil Saini vide sale deed dated 30.08.2024 &
cancella &on of lease deed dt. 30.08.2024
COCP N: 265 of 2025 in RSA N: 5336/2019 ‘ Prabhat & Jaswant vs. Sat Narayan
Bansal, Sunil Saini & Suresh, Sub-Registrar’

For viola &ng Order dated 04.12.2019, whereby status quo qua aliena&on
and possession was stayed

Due to selling of property to Sunil Saini vide sale deed dated 30.08.2024 &
cancella &on of lease deed dt. 30.08.2024
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
02.09.2026 JUDGE
Sarita
SARITA RANI
2026.09.03 18:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Page 7 of 63