Court Orders Status Quo and Deposit of Subsequent Sale Consideration Pentende Lite to Protect Prior Agreement Rights

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Plaintiff (Romi Garg) established a prima facie case for specific performance and interim protection despite allegations of forgery.

The court held

The court granted the interim injunctions, holding that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo to prevent further third-party rights.

It also directed

The court ordered: (i) Status quo on title and possession for the GK-I and GK-II properties; and (ii) Directed Sheela Devi to deposit the ₹20.50 Crores received from the subsequent purchasers into the court within four weeks to secure the eventual successful party.

The applications were disposed of with the suits listed for further proceedings in August 2026.

01Facts

The litigation involves two suits for specific performance regarding properties in GK-I and GK-II, Delhi.

Romi Garg claims Sheela Devi (his mother) executed an Agreement to Sell (ATS) dated 15.05.2023 for the suit properties for ₹24.50 Crores, of which he paid ~94.5% (₹23.16 Crores).

¶ 3-5.5

Romi subsequently executed an ATS dated 22.07.2024 for the GK-II first floor in favour of White Paper Design.

¶ 5.9

The defendants (Sheela Devi and brother Anup Garg) alleged the 2023 ATS was forged, citing signature discrepancies and stamp paper irregularities.

¶ 19.1, 22.2

During mediation, Sheela Devi sold the GK-II property to subsequent purchasers (KIOSK Properties and Bhilai Engineering) via sale deeds dated 01.09.2025.

¶ 10, 44

Romi Garg sought interim injunctions to preserve the properties.

¶ 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Plaintiff (Romi Garg) established a prima facie case for specific performance and interim protection despite allegations of forgery.

¶ 36

ii.2. Whether the subsequent purchasers (Defendants 4 5) are bonafide purchasers for value without notice.

¶ 59

iii.3. Whether the court should direct the deposit of sale consideration received from subsequent sales to secure the parties' interests.

¶ 65

03Law Applied

Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the grant and vacation of interim injunctions.

¶ 1

Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which dictates that subsequent transfers are subject to rights created by prior agreements.

¶ 21.3

Requirements for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act (as amended), specifically the necessity of proving "readiness and willingness".

¶ 37

The doctrine of bonafide purchasers for value without notice.

¶ 59

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 48

04Reasoning

The court found Romi Garg established a prima facie case based on substantial banking evidence showing payment of 94.5% of the consideration and the possession of original title deeds.

¶ 37, 40

The court viewed the forgery allegations skeptically at this stage, noting that Sheela Devi’s late husband had witnessed the ATS and her bank signatures matched the "disputed" ones.

¶ 31-33

Regarding the subsequent purchasers, the court noted "shocking" non-disclosures to the court and inconsistencies in their sale deeds (e.g., claiming vacant possession while the seller was still in residence, and purchasing without original title deeds).

¶ 46, 50-52

The court inferred that the subsequent ATS and sale deeds were likely "hastily" executed to defeat the plaintiffs' rights, suggesting the buyers were not bonafide.

¶ 52, 59

05Holding

The court granted the interim injunctions, holding that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo to prevent further third-party rights.

¶ 61, 64

¶ 67-68(iii)

The applications were disposed of with the suits listed for further proceedings in August 2026.

¶ 70-72

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF