Facts
The litigation involves two suits for specific performance regarding properties in GK-I and GK-II, Delhi.
Source reference: no citationRomi 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).
Source reference: paras 3-5.5Romi subsequently executed an ATS dated 22.07.2024 for the GK-II first floor in favour of White Paper Design.
Source reference: para 5.9The defendants (Sheela Devi and brother Anup Garg) alleged the 2023 ATS was forged, citing signature discrepancies and stamp paper irregularities.
Source reference: paras 19.1, 22.2During mediation, Sheela Devi sold the GK-II property to subsequent purchasers (KIOSK Properties and Bhilai Engineering) via sale deeds dated 01.09.2025.
Source reference: paras 10, 44Romi Garg sought interim injunctions to preserve the properties.
Source reference: para 3Issues
1. Whether the Plaintiff (Romi Garg) established a prima facie case for specific performance and interim protection despite allegations of forgery.
Source reference: para 362. Whether the subsequent purchasers (Defendants 4 5) are bonafide purchasers for value without notice.
Source reference: para 593. Whether the court should direct the deposit of sale consideration received from subsequent sales to secure the parties' interests.
Source reference: para 65Law Applied
Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the grant and vacation of interim injunctions.
Source reference: para 1Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which dictates that subsequent transfers are subject to rights created by prior agreements.
Source reference: para 21.3Requirements for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act (as amended), specifically the necessity of proving "readiness and willingness".
Source reference: para 37The doctrine of bonafide purchasers for value without notice.
Source reference: para 59Reasoning
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.
Source reference: paras 37, 40The 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.
Source reference: paras 31-33Regarding 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).
Source reference: paras 46, 50-52The court inferred that the subsequent ATS and sale deeds were likely "hastily" executed to defeat the plaintiffs' rights, suggesting the buyers were not bonafide.
Source reference: paras 52, 59Holding
The court granted the interim injunctions, holding that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo to prevent further third-party rights.
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.
Source reference: paras 67-68(iii)The applications were disposed of with the suits listed for further proceedings in August 2026.
Source reference: paras 70-72Original Court PDF
White Paper Design Private Limited Through Mr Abhishek Bansal DirectorvsMr Romi Garg & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in