Delhi District Court
Sonia vs Simran on 9 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE -04,
(PRESIDED OVER BY: ANIL CHANDHEL)
WEST DISTRICT, THC, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-006423-2016
Civil DJ No. 613425/2016
Sonia
W/o Naresh Kumar,
R/o 3A/86, Vishnu Garden,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-18. ...Plaintiff.
Versus
Simran
D/o Sh. Sagi Ram
R/o Not Known
Presently Trespassed in
3A/86, Vishnu Garden,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-18 ...Defendant
SUIT FOR POSSESSION, PERMANENT
INJUNCTION & FOR MESNE PROFITS.
AND
CNR No. DLWT01-003557-2018
Civil DJ No. 468/2018
Simran
D/o Sh. Sagi Ram
R/o Not Known
Presently Trespassed in
3A/86, Vishnu Garden,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018 ...Plaintiff.
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 1 of 65
Versus
Sonia
W/o Naresh Kumar,
R/o 3A/86, Vishnu Garden,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018. ...Defendant.
SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF
THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED
01.05.2015.
Civ DJ No. 613425/2016 instituted on : 05.09.2016.
Civ DJ No. 468/2018 instituted on : 21.04.2018.
Judgment reserved on : 24.05.2025.
Judgment pronounced on : 09.06.2025.
Appearances:
1. Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate for the Plaintiff in Civ DJ No.
613425/2016 and for the Defendant in Civ DJ No.468/2018.
2. Mr. Rajeev Kumar & Ms. Pooja Sharma, Advocates for the
Plaintiff in Civ DJ No.468/2018 and for the Defendant in Civ DJ
No. 613425/2016.
Index
1. Introduction 4-6
2. The Pleadings of the Parties: 6 - 10
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 2 of 65
2.1. The facts stated in the Plaint of the 6 - 8
Civ DJ No.613425/2016.
2.2. The facts stated in the Written
8 - 10
Statement of Civ DJ
No.613425/2016 and the plaint of
Civ DJ No. 468/2018.
3. Admission/Denial of the Documents. 11
4. Issues. 11 - 13
5. Evidence of the parties 13 - 19
5.1. The Plaintiff's Evidence 13 - 16
5.2. The Defendant's Evidence 16 - 19
6. Submissions of the Parties. 20 - 21
7. Conclusions on the Issues in suit 21 - 51
(Civ DJ No.613425/2016) and
reasons for such Conclusions
7.1. Issue No.1: Discussion & 21 - 45
Conclusion.
7.2. Issue No. 2: Discussion & 45-50
Conclusion.
7.3. Issue No. 3: Discussion & 50
Conclusion.
7.4. Issue No. 4: Discussion & 50-51
Conclusion.
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 3 of 65
7.5. Issue No. 5: Discussion & 51
Conclusion.
8. Conclusion on Issues in the Civ DJ 51-64
No. 468/2018 and reasons for such
conclusions:
8.1. Issue No. 1: Discussion &
51-52
Conclusion.
8.2. Issue No. 2: Discussion & 52-63
Conclusion.
8.3. Issue No. 3: Discussion &
63-64
Conclusion.
9. Relief/Final Decision 64-65
JUDGMENT
1. Introduction:
1.1. In terms of this common judgment, the following two civil
suits, filed by the parties against each-other, are being
decided:
i. Civ DJ No. 613425/2016, titled as ‘Sonia Vs. Simran’
has been filed for the prayer of possession, permanent
injunction and for receovry mesne profits/damages,
with regard to the ground floor of property No. 3A/86,________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 4 of 65
Vishnu Garden, Tilak Nagar, Delhi, ad-measuring 100
square yards.
ii. Civ DJ No. 468/2018, titled as ‘Simran Vs. Sonia’ has
been filed for the prayer of specific performance of the
agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015, with regard to
ground floor of property No. 3A/86, Vishnu Garden,
Tilak Nagar, Delhi, ad-measuring 100 square yards.
1.2. In terms of both the suits, this Court has to principally
adjudicate the validity of the agreement to sell dated
01.05.2015 and other documents. The parties have been
seeking to enforce their rights against each-other in the same
property in both the suits and such claims are based upon the
same rights/contentions on the basis challenge or
sustainability of the same documents. The plaint in one suit
is practically the written statement in the other suit and
written statement in one suit is the statement of claim in the
plaint in the other one. The facts and evidence to be
considered for adjudication of both the suits are common and
overlapping. Further the substantive Issue to be agitated and
proved in both the suits is common. Both the suits are in the
nature of claim and counter-claim and treated as such, in
terms of Orders passed in the suits. The evidence was led by
the parties in a consolidated manner only in Civ DJ
No.613425/2016, which was directed to be read in both the
suits. Therefore, it would be appropriate to decide both the
suits by a common judgment.
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 5 of 65
1.3. The suit for possession, i.e., Civ DJ No. 613425/2016, has
been treated as lead case and the evidence has only been led
in the same. Therefore, for convenience of reference, the
Plaintiff and the Defendant in the aforesaid lead suit, i.e., in
Civ DJ No. 613425/2016, are addressed as and Defendant
respectively in this Judgment, except in para 8 of the
judgment.
2. The Pleadings of the Parties:
2.1. The facts stated in the Plaint of the Civ DJ
No.613425/2016:
This suit has been filed by Ms. Sonia, who is admitted
owner of the suit property bearing No. 3A/86, Vishnu
Garden, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The facts, as set out in
plaint of the suit, are briefly summed up hereinbelow:
i. The Plaintiff (Ms. Sonia) purchased the suit property,
i.e., property bearing No. 3A/86, Vishnu Garden, Tilak
Nagar, New Delhi, by way of registered sale deed
dated 31.03.2015 from its erstwhile owner, namely
Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur. The suit property was in
possession of the Plaintiff since 31.03.2015.
ii. On 30.04.2015, when Plaintiff along with her family
members came back home after visiting her relative,________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 6 of 65
the Plaintiff found that the Defendant, along with her
associates, was sitting in Plaintiff’s house after
breaking open the lock. Upon being asked, the
Defendant told that she was the owner of the house
and threatened the Plaintiff to leave the house or else
she would drag the Plaintiff’s husband in a false rape
case. When the Plaintiff went to the Police Station, the
Plaintiff was directed by Police Officials to go to
Court as this was a property matter.
iii. On 01.05.2015 at around 2:00pm, the Plaintiff, along
with her husband and her father-in-law, went to talk to
Defendant on the above said address. The Defendant’s
associate locked the house from inside and threatened
the Plaintiff to settle the matter or else the Defendant
would tear the clothes and implicate the Plaintiff’s
husband and her father-in-law in a false rape case.
iv. The Defendant instructed, one of her associates, over
the phone to bring some stamp papers, blank and
typed papers. The Defendant took the signatures of
Plaintiff and of her father-in-law on the afore-
mentioned documents forcefully. When Plaintiff
visited the Police Station and narrated the aforesaid
incident to the Police Officials, they refused to take
any action.
v. The Defendant along with her associates trespassed
after breaking the lock open in absence of the Plaintiff
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 7 of 65
and the Plaintiff filed a written complaint with DCP on
07.05.2015 in this respect.
vi. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover the mesne profit
from the Defendant @ Rs.6000/- per month.
On the basis of above-mentioned averments, the Plaintiff has
filed the suit, whereby the prayer of possession, permanent
injunction and mesne profits have been sought against the
Defendant (Ms. Simran).
2.2. The facts stated in the Written Statement of Civ DJ
No.613425/2016 and the plaint of Civ DJ No. 468/2018:
The Defendant (Ms. Simran) in the Civ DJ No.613425/2016
was duly served and entered appearance on 21.10.2016 and
filed her written statement on 21.10.2016. The written
statement in its subject also mentioned ‘Counter-claim for
declaration and permanent injunction’, however no such
Counter-claim has been filed by the aforesaid Defendant
(Ms. Simran) and she has only filed the written statement in
the suit for possession against her. Subsequently the
Defendant (Ms. Simran) filed Civ DJ No. 468 of 2018. The
averments made in the written statement of Civ DJ No.
613425/2016 and in the plaint of Civ DJ No.468/2018 are
same. The Defendant (Ms. Simran) has denied the
averments/contentions of Plaintiff (Ms. Sonia). The case, as________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 8 of 65
set up in the written statement of Civ DJ No. 613425/2016
and in the plaint of Civ DJ No.468/2018, is briefly summed
up in the paras stated hereinbelow:
i. The Defendant (Ms. Simran) is the law abiding
citizen of India and is residing on the above said
address. In April 2015, the Plaintiff (Ms. Sonia)
introduced herself as owner and in possession of suit
property.
ii. On 01.05.2015, the Plaintiff (Ms. Sonia) and the
Defendant (Ms. Simran) entered into an agreement to
sell with regard to suit property, for total
consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- in presence of
witnesses. The Plaintiff executed an Agreement to
Sale, General Power of Attorney, Receipt and
Possession letter in favour of the Defendant on
01.05.2015 after receiving the full consideration
amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs
only) from the Defendant in presence of witnesses
and handed over possession of the property to the
Defendant.
iii. As per Clause 7 of agreement to sell, the Plaintiff
(Ms. Sonia) was bound to execute the registered sale
deed in favour of the Defendant (Ms. Simran). As per
clause 6 of agreement to sell, the Defendant (Ms.
Simran) was ready and willing to bear expenses of
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 9 of 65
sale deed. The Defendant (Ms. Simran) had requested
the Plaintiff (Ms. Sonia) to execute the sale deed and
eventually a legal notice dated 12.03.2018 was also
issued, however the Plaintiff did not come forward to
execute the sale deed.
On the basis of the afore-mentioned averments, the
Defendant (Ms. Simran) in Civ DJ No.613425/2016 has
contested the right of the Plaintiff (Ms. Sonia) to seek
possession and other prayers and further has also filed her
own suit, i.e., Civ DJ No.468/2018, whereby she has sought
the specific performance of the agreement to sell dated
01.05.2015 for execution of the sale deed in her favour.
2.3. The Plaintiff in Civ DJ No. 613425/2016 has filed the
replication to the written statement of the Defendant,
whereby she refuted the contentions of the Defendant and
reiterated the contentions of plaint in her suit. Further the
Plaintiff has also filed written statement in the Civ DJ No.
468/2018, whereby case, as set up by Ms. Simran is denied
and the averments made in the plaint of Civ DJ
No.613425/2016 are reiterated. The Defendant has filed the
replication to the written statement in Civ DJ No.468/2018
and reiterated the contentions of her being having entered
into valid agreement to sell after payment of the
consideration.
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 10 of 65
3. Admission/Denial of the Documents:
3.1. The parties have carried out the admission/denial of the
documents in Civ DJ No. 613425 and have relied upon the
aforesaid admission/denial in the suit, filed by the
Defendant, i.e., Civ DJ No.468/2018. The Defendant has
admitted the sale deed dated 30.03.2015, which was marked
as Exhibit P-1 and denied the other documents. The Plaintiff
has admitted her signatures on the GPA, the agreement to
sell, the affidavit, the receipt, the possession letter and Will
dated 01.05.2015, however denied the contents of the
aforesaid documents. The aforesaid documents are exhibited
in the following manner in the admission/denial:
i. Exhibit D-1: General Power of Attorney dated
01.05.2015;
ii. Exhibit D-2: Agreement to Sell dated 01.05.2015;
iii. Exhibit D-3: Affidavit dated 01.05.2015;
iv. Exhibit D-4: Receipt dated 01.05.2015;
v. Exhibit D-5: Possession letter, dated 01.05.2015;
vi. Exhibit D-6: Will dated 01.05.2015; 4. Issues.
4.1. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed in the suit, filed by the Plaintiff, i.e., in
Civ DJ No. 613425/2016 on 08.02.2018:
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 11 of 65
i. Whether the Plaintiff’s signatures were obtained
forcefully by the defendant on the blank sale
documents, i.e., GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit,
receipt, will and possession letter, all dated
01.05.2015, if so, its effect? OPPii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree of
possession of the suit property, as prayed for?
OPP
iii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree of
permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
iv. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite
mesne profits @ Rs.6,000/ per month from the
defendant? OPP.
v. If issue no. 4 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff,
whether the Plaintiff is entitled to pendente-lite
and future interest, if so, at what rate? OPP
vi. Relief.
4.2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed in the suit filed by the Defendant, i.e., in
Civ DJ No. 468/2018, on 29.01.2019:
i. Whether the defendant’ signatures were obtained
forcefully by the plaintiff on the blank sale
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 12 of 65
documents i.e. GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit,
receipt, Will and possession letter, all dated
01.05.2015, if so, its effect? OPDii. Whether the plaintiff had paid an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- towards the sale consideration to
the defendant? OPPiii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of
specific performance of agreement to sell dated
01.05.2015, as prayed for? OPPiv. Relief
5. Evidence of the parties:
5.1. The Issues were framed separately in both the suits, however
in terms of Order dated 29.01.2019, passed in both the suits,
the suits were consolidated for recording of evidence and it
was directed that Civ DJ No. 613425/2016 would be treated
as the lead case. The evidence was to be recorded only in the
lead suit and was to be read and considered in the other suit,
i.e., Civ DJ No. 468/2018. Therefore, the parties have led
evidence only in the Civ DJ No. 613425/ 2016 suit, which is
now to be read in both the suits.
5.2. The Plaintiff’s Evidence:
5.2.1. The Plaintiff in the Civ DJ No. 613425/ 2016 has led the
evidence first and has examined only herself, as the sole
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 13 of 65
witness. The Plaintiff has reiterated the contentions of the
plaint in Civ DJ No. 613425/2016 and of the written
statement in Civ DJ No. 468/208 in her examination-in-
chief. The Plaintiff has further exhibited and relied upon the
following documents in her examination-in-chief:
i. Exhibit PW-1/1: Sale deed dated 06.04.2015.
ii. Mark-A: Copy of the complaint dated 07.05.2015.
5.2.2. The PW-1 was party cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
Defendant on 18.07.20222 and her cross-examination dated
18.07.2022 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
“I do not remember whether I had asked from the previous
owner who executed the Sale Deed in my favour, about the
documents by which she was the owner of the suit property.
I do not know if I had seen any title documents of the
previous owner or not before execution of the Sale Deed in
my favour.
My father-in-law and one Sardarji (Since deceased) were
the middlemen for sale and purchase of the suit property. I
do not know the name, father name and address of that
Sardarji. I also do not now whether the said Sardarji was
a Property Dealer or not. I met the previous owner Mrs.
Sukhwinder Kaur for the first time outside the office of the
Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the Sale Deed
half as hour ago. I never visited at the house of previous
owner Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur. I never visited the site of the
suit property before registration of the Sale Deed. I visited
the suit property after I-2 days of the registration of the
Sale Deed, although I am unable to exactly recall the same.
At the time when I visited the suit property, no one was
present there and my lock was put a t the suit property. The
said lock was put by my father-in-law Mr. Dayanand
Grover. I do not remember when he had put the said lock
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 14 of 65
on the suit property. Again said, he had put the aid lock at
the time when he had seen the suit property for purchasing.
It is correct that the previous owner Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur
was not present when my father-in-law lock on the suit
property. It is correct that previous owner Mrs.
Sukhwinder Kaur was also not present at the suit property
when I visited the suit property. I do not know whether I
have with me the previous chain of documents in respect of
ownership of the suit property or not.”
The Plaintiff was further cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
the Defendant on 10.04.2024 and her cross-examination
dated 10.04.2024 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
“I do not remember when I secondly visited the suit
property in the year 2015. When I visited the suit property
second time, I saw that the Defendant and her associates
were there sitting in the suit premises and they threatened
me and took the signatures on several documents. No
photographs and documents were with me at that time. I do
not remember when I visited the police station. It is wrong
to suggest that I have not visited the Police Station on the
same day. (Vol.) I have visited the Police Station on several
occasion. The defendant had not paid any amount to me. It
is wrong to suggest that the defendant has taken the
amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs on 01.04.2015. It is wrong to
suggest that I am deposing falsely.
I do not remember when I secondly visited the suit
property in the year 2015. When I visited the suit property
second time, I saw that the Defendant and her associates
were there sitting in the suit premises and they threatened
me and took the signatures on several documents. No
photographs and documents were with me at that time. I
do not remember when I visited the police station. It is
wrong to suggest that I have not visited the Police Station
on the same day. (Vol.) I have visited the Police Station on
several occasion. The defendant had not paid any amount
to me. It is wrong to suggest that the defendant has taken________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 15 of 65
the amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs on 01.04.2015. It is wrong to
suggest that I am deposing falsely.”
The Plaintiff was discharged upon conclusion of her cross
examination on 10.04.2024. The Plaintiff closed her
evidence upon conclusion of her cross-examination and did
not examine any other witness.
5.3. The Defendant’s Evidence:
5.3.1. After conclusion of the Plaintiff’s evidence, the Defendant
has led her evidence and has examined only herself as the
sole witness in the matter. The Defendant has reiterated the
contentions of the written statement in Civ DJ
No.613425/2016 and of the plaint in Civ DJ No.468/2018 in
her examination-in-chief. She has further exhibited and
relied upon the following documents in her examination-in-
chief:
i. Exhibit DW-1/A (colly): GPA, Agreement to Sell,
Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter & Will, all
dated 01.05.2015.
The Exhibit DW-1/A (Colly) were also already exhibited as
Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 in the admission/denial of the
documents. Since the aforesaid previous exhibition was not
pointed out at the time of examination in chief of the DW-1,
therefore the aforementioned documents were exhibited
twice.
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 16 of 65
5.3.2. The DW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
Plaintiff on 09.04.2025 and her cross-examination is being
reproduced hereinbelow:
“I have studied upto 12th standard. I can understand English
language a little bit. I am aware of all the contents of my
affidavit of evidence as my lawyer explained to me in Hindi
language. My affidavit of evidence got attested at Patiala
House Court. I have met the Plaintiff firstly in the year 2015
regarding purchasing of the suit property but I do not
remember the date and month. The father-in-law of the
Plaintiff namely Sh. Daya Nand, who was working as
property dealer, informed me about the sale of the suit
property by the Plaintiff. I met Sh. Daya Nand at Vishnu
Garden at his residence bearing no. WZ-IIIA/86, Vishnu
Garden, New Delhi as at that time, I was residing at WZ-
IIIA/89, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. The office of Sh. Daya
Nand from where he was operating the work of property
dealing, which was situated at somewhere Chand Nagar. I
never met Sh. Daya Nand in his office at Chand Nagar but
once, I visited his office but I do not remember the date,
month and year, when I visited the office of Sh. Daya Nand.
Sh. Daya Nand himself informed me in the year 2015 at my
residence i.e. WZ-IIIA/89, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi that
the suit property is under sale. I do not remember the date
and month, when Sh. Daya Nand informed. I did not know
Sh. Daya Nand prior to that.
I know Sh. Daya Nand through one namely Ms. Bimla
and furthermore, Sh. Daya Nand was residing opposite to
my house i.e. WZ-IIIA/89, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. I had
seen the photocopy of the suit property of the Plaintiff. The
said document shown to me by Sh. Daya Nand in the year
2015 at my residence but I do not remember the date, time
and month. Sh. Daya Nand shown me the documents of the
suit property in the name of the Plaintiff but I do not
remember the name of those documents. The Plaintiff as well
as her father-in-law namely Sh. Daya Nand demanded a sum
of Rs.20 lakhs for the sale and purchase of the suit property.
Firstly, I met with the Plaintiff when her father-in-law shown
me the documents of the suit property but I do not remember
the date, time and month of the same. At that time, the
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 17 of 65
Plaintiff, Sh. Daya Nand and daughter of Sh. Daya Nand
were present there. All the above mentioned persons were
gathered at my residence i.e. WZ-IIIA/89, Vishnu Garden,
New Delhi. With respect to the purchase of the suit property
by me from the Plaintiff, the document Ex.DW-1/A (Colly)
were prepared. Prior to this, no documents were prepared in
this regard. After 10 days of meeting with the Plaintiff and
Sh. Daya Nand, the said documents were prepared. The said
documents Ex.DW-1/A(Colly) got prepared by Sh. Daya
Nand. It is correct that at the time of preparation of the said
documents, I was not present there. It is also correct that I
have not purchased the stamp paper regarding those
documents. (Vol.) all those documents got prepared by Sh.
Daya Nand. It is also correct that I cannot say that who
were present at the time of preparation of the documents.
(Vol.) at the time of signing of Ex.DW-1/A(Colly) me,
Plaintiff, her father-in-law and daughter of Sh. Daya Nand
was present. Ex.DW-1/A(Colly) got signed at WZ-IIIA/86,
Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. Ex.DW-1/A(Colly) got attested
by Sh. Daya Nand of his own after getting signatures of the
concerned persons. I could not say that the said documents
got attested by Sh. Daya Nand. (Vol.) Sh. Daya Nand
informed that he got attested Ex.DW-1/A(Colly) from one of
his known notary. Sh. Daya Nand also informed that the
office of that notary is situated at somewhere in Khyala and
told his name as Sh. Raju.
I did not visit the office of the said notary at the time of
the attestation of those documents. I could not say the name
of the persons who were present at the time of attestation of
those documents as I was not present there. (Vol.) Sh. Daya
Nand informed me that he would manage the attestation of
Ex.DW-1/A(Colly) as the notary is his known. I paid the sale
consideration amount of Rs.20 lakhs to Sh. Daya Nand at
the time of signing of Ex.DW-1/A(Colly). I cannot say about
denomination of the currency. I arranged the said amount of
Rs.20 lakhs on the date of signing Ex.DW-1/A(Colly) from
my mother Smt. Joginder Kaur and my Bhua namely Smt.
Seeto R/o District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. Out of Rs.20 lakhs, I
had Rs.4-5 lakhs with me and got Rs.10 lakhs from my
mother and rest of Rs.5 lakhs from Bhua. Presently, I am not
doing any work. At the time of purchasing of the suit
property, I was taking tuitions of Class 1st to 5th. I cannot say
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 18 of 65
how many children were taught by me at that time. There is
no fix amount of tuition fees. I saved Rs.5 lakhs in a long
time but I cannot say exact period from when I started
saving. My mother was getting rental income but I cannot
say the rental income of my mother. My mother used to live
around 5 kms. far from my residence. I myself collected
Rs.10 lakhs from my mother prior to 3-4 days of signing
Ex.DW-1/A(Colly). I do not remember the denomination of
the said currency. Rs.5 lakhs which were arranged by me
from my Bhua was with my mother. The said amount were
asked by my mother from my Bhua.
I do not remember the date, time and month when my
mother arranged the said amount from my Bhua but it was
in the 2015. I cannot say about the denomination of
currency notes. At the time of signing of Ex.DW-1/A, I was
not having sufficient amount to get registered the sale-deed
qua the said transaction and furthermore, the Plaintiff
assured to get registered the sale-deed after some time. After
one week of singing of Ex.DW-1/A(Colly), I have arranged
the money and requested Sh. Daya Nand to execute the sale-
deed, however, the Plaintiff instead of execution of sale-deed
filed the present suit. I have communicated the aforesaid
request only to Sh. Daya Nand and not directly to the
Plaintiff. Sh. Daya Nand has not refused to execute the sale-
deed .I did not initiate any action after Sh. Daya Nand
refused to execute the sale-deed in my favour. It is wrong to
suggest that Ex.DW-1/A(Colly) are forged and fabricated
documents or that the same were prepared only by me at my
instance. It is wrong to suggest that I have trespassed in the
suit property after breaking open lock of the suit property
and forcibly obtained the signatures of the Plaintiff on the
documents Ex.DW-1/A(Colly), on the threat of implicating
the Plaintiff in false cases. I am not aware whether the
Plaintiff has filed a criminal case against me. It is wrong to
suggest that I am deposing falsely.”
The Defendant was discharged upon conclusion of her cross
examination on 09.04.2025. The Defendant closed her
evidence upon conclusion of her cross-examination and did
not examine any other witness.
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 19 of 65
6. Submissions of the Parties.
6.1. After conclusion of the evidence, Ld. Counsels for the
parties have addressed their arguments. Ld. Counsel for the
Plaintiff in Civ DJ No.613425/2016 (for Defendant in Civ
DJ No.468/2018) has submitted that the agreement to sell
dated 01.05.2015 was obtained by placing the Plaintiff in
duress and under threat of malicious prosecution of the
Plaintiff’s husband and her father-law. It is submitted that the
agreement to sell and other documents dated 01.05.2015 are
invalid and the aforesaid invalidity is also indicated by the
factum of there being no proof of payment of the sale
consideration. It is submitted that the Defendant has failed to
prove the payment of Rs.20,00,000/- and therefore, there was
no reason for the Plaintiff to execute the agreement to sell in
question and the same was executed for reasons stated in the
plaint of Civ DJ No.613425/2016. It is further submitted that
the Plaintiff has proved the averments of forcible signatures
in her examination-in-chief and the Defendant has not
challenged the same by any negative suggestion and
therefore, the same stood proved against the Defendant. It is
submitted that the Defendant has stated in her evidence that
entire transaction was between the Defendant and the
Plaintiff’s father-in-law and therefore, even if the same is
assumed to be true, the aforesaid transaction cannot be
fastened upon the Plaintiff. It is stated that the Plaintiff is the
admitted owner of the suit property and the suit for specific
performance has been filed after one and half years of filing
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 20 of 65
of the suit for possession, which raises a question mark on
the readiness and willing of the Defendant and therefore, she
is not entitled to specific performance.
6.2. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant has submitted that the
Plaintiff has failed to prove the averments about the
agreement to sell and other documents being signed by
exercise of threat or force. It is submitted that the Plaintiff
did not file any documents to support her contentions. It is
stated that the Plaintiff did not prove the filing of the police
complaint dated 07.05.2015. It is submitted that the conduct
of the Plaintiff in sitting silent in the wake of such allegation
lead to only one conclusion that the aforesaid incidents did
not happen. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has not even
sought declaration with regard to the aforesaid documents in
question and therefore is not entitled to the prayer of
possession. It is submitted that once the Plaintiff fails to
prove the contentions of the documents being executed by
exercising force or threat of malicious prosecution, the
documents stand proved against her and therefore, the decree
for specific performance is only consequence in the suit.
7. Conclusions on the Issues in suit (Civ DJ
No.613425/2016) and reasons for such Conclusions:
7.1. Issue No.1: Whether the Plaintiff’s signatures were
obtained forcefully by the defendant on
the blank sale documents, i.e., GPA,________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 21 of 65
agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, will
and possession letter, all dated
01.05.2015, if so, its effect? OPP7.1.1. The onus to prove this Issue is upon the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff is admitted owner of the suit property. It is the case
of the Plaintiff that the Defendant trespassed forcibly into the
suit property by breaking open the lock and threatened the
Plaintiff to implicate her husband and father-in-law in a false
rape case and on the basis of aforementioned threats
forcefully obtained the signatures of the Plaintiff and her
father in law on blank and typed documents. The documents
in question are marked Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 {(also
marked as Exhibit DW-1/A (Colly) in the Defendant’s
examination in chief}. The Defendant has stated that she has
purchased the suit property from the Plaintiff, after payment
of the sale consideration, in terms of Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit
D-6.
7.1.2. The Plaintiff has admitted her signatures on the Exhibit D-1
to D-6 during admission/denial of the documents, however
she has denied the contents of the same. The contention of
the Plaintiff is that the Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-5 were
executed without her free consent.
7.1.3. Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines the
Consent in the following terms:
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 22 of 65
“Two or more persons are said to consent when they
agree upon the same thing in the same sense.”
Section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines ‘Free
Consent’ in the following manner:
“Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by:
(1) coercion, as defined in section 15, or
(2) undue influence, as defined in section 16, or
(3) fraud, as defined in section 17, or
(4) misrepresentation, as defined in section 18, or
(5) mistake, subject to the provisions of sections 20,
21 and 22. Consent is said to be so caused when
it would not have been given but for the existence
of such coercion, undue influence, fraud,
misrepresentation or mistake.”
Therefore, the consent is not free, when it is caused by
coercion under Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872,
which is also relevant to the facts under consideration and
the Section 15 of the Act of 1872 is being reproduced
hereinbelow:
“15. ‘Coercion’ defined:
‘Coercion’ is the committing, or threatening to commit,
any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to
detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person
whatever, with the intention of causing any person to
enter into an agreement.
Explanation:
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 23 of 65
It is immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) is or is not in force in the place where the
coercion is employed.
Illustrations:
A, on board an English ship on the high seas, causes B
to enter into an agreement by an act amounting to
criminal intimidation under the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860). A afterwards sues B for breach of contract at
Calcutta.
A has employed coercion, although his act is not an
offence by the law of England, and although section
506 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) was not in
force at the time when or place where the act was
done.”
Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 further provides
that when consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, the
agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party
whose consent was so caused.
7.1.4. The relevant averments made by the Plaintiff in the plaint,
with regard to her consent obtained by coercion, are being
reproduced hereinbelow:
“4. That on 30 April, 2015 when Plaintiff along with
her family members came back home after visiting
her relative, the Plaintiff found Defendant along
with her associates was sitting in Plaintiff’s house
after breaking the lock.
5. That upon asking Defendant told that she is the
owner of the house and threatened the Plaintiff to________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 24 of 65
leave the house else she will drag the husband of
Plaintiff in false case of rape.
6. That when the Plaintiff went to police station the
Plaintiff was directed by police officials to go to
Court as this is a property matter and police has
nothing to do in this matter.
7. That on 1st May 2015 at around 2,00PM Plaintiff
along with her husband and father in law went to
talk to Defendant on the above said address. The
Defendant’s associate locked the house from inside
and threatened the Plaintiff to settle this else
Defendant will tear their clothes and indulge the
husband and father in law of Plaintiff in false case
of rape right now.
8. That the Defendant instructed one of her associate
to bring some stamp papers, blank and typed
papers over the phone.
9. That when the Defendant took Plaintiff’s and her
father in law’s signature on these above said
documents forcefully.
10. That when Plaintiff visited the police station and
narrated this fact to police official they refused to
take any action as this matter is civil in nature.
11. That the Defendant alongwith her associates
trespassed after breaking the lock.
12. That a Plaintiff in this respect a written complaint
was filed with D.C.P. on 07/05/2015.”
In terms of the above-mentioned averments, the Plaintiff
states that the Defendant, with her associates, trespassed into
the suit property by breaking open the locks of the suit
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 25 of 65
property in absence of the Plaintiff on 30.04.2015 and when
the Plaintiff confronted the Defendant, she was threatened
that her husband would be implicated in a false rape case.
She has stated that the Plaintiff again visited the suit property
on 01.05.2015 at 2:00pm, alongwith her husband and father
in law and they were confined inside the house by locking
the internal door and they were threatened, if they did not
settle the matter, the Plaintiff’s husband and father in law
would be implicated in a false rape case. It is further stated
that the Defendant’s associate brought the typed and blank
documents alongwith stamp papers and forcefully obtained
the signatures of the Plaintiff and her father in law.
7.1.5. The burden of proof of the afore-mentioned averments, in
terms of Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is
upon the Plaintiff as the case of the Plaintiff’s case would
fail if no evidence at all is given on either side. The Plaintiff
has lead her evidence and appeared as the sole witness in the
matter. The afore-mentioned contentions of the plaint are
reiterated in the examination-in-chief of the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff’s entire evidence about the incidents, of trespassing,
threats about implicating the Plaintiff’s family members in a
false rape case and the signatures being obtaining forcibly, is
oral. The Plaintiff has produced only two documents in her
evidence, Exhibit PW-1/1, i.e., the sale deed in her favour
and Mark-A, i.e., copy of the Police Complaint dated
07.05.2015. The title of the Plaintiff, in any case, is not
disputed and therefore, only relevant document for the
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 26 of 65
adjudication of this Issue is Mark-A.
7.1.6. Mark-A is copy of the Police complaint dated 07.05.2015.
The original acknowledged copy, bearing the stamp of Police
Station, has not been produced. Mark-A does not contain any
diary number. It has also not been explained as to why the
copy bearing original acknowledgment has not been filed
and no foundation for leading secondary evidence has been
laid down, in so far as the proof of Mark-A is concerned.
The Plaintiff has stated in the written statement, filed in the
Defendant’s suit that the Plaintiff has also filed an
Application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure,
Code, 1973. The Defendant has denied that the Plaintiff has
filed or pursued any such complaint or an application under
Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure, Code, 1973. The
Plaintiff also did not summon or examine the Official
witness from Police Station for proving the filing of
aforesaid complaint dated 07.05.2015. The Plaintiff has not
even filed any copy, certified copy of any proceedings under
Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 nor
has summoned or sought production of the record of any
such application being filed by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the
Plaintiff has not proved that she has filed the complaint
Mark-A on 07.05.2015. Even though the Plaintiff has not
proved the police complaint dated 07.05.2015, i.e., Mark-A,
against the Defendant, however the aforesaid document has
been filed and relied upon by the Plaintiff, therefore, the
averments of the same would be an admission of fact against
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 27 of 65
the Plaintiff.
7.1.7. The question of proof of the incidents, stated by the Plaintiff,
has to be examined on the strength of the aforementioned
oral averments of the Plaintiff. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff
has stated that the Plaintiff has reiterated in her examination
in chief the contentions about the incidents of trespassing,
threats about implicating the Plaintiff’s family members in a
rape case and the signatures being obtained forcibly. It is
submitted that the Defendant has not challenged the
aforesaid statements by the corresponding negative
suggestions and therefore, the contentions of incident dated
30.04.2015 and 01.05.2015 stands proved against the
Defendant. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant has submitted that
the Plaintiff has been given the generic suggestion about her
testimony being false and the same is sufficient to challenge
her testimony.
7.1.8. If the cross-examination of the Plaintiff is perused, the same
has not been conducted in a very effective manner. The
Counsel cross-examining the Plaintiff has merely concluded
the same hastily instead of touching the relevant aspects of
the matter, which could have effectively put forward the case
of the Defendant. The Counsel may have his reasons to
cross-examine the Plaintiff in such a fashion, which this
Court does not intend to dwell upon and pass a judgment on,
however the fact of the matter remains that there are no
specific suggestions in the cross-examination in so far as the
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 28 of 65
incidents dated 30.04.2015 and dated 01.05.2015 are
concerned. The question is whether the aforesaid incidents
stand proved in terms of oral testimony against the
Defendant for the reasons of absence of the suggestions
alone. The answer to the aforesaid question is in the negative
and the reasons are stated hereinafter.
7.1.9. It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
“Sher Mohammad Vs. Mohan Magotra:
2013:DHC:3258″, that in civil cases, mere absence of
suggestions in the cross-examination does not amount to
proof of the facts, which were denied in the pleadings. The
relevant part of the observations of the Hon’ble Court are
being reproduced hereinbelow:
“19. ………… However, I am of the opinion that in a civil
trial which is based on pleadings, there is no need for
such suggestions to be given. The respondent in his
written statement had already denied the said
payment and it was for the appellant to prove the
same. The practice of giving suggestions in cross
examination to witnesses is of criminal trials where
there are no pleadings and the defence is built up by
giving such suggestions. However unfortunately the
said practice of criminal trials has crept into the civil
trials also to the extent that most of the cross
examinations being in the form of suggestions alone
and which take considerable time. The purport of
cross examination is to challenge the testimony
and/or to falsify the witness or his credit worthiness
and not to give suggestions to the effect that each and
every deposition in examination-in-chief is false.
Similarly, a party in a civil trial is not required to in
cross examination put its case to the witness as the
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 29 of 65
same as aforesaid already exists in the pleadings.”
Therefore, mere absence of suggestions would not come to
rescue of the Plaintiff. Even assuming that the aforesaid fact
has not been challenged by suggestions, the testimony and
evidence of the Plaintiff and the Defendant are to be read as
a whole, in order to conclude the factum of proof of their
respective contentions. The Defendant has affirmed the
contents of written statement in her examination in chief.
The Plaintiff has also not specifically confronted the
Defendant in the cross-examination with the incidents dated
30.04.2015 and dated 01.05.2015. The Plaintiff has given
only one generic suggestion to the Defendant that the
Defendant trespassed into the suit property and the
signatures of the Plaintiff were obtained forcefully on the
threat of implicating the Plaintiff in false cases. The
aforesaid suggestion was denied by the Defendant. The
Plaintiff has even not suggested that the signatures were
obtained upon the threat of implicating the Plaintiff’s
husband and her father in law in a false rape case, however it
was suggested that the Plaintiff would be implicated in a
false case, which was not even the case set up by the Plaintiff
and further if the aforesaid suggestion is read as admission of
the Plaintiff, then the same merely contradicts the case of the
Plaintiff. Thus, neither the Plaintiff was given the negative
suggestions about the incidents dated 30.04.2015 and
01.05.2015 nor the specific ingredients of the aforesaid
incidents were put forward to the Defendant, in her cross-
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 30 of 65
examination, when she has affirmed to the contrary in her
examination in chief. Therefore, the incidents dated
30.04.2015 and 01.05.2015 are not proved/disproved by
mere absence of suggestions by the Counsels in the cross-
examination of the Plaintiff as well as that of the Defendant.
7.1.10. More imperatively, this Court is not convinced that even on
the basis of unrebutted evidence, the testimony of the
Plaintiff would not amount to proof of the alleged incidents
dated 30.04.2015 and dated 01.05.2015. The incident, stated
by the Plaintiff, is spread out in two parts, first part is the
incident dated 30.04.2015 and second part is incident dated
01.05.2015 from 2:00pm onwards.
7.1.11. The first part of the incident: It is stated that the Plaintiff
returned after meeting her relative on 30.04.2015 and found
the Defendant in possession of the suit property alongwith
her associates. It is stated that the Defendant had broken
open the locks of the suit property and forcibly gained entry
into the house. It is stated that on being confronted, the
Defendant threatened the Plaintiff to leave the suit property
or else she would implicate the Plaintiff’s husband in a false
rape case. In the complaint dated 07.05.2015, the incident
dated 30.04.2015 is affirmed, however two additional facts
are mentioned. Firstly, the time of incident is mentioned
around 11:00pm and secondly, the Defendant’s associate are
described as two wrestlers type persons (‘दो पहलवान टाइप’). It is
stated that the Plaintiff went to the Police Station, however
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 31 of 65
they refused to take an action by terming it a property
dispute and advised the Plaintiff to go to the Court. The
aforementioned first part is introductory and provides the
background for understanding the second incident, which is
stated to have taken place on 01.05.2015.
7.1.12. Second part of incident on 01.05.2015: The Plaintiff has
stated that she went to the suit property on 01.05.2015 at
2:00pm to speak to the Defendant and the Plaintiff was
accompanied by her husband and her father-in-law. It is
stated that the Defendant’s associate locked the house from
inside and threatened to implicate the Plaintiff’s husband and
her father-in-law in a false rape case if the Plaintiff did not
settle the matter. It is stated that the Defendant asked her
associate over the phone to bring typed & blank documents
alongwith stamp papers and forcefully obtained the
signatures of Plaintiff and her father-in-law on the same. In
the police complaint dated 07.05.2015, i.e., Mark-A, the
contentions of door being locked by the Defendant’s
associate was not mentioned and even the threat of rape case
was not specifically stated, however it was stated that
Defendant and her friend Bimla threatened to tear their
clothes and the Plaintiff, her husband and father-in-law, sat
there frightened. It is further stated that the Defendant’s
associate brought the stamp papers and typed papers and also
clicked photograph of the Plaintiff and obtained the
signatures of the Plaintiff and her father-in-law on stamp
papers and typed papers. It is stated that the Plaintiff and her
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 32 of 65
family members went to the Police immediately after being
released and she was informed that the Police could not do
anything in the matter. The Plaintiff has further stated in
complaint dated 07.05.2015, i.e., Mark-A, that the Plaintiff’s
two gold sets, one gold ring of her husband and cash of
Rs.8,000/- was also in the house, in possession of the
Defendant.
7.1.13. The Plaintiff has stated in the plaint that she was made to
sign blank, typed documents and stamp papers, however, in
the complaint she has only referred to stamp papers and
typed documents. The Defendant has filed the original
documents on record, which are Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6
{also Exhibit DW-1/A (colly)}. During admission/denial of
the documents, the Plaintiff has admitted her signatures on
the aforesaid documents and denied the contents of the same.
The Plaintiff has not specifically referred to any document,
out of Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-5, which was signed in blank
and prepared, typed or made subsequent to the signatures.
Therefore, it has been established on record that the Plaintiff
or her father in law did not sign any blank document and
signed the typed and prepared documents, alongwith stamp
papers, which are Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6.
7.1.14. The Plaintiff states that she went to the Defendant’s place at
2:00pm on the 01.05.2015 alongwith her husband and father-
in-law and remained in confinement inside the house, the
door being locked internally and the signatures of the
Plaintiff and her father-in-law were obtained on the
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 33 of 65
documents, i.e., Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6. The Exhibit D-1
to Exhibit D-6 are original documents. The stamp paper of
the General Power of Attorney, i.e., Exhibit D-1, is
generated/printed on 01.05.2015 at 4:39pm. The stamp
paper of Agreement to sell, i.e., Exhibit D-2, is
generated/printed on 01.05.2015 at 4:41pm. The Stamp
paper of Affidavit, i.e., Exhibit D-3, is printed on 01.05.2014
at 4:42 pm.
7.1.15. The aforesaid documents could not be signed before the
stamp papers were obtained. Even if the stamp papers were
obtained by 4:42pm, some-time would definitely take to
bring the stamp papers to the place of the incident. Even if
the aforesaid time is to be treated as less as 15 to 20 minutes,
then also as per the version of the Plaintiff, between 2:00pm
to 5:00pm on 01.05.2015, the Plaintiff, her husband and her
father-in-law were in confinement/captivity of the
Defendant. For a duration of about three hours, the Plaintiff
and her two male family members were held as hostages by
the unarmed Defendant and her female friend Bimla, only at
the threat of implicating the Plaintiff’s husband and father in
law in a false rape case. The Plaintiff and her male
companions were stated to be frightened and they did not
make any attempt of rescue for three hours. Thereafter,
another associate of the Defendant is stated to have joined
for taking signatures on documents and stamp papers. After
the Plaintiff and her male companions were released from
the captivity, they stated to have visited the Police Station
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 34 of 65
and the Official again did not take any action. No attempts
for filing a written complaint were made on 30.04.2015 or on
01.05.2015. The written complaint was stated to have filed
only after 6 days on 07.06.2015. Though filing of the
aforesaid complaint, even on 07.05.2015 and in terms of
material on record, there is no action on behalf of the
Plaintiff, till the time of filing of the suit against the
Defendant. It is stated that the first suit was filed by the
Plaintiff in July 2015, which was subsequently withdrawn to
file the present suit. No documents have been placed on
record in order to infer the date of filing or withdrawal of the
aforesaid previous suit or nature of prayers in the same.
7.1.16. There are many contradictions and unanswered questions,
even if the aforementioned testimony of the Plaintiff is to be
considered as unrebutted. It remains to be explained as to
why no immediate written complaint was filed, or as to why
no action was taken until filing of the present suit or till July,
2015, when the first suit by the Plaintiff was stated to be
filed. Ideally any person, on being dispossessed by house
trespass, would at the least call the 100 number, seek
assistance of the neighbours, more so when besides the
immovable property, the Plaintiff claims that 2 golds sets,
one gold ring and cash was also in the house.
7.1.17. Second pertinent aspect is the conduct of the Plaintiff to
walk into danger and plan of the Defendant, of which she
was already aware of. The case set up is that on 30.04.2015,
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 35 of 65
the Defendant forcibly obtained the possession with the help
of the goons (Two wrestlers type persons) and threatened the
Plaintiff that she would implicate her husband in a false rape
case. The Plaintiff was well aware of the threat and danger,
she was running to, however she willing falls into trap and
becomes helpless on the threat, which she knew to be
exercised by the Defendant. There is no explanation for the
aforesaid conduct, if in fact the situation was that serious. It
is beyond comprehension as to why would the Plaintiff
walks into the trap on the second day, which itself was
visible and clear on the first day. Further if the allegations
are assumed to be true, it appears equally strange as to why
would the Defendant wait for second day, in order to obtain
the Plaintiff’s signatures by expecting her to visit again next
day, when she had the opportunity on the first day itself, as
being assisted by the muscle power. The events do not
explain an ordinary course of affairs and therefore, are
required to explained and proved by cogent evidence.
7.1.18. If the incidents of 30.04.2015 and 01.05.2015 are taken on
their face-value, they translate into multiple grave criminal
offences and the loss to the Plaintiff, in terms of the
aforesaid acts, was immense, unexpected and of a greater
degree. In such a case the Plaintiff cannot be expected to sit
silently for the next two months. The explanation of no
action assumes importance, in view of the gravity of
allegations and comparative loss to the Plaintiff. Even if at
the time of the incident, the Plaintiff was overawed by the
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 36 of 65
threat or apprehensions of use of force, once the aforesaid
threat or force ceased to operate and the Plaintiff and her
family members were released, they still waited for a period
of two months to take an action.
7.1.19. The silence of the Plaintiff for a period of two months is a
conduct which does not go in sync with the order of ordinary
affairs of human life. Though human behaviour varies from
person to person, however the law examines such behaviour
on the basis of an average prudent person’s conduct under
the circumstances. Any prudent person in the possession of
the situation of the Plaintiff would have immediately availed
the legal recourse. If there was some incapacity or disability
in approaching the law enforcement agencies or for the
Plaintiff not acting swiftly, the same should also have been
explained. No such disability or incapacity has been
explained by the Plaintiff.
7.1.20. The initiation of action immediately or within reasonable
time would certainly add credibility to the conduct of the
party, if allegations are serious and the situation of not taking
action remains open for forming an adverse inference against
the Plaintiff. However mere filing of the complaint
immediately or suit immediately would not by itself amount
to proof of the allegations and the allegations still remains to
be proved by other evidence. The Plaintiff did not even
examine her father-in-law or her husband in order to prove
the contentions of the forcible signatures and other incidents
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 37 of 65
dated 30.04.2015 and 01.05.2015. No reasons have been
assigned as to why the aforesaid crucial witnesses are not
examined. The sole reason for execution of the documents
was threat of implication of the husband and the father is law
in a false rape case and therefore, their examination was
crucial and non-examination, without assigning any reason,
would be equally fatal.
7.1.21. This Court intends to record few additional facts. This Court
has examined the signatures of the Plaintiff and her father in
law on the documents, i.e., Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6. If the
same were obtained by force, the same would include some
resistance, some hesitation, however nothing appears from
the aforesaid signatures to suggest the same. Further the
Plaintiff has stated that signatures of the Plaintiff and her
father in law were obtained, however the Exhibit D-1 and
Exhibit D-2 also mentioned at the back of the documents the
thumb impressions, stated to be of the Plaintiff and her father
in law, which have not been denied/explained by the
Plaintiff. The address of the Plaintiff in the sale deed Exhibit
PW-1/1 is Plot No.162, Chand Nagar, New Delhi – 110018
and the same address is mentioned in the documents, i.e.,
Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 is the same address. It is indeed
surprising as to how did the Defendant know the address of
the Plaintiff. The Defendant has stated in the cross-
examination that the Plaintiff’s father in law used to stay
near her residence and he was instrumental to the deal and
the factum of the father in law of the Plaintiff being a
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 38 of 65
neighbour of the Defendant has not been denied. Though
these facts should ideally have been pointed out by the
Defendant in the cross-examination of the Plaintiff and this
Court would have given the Plaintiff the benefit of doubt in
wake of inconclusive cross-examination of the Plaintiff,
however there is one fact emerging on record, which
contradicts the conduct/contentions of the Plaintiff to a
greater extent.
7.1.22. The Exhibit D-1, Exhibit D-2, Exhibit D-4 and Exhibit D-6
contain the colour passport size photograph of the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff has not stated in the plaint or in examination in
chief as to how the photograph of the Plaintiff came into
possession of the Defendant and was affixed on the
documents in question. In the complaint, i.e., Mark-A, the
Plaintiff has stated that the Defendant’s associate clicked the
photograph of the Plaintiff, while she was in captivity. This
Court has examined the photograph of the Plaintiff and she
does not appear to be under duress and shockingly, the
photograph of the Plaintiff on the documents, Exhibit D-1,
Exhibit D-2, Exhibit D-4 and Exhibit D-6 is the same
photograph, which was affixed on the registered sale deed
dated 30.03.2015 in favour of the Plaintiff. The aforesaid
registered sale deed dated 30.03.2015 is Exhibit PW-1/1 and
first page of the same is being reproduced hereinbelow:
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 39 of 65
The photograph of the Plaintiff appears on the right bottom corner of
above-referred document, which is first page of registered sale deed
30.03.2015, i.e., Ex.PW1/1. The first page, bearing photograph of
the parties, in Exhibit D-1, i.e., GPA dated 01.05.2015, is being________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 40 of 65
reproduced hereinbelow:
The photograph of the Plaintiff appears on left hand bottom corner
of the above-referred document, i.e., Exhibit D-1 and the aforesaid
photo is identical with the photograph of the Plaintiff on the________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 41 of 65
registered sale deed dated 30.03.2015. The first page of the Exhibit
D-2, i.e., agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015 is being reproduced
hereinbelowThe photograph of the Plaintiff appears on left hand bottom corner
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 42 of 65
of the above-referred document, i.e., Exhibit D-2 and the aforesaid
photograph is identical to the photograph of the Plaintiff on the
registered sale deed dated 30.03.2015. The receipt dated 01.05.2015,
i.e., Exhibit D-4 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
The photograph of the Plaintiff is the first photo on the left
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 43 of 65
hand corner of the above-referred document, i.e., Exhibit
D-4 and the aforesaid photo is identical to the photo of the
Plaintiff on the registered sale deed dated 30.03.2015. Even
the Exhibit D-5, which is a Will dated 30.03.2015, bears the
same photograph of the Plaintiff.
7.1.23. The Plaintiff admits in her cross-examination that she has not
gone to the suit property with her photographs. It is stated by
the Plaintiff in Mark-A that her photo was clicked by the
Defendant’s associate. This Court is unable to believe the co-
incident of such a highest probability that the photograph of
the Plaintiff stated to be clicked by the Defendant’s
associate by placing the Plaintiff in duress/stress/threat and
the result of the aforesaid photograph would be identical to
the photograph of the Plaintiff on her registered sale deed.
Therefore, the aforesaid photograph is not a mere co-incident
and is only one of the modes, in which the truth eventually
appears on the surface. The aforesaid photograph cannot be
affixed on the documents, unless the same has been given by
the Plaintiff and thus, existence of the same photograph on
the admitted as well as the challenged documents, is final
nail in coffin of the already staggering case of the Plaintiff.
The version of Plaintiff, in terms of incidents dated
30.04.2015 and 01.05.2015 is against the ordinary course of
affairs and material contradictions in the same remains
unexplained. Therefore, this Court does not have any
hesitation to hold that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that
her signatures were obtained forcefully on the Exhibit D-1 to
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 44 of 65
Exhibit D-6, which leads to only one conclusion that the
aforesaid documents were signed by the Plaintiff willingly
and with her free consent. The Issue No.1 is decided against
the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant.
7.2. Issue No. 2: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to
decree of possession of the suit property,
as prayed for? OPP.
7.2.1. The onus to prove this Issue is upon the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff is admitted owner of the suit property. The
Defendant is a purchaser under an unregistered agreement to
sell and also has filed the suit for specific performance.
7.2.2. The Plaintiff has set up the case that the agreement to sell
and other documents in question, i.e., Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-5,
were executed by coercion and therefore, are not binding
upon the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, being well aware of the
documents, did not seek any declaration against the aforesaid
documents. Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
provides that when consent to an agreement is caused by
coercion, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option
of the party whose consent was so caused. The difference
between the void and voidable contract is that a void contract
is null and void ab-initio, whereas a voidable contract
remains valid till the time the same is declared to be void, at
the option of the party, whose consent is not freely given.
The aforesaid proposition can be traced to the judgment
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 45 of 65
passed by the Full Bench of Privy Council in,
“Ramchandra Jivaji Kanago and Ors. Vs. Laxman
Shrinivas Naik and Ors.: AIR1945PC54.” The relevant
observation of the Privy Council are being reproduced
hereinbelow:
“4. Having regard to the findings of the High Court
which their Lordships find no reason to reject, the
main question for determination before the board,
as stated already, is whether the suit is barred by
Article 91, Limitation Act, If the deed of gift is a
void transaction no question of cancelling, or
setting it aside, would arise, but if it is only a
voidable transaction, that is, a transaction valid
until rescinded, then the necessity to set it aside is
obvious before possession of the property can be
claimed. Mr. Parikh’s first argument was that as
the transaction in question was brought about by
undue influence as found by the Courts in India, it
was not voluntary and was therefore void as a gift
within the meaning of Section 122, T.P. Act, This
argument cannot be accepted. Though the
transaction was induced by undue influence it does
not necessarily follow that it was not made
“voluntarily.” As held by the learned Judges of the
High Court, it is clear to their Lordships that
Appaji wished to make a gift and acted
“voluntarily” in making it. Circumstances brought
out in the evidence amply support this view. Appaji
was a delicate boy. In 1915, he was only 20. He
suffered from epilepsy. Before he made the gift he
had been travelling from place to place in search
of health and visiting temples. At about the time of
the gift he must have realised that his health was
not improving and that the prospect of having any
issue was becoming more and more uncertain. It
was then that he made the gift to his sister in 1915.
The opinion of the High Court that he was in no
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 46 of 65
way an idiot or weak-minded intellectually though
he was under the influence of his sister and her
husband, cannot be controverted in view of the
evidence in the case. In these circumstances, their
Lordships do not find any sufficient reason to
differ from the opinion of the High Court that
Appaji made the gift “voluntarily.” The transaction
is therefore not void, but only voidable as induced
by undue influence and requires to be set aside
before the properties conveyed by it could be
claimed by Appaji or by anyone claiming through
him.”
7.2.3. Since the contract in the present case is stated to voidable,
therefore in terms of Section 19 of the Act, the Plaintiff has
to exercise the option of getting it declared as void. The
Plaintiff has not sought any prayers for cancellation of
Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 or more specifically Exhibit D-2.
The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held in,
“Tuboti Venkateswarlu and Ors. Vs. Rayasam Madhava
Rao and Ors.: 2022(4)ALD400: MANU/AP/0020/2022″,
that a party can-not obtain consequential relief against the
voidable contract/instrument, unless it seeks
declaration/cancellation of such instrument. The relevant
observations of the Hon’ble Court are being reproduced
hereinbelow:
“29. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Thota Ganga Laxmi and Another vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others
MANU/SC/1267/2010 : (2010) 15 SCC 207 and the
judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in Sannidhi Ratnavathi vs. Arava Narasimha
Murthy and Another MANU/AP/0009/2003 : AIR
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 47 of 65
2004 AP 29, are essentially on the same lines.
30. These judgments have effectively held that in the case
of a void document, a party assailing such a
document need not seek its cancellation or a
declaration that the said document is not binding on
the said party. Such a situation does not arise in the
case of a voidable document. To ascertain whether
the said document is void or voidable, a look at
Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, which reads as
follows, is necessary:
19. Voidability of agreements without free consent.
When consent to an agreement is caused by
coercion, fraud or misrepresentation, the
agreement is a contract voidable at the option
of the party whose consent was so caused.
A party to a contract whose consent was caused
by fraud or misrepresentation, may, if he thinks
fit, insist that the contract shall be performed,
and that he shall be put in the position in which
he would have been if the representations made
had been true.
Exception:
If such consent was caused by
misrepresentation or by silence, fraudulent
within the meaning of section 17, the contract,
nevertheless, is not voidable, if the party whose
consent was so caused had the means of
discovering the truth with ordinary diligence.
Explanation:
A fraud or misrepresentation which did not
cause the consent to a contract of the party on
whom such fraud was practiced, or to whom
such misrepresentation was made, does not
render a contract voidable.
31. The contention of the Plaintiffs is that the deed of
settlement marked as Exhibit B-3, was obtained by
fraud and coercion. This would place the document
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 48 of 65
in the category of voidable documents as set out in
section 19 of the Contract Act. This would mean that
the plaintiffs cannot seek recovery of possession
without seeking to set aside the said document. No
such prayer has been made and consequently, the suit
would have to be dismissed.’Therefore, it was imperative on the Plaintiff to seek
cancellation of such of Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 or at least
of the Exhibit D-2, i.e., of the agreement to sell dated
01.05.2015, if it was voidable, in order to exercise of option
getting the same adjudged as null and void. The Plaintiff has
not sought any such prayer of cancellation.
7.2.4. The Plaintiff, in terms of the Issue No.1, has failed to prove
that agreement to sell was executed forcefully and this Court
has concluded that the aforesaid agreement to sell has been
executed willingly. The agreement to sell in question is
unregistered and executed subsequent to the year 2001 and
therefore, even if the same is treated to be valid, the
possession of the Defendant is not protected under Section
53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Defendant
does not have any right to be in possession of the suit
property, until the sale deed is executed in her favour after
grant of specific performance. This Court is granting the
specific performance of the agreement to sell in question,
which is being discussed under Issue No. 3 in Civ DJ
No.468/2018. Once the Defendant is being granted the
specific performance, she becomes entitled to obtain/retain
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 49 of 65
the possession and get the sale deed executed. Therefore,
directing the Defendant in such a case to handover the
possession first, to be again obtained in the execution of the
decree for specific performance, would result in creating
difficulties for execution of the decree of specific
performance and such a course would defeat the interests of
justice. Thus, this Court is not inclined to direct the
Defendant to handover the possession of the suit property in
order to again receive the same in execution of the decree for
specific performance. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is not
entitled to decree for possession and the Issue No.2 is
decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant.
7.3. Issue No. 3: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to
a decree of permanent injunction, as
prayed for? OPP7.3.1. The Issue No.3 is consequential to the Issue No.1 and 2.
Since the Issue No.1 and 2 have been decided against the
Plaintiff, therefore, the Issue No.3 is also decided against the
Plaintiff and in favour of the Defendant.
7.4. Issue No. 4: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to
pendente-lite mesne profits @ Rs.6,000/-
per month from the Defendant? OPP
7.4.1. Since the substantive prayer of the possession is being
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 50 of 65
declined to the Plaintiff, therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled
to claim any mesne profits. Therefore, the Issue No.4 is
being decided against the Plaintiff and in favour of the
Defendant.
7.5. Issue No. 5: If Issue No.4 is decided in favour of the
Plaintiff, whether the Plaintiff is
entitled to pendente-lite and future
interest, if so, at what rate? OPP.
7.5.1. The Issue No.5 is dependent upon the Issue No. 4. Since the
Issue No.4 has been decided against the Plaintiff, therefore,
the Issue No.5 is also decided against the Plaintiff and in
favour of the Defendant.
8. Conclusion on Issues in the Civ DJ No. 468/2018 and
reasons for such conclusions:
8.1. Issue No. 1: Whether the defendant’ signatures were
obtained forcefully by the plaintiff on
the blank sale documents i.e. GPA,
agreement to sell, affidavit, receipt, Will
and possession letter, all dated
01.05.2015, if so, its effect? OPD8.1.1. The Issue No.1 in the present suit is identical to the Issue
No.1 of the Civ DJ No.613425/2018. The aforesaid Issue has
been decided in Civ DJ No.613425/2019. The aforesaid________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 51 of 65
discussion and conclusions are being relied upon herein and
are not reproduced in order to avoid repetition. The Issue
No.1 is accordingly, decided in favour of the Plaintiff in the
present suit.
8.2. Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff had paid an
amount of Rs.20,00,000/- towards the
sale consideration to the defendant?
OPP
8.2.1. The Defendant has failed to prove that her signatures were
forcibly obtained on the Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-5. It has
thus been proved that the Defendant has willingly executed
the Exhibit D-1 to the Exhibit D-5. Once the Exhibit D-1 to
D-5 have been proved, their contents have also been proved
against the Defendant.
8.2.2. The Exhibit D-2 is the agreement to sell dated 01.05.2025. It
is mentioned in recitals of the aforesaid agreement to sell
that the Defendant has received an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-
from the Plaintiff. The Exhibit D-4 is receipt dated
01.05.2025 and the same records acknowledgment of the
Defendant that she has received an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-
in cash from the Plaintiff. The Defendant has acknowledged
the factum of receiving Rs.20,00,000/- in cash by appending
her signatures on revenue stamp affixed on the aforesaid
receipt.
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 52 of 65
8.2.3. Ld. Counsel for the Defendant has submitted that the cross-
examination of the Plaintiff would reveal that she did not
have the financial capability of making payment of
Rs.20,00,000/- and therefore, she has not proved that she has
paid Rs.20,00,000/- in cash to the Defendant. The Defendant
has stated in the cross-examination that she had
Rs.5,00,000/- in from her savings and she has borrowed
Rs.15,00,000/- from her mother and aunt. The Defendant has
not described the aforesaid amount in a mathematically
perfect manner in the cross-examination, however, the
transaction was in cash and the Plaintiff has acknowledged
the payment of the same in the agreement to sell as well as in
the receipt dated 01.05.2015.
8.2.4. This Court intend to refer here to Section 91 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:
91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other
dispositions of property reduced to form of
document.
When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of
any other disposition of property, have been
reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases
in which any matter is required by law to be
reduced to the form of a document, no evidence
shall be given in proof of the terms of such
contract, grant or other disposition of property, or
of such matter, except the document itself, or
secondary evidence of its contents in cases in
which secondary evidence is admissible under the
provisions hereinbefore contained.
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 53 of 65
Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 further provides
the conditions or circumstances or extent, to which the oral
evidence may be given in contradiction to the terms and
conditions of the written agreement/instrument. Section 92
of the Act of 1872 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement:
When the terms of any such contract, grant or
other disposition of property, or any matter
required by law to be reduced to the form of a
document, have been proved according to the last
section, no evidence of any oral agreement or
statement shall be admitted, as between the parties
to any such instrument or their representatives in
interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying,
adding to, or subtracting from, its terms:
Proviso (1): Any fact may be proved which would
invalidate any document, or which would entitle
any person to any decree or order relating thereto;
such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due
execution, want of capacity in any contracting
party, 1[want or failure] of consideration, or
mistake in fact or law.
Proviso (2): The existence of any separate oral
agreement as to any matter on which a document
is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its
terms, may be proved. In considering whether or
not this proviso applies, the Court shall have
regard to the degree of formality of the document.
Proviso (3): The existence of any separate oral
agreement, constituting a condition precedent to
the attaching of any obligation under any such
contract, grant or disposition of property, may be
proved.
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 54 of 65
Proviso (4): The existence of any distinct
subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify
any such contract, grant or disposition of property,
may be proved, except in cases in which such
contract, grant or disposition of property is by law
required to be in writing, or has been registered
according to the law in force for the time being as
to the registration of documents.
Proviso (5): Any usage or custom by which
incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract
are usually annexed to contracts of that
description, may be proved:
Provided that the annexing of such incident would
not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the
express terms of the contract.
Proviso (6): Any fact may be proved which shows
in what manner the language of a document is
related to existing facts.”
8.2.5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has explained Section
91 and Section 92 and the objective of exclusion of oral
evidence in contradiction of written agreement in “V.
Anantha Raju and Ors. Vs. T.M. Narasimhan and Ors.:
AIR2021SC5342″, and the relevant observations of the
Hon’ble Court are being reproduced hereinbelow:
“21. This Court in the case of Roop Kumar v. Mohan
Thedani MANU/SC/0276/2003 : (2003) 6 SCC 595
has elaborately considered the earlier judgments of
this Court on the issue in hand and has held as
under:
12. Before we deal with the factual aspects, it would be proper
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 55 of 65
to deal with the plea relating to scope and ambit of
Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. 13. Section 91
relates to evidence of terms of contract, grants and other
disposition of properties reduced to form of document. This
Section merely forbids proving the contents of a writing
otherwise than by writing itself; it is covered by the
ordinary Rule of law of evidence, applicable not merely to
solemn writings of the sort named but to others known
sometimes as the “best evidence rule”. It is in reality
declaring a doctrine of the substantive law, namely, in the
case of a written contract, that all proceedings and
contemporaneous oral expressions of the thing are merged
in the writing or displaced by it. (See Thayer’s Preliminary
Law on Evidence, p. 397 and p. 398; Phipson’s Evidence,
7th Edn., p. 546; Wigmore’s Evidence, p. 2406.) It has been
best described by Wigmore stating that the Rule is in no
sense a Rule of evidence but a Rule of substantive law. It
does not exclude certain data because they are for one or
another reason untrustworthy or undesirable means of
evidencing some fact to be proved. It does not concern a
probative mental process — the process of believing one
fact on the faith of another. What the Rule does is to
declare that certain kinds of facts are legally ineffective in
the substantive law; and this of course (like any other
ruling of substantive law) results in forbidding the fact to
be proved at all. But this prohibition of proving it is merely
that dramatic aspect of the process of applying the Rule of
substantive law. When a thing is not to be proved at all the
Rule of prohibition does not become a Rule of evidence
merely because it comes into play when the counsel offers
to “prove” it or “give evidence” of it; otherwise, any Rule of
law whatever might be reduced to a Rule of evidence. It
would become the legitimate progeny of the law of
evidence. For the purpose of specific varieties of jural
effects — sale, contract etc. there are specific requirements
varying according to the subject. On the contrary there are
also certain fundamental elements common to all and
capable of being generalised. Every jural act may have the
following four elements: (a) the enaction or creation of the
act; (b) its integration or embodiment in a single memorial
when desired; (c) its solemnization or fulfilment of the
prescribed forms, if any; and (d) the interpretation or
application of the act to the external objects affected by it.
14. The first and fourth are necessarily involved in every jural
act, and second and third may or may not become
practically important, but are always possible elements.
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 56 of 65
15. The enaction or creation of an act is concerned with the
question whether any jural act of the alleged tenor has
been consummated; or, if consummated, whether the
circumstances attending its creation authorise its
avoidance or annulment. The integration of the act consists
in embodying it in a single utterance or memorial —
commonly, of course, a written one. This process of
integration may be required by law, or it may be adopted
voluntarily by the actor or actors and in the latter case,
either wholly or partially. Thus, the question in its usual
form is whether the particular document was intended by
the parties to cover certain subjects of transaction between
them and, therefore, to deprive of legal effect all other
utterances.
16. The practical consequence of integration is that its
scattered parts, in their former and inchoate shape, have
no longer any jural effect; they are replaced by a single
embodiment of the act. In other words, when a jural act is
embodied in a single memorial all other utterances of the
parties on the topic are legally immaterial for the purpose
of determining what are the terms of their act. This Rule is
based upon an assumed intention on the part of the
contracting parties, evidenced by the existence of the
written contract, to place themselves above the
uncertainties of oral evidence and on a disinclination of the
courts to defeat this object. When persons express their
agreements in writing, it is for the express purpose of
getting rid of any indefiniteness and to put their ideas in
such shape that there can be no misunderstanding, which
so often occurs when reliance is placed upon oral
statements. Written contracts presume deliberation on the
part of the contracting parties and it is natural they should
be treated with careful consideration by the courts and with
a disinclination to disturb the conditions of matters as
embodied in them by the act of the parties. (See McKelvey’s
Evidence, p. 294.) As observed in Greenlear’s Evidence, p.
563, one of the most common and important of the concrete
Rules presumed under the general notion that the best
evidence must be produced and that one with which the
phrase “best evidence” is now exclusively associated is the
Rule that when the contents of a writing are to be proved,
the writing itself must be produced before the court or its
absence accounted for before testimony to its contents is
admitted.
17. It is likewise a general and most inflexible Rule that
wherever written instruments are appointed, either by the
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 57 of 65
requirement of law, or by the contract of the parties, to be
the repositories and memorials of truth, any other evidence
is excluded from being used either as a substitute for such
instruments, or to contradict or alter them. This is a matter
both of principle and policy. It is of principle because such
instruments are in their own nature and origin, entitled to a
much higher degree of credit than parol evidence. It is of
policy because it would be attended with great mischief if
those instruments, upon which men’s rights depended, were
liable to be impeached by loose collateral evidence. (See
Starkie on Evidence, p. 648.)
18. In Section 92 the legislature has prevented oral evidence
being adduced for the purpose of varying the contract as
between the parties to the contract; but, no such limitations
are imposed Under Section 91. Having regard to the jural
position of Sections 91 and 92 and the deliberate omission
from Section 91 of such words of limitation, it must be
taken note of that even a third party if he wants to establish
a particular contract between certain others, either when
such contract has been reduced to in a document or where
under the law such contract has to be in writing, can only
prove such contract by the production of such writing.
19. Sections 91 and 92 apply only when the document on the
face of it contains or appears to contain all the terms of the
contract. Section 91 is concerned solely with the mode of
proof of a document with limitation imposed by Section 92
relates only to the parties to the document. If after the
document has been produced to prove its terms Under
Section 91, provisions of Section 92 come into operation
for the purpose of excluding evidence of any oral
agreement or statement for the purpose of contradicting,
varying, adding orsubtracting from its terms. Sections 91
and 92 in effect supplement each other. Section 91 would
be inoperative without the aid of Section 92, and similarly
Section 92 would be inoperative without the aid of Section
91.
20. The two sections, however, differ in some material
particulars. Section 91 applies to all documents, whether
they purport to dispose of rights or not, whereas Section 92
applies to documents which can be described as
dispositive. Section 91 applies to documents which are both
bilateral and unilateral, unlike Section 92 the application
of which is confined to only bilateral documents. (See: Bai
Hira Devi v. Official Assignee of Bombay
[ MANU/SC/0001/1958 : AIR 1958 SC 448].) Both these
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 58 of 65
provisions are based on “best-evidence rule”. In Bacon’s
Maxim Regulation 23, Lord Bacon said “The law will not
couple and mingle matters of specialty, which is of the
higher account, with matter of averment which is of
inferior account in law.” It would be inconvenient that
matters in writing made by advice and on consideration,
and which finally import the certain truth of the agreement
of parties should be controlled by averment of the parties
to be proved by the uncertain testimony of slippery
memory.
21. The grounds of exclusion of extrinsic evidence are: (i) to
admit inferior evidence when law requires superior would
amount to nullifying the law, and (ii) when parties have
deliberately put their agreement into writing, it is
conclusively presumed, between themselves and their
privies, that they intended the writing to form a full and
final statement of their intentions, and one which should be
placed beyond the reach of future controversy, bad faith
and treacherous memory.
22. This Court in Gangabai v. Chhabubai
[ MANU/SC/0385/1981 : (1982) 1 SCC 4 : AIR 1982 SC
20] and Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal
[ MANU/SC/0747/1999 : (2000) 1 SCC 434: AIR 2000 SC
426] with reference to Section 92(1) held that it is
permissible to a party to a deed to contend that the deed
was not intended to be acted upon, but was only a sham
document. The bar arises only when the document is relied
upon and its terms are sought to be varied and
contradicted. Oral evidence is admissible to show that
document executed was never intended to operate as an
agreement but that some other agreement altogether, not
recorded in the document, was entered into between the
parties.
22. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the
integration of the act consists in embodying it in a
single utterance or memorial — commonly, a written
one. This process of integration may be required by
law, or it may be adopted voluntarily by the actor or
actors and in the latter case, either wholly or
partially. It has been held that the question that is
required to be considered is whether the particular
document was intended by the parties to cover
certain subjects of transaction between them to
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 59 of 65
deprive of legal effect of all other utterances. It has
been further held that the practical consequence of
integration is that its scattered parts, in their former
and inchoate shape, have no longer any jural effect
and they are replaced by a single embodiment of the
act. It has been held that when a jural act is
embodied in a single memorial, all other utterances
of the parties on the topic are legally immaterial for
the purpose of determining what are the terms of
their act. It has been held that when persons express
their agreements in writing, it is for the express
purpose of getting rid of any indefinite ness and to
put their ideas in such shape that there can be no
misunderstanding, which so often occurs when
reliance is placed upon oral statements. It has been
observed that the written contracts presume
deliberation on the part of the contracting parties
and it is natural that they should be treated with
careful consideration by the courts and with a
disinclination to disturb the conditions of matters as
embodied in them by the act of the parties. It has
been held that the written instruments are entitled to
a much higher degree of credit than oral evidence.
23. This Court has further held that Sections 91 and 92
of the Evidence Act would apply only when the
document on the face of it contains or appears to
contain all the terms of the contract. It has been held
that after the document has been produced to prove
its terms Under Section 91, the provisions of Section
92 come into operation for the purpose of excluding
evidence of any oral agreement or statement for the
purpose of contradicting, varying, adding or
subtracting from its terms. It has been held that it
would be inconvenient that matters in writing made
by advice and on consideration, and which finally
import the certain truth of the agreement of parties
should be controlled by averment of the parties to be
proved by the uncertain testimony of slippery
memory. It has been held that when parties
deliberately put their agreement into writing, it is
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 60 of 65
conclusively presumed, between themselves and their
privies, that they intended the writing to form a full
and final statement of their intentions, and one which
should be placed beyond the reach of future
controversy, bad faith and treacherous memory.
(Underlining Added)
Thus, oral evidence against the terms of a written document,
in order to be admissible, has to fall within the purview of
provisos to Section 92 of the Act of 1872. The Defendant has
stated that aforesaid documents, i.e., Exhibit D-1 to D-6
were executed by forcibly obtaining her signatures and
placing her under threat, which falls within the first proviso
to the aforesaid provision. However, the Defendant has failed
to prove her contentions and it has been held in the Issue
No.1 that the Defendant has willingly signed and executed
the documents, i.e., Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6. The
Defendant does not explain her admission as to why did she
sign the documents, if she had not received the payment. As
discussed hereinabove, the only manner in which the
Defendant could have explained her admission was proving
the allegations of forcible signatures, which she has failed
and therefore, the Defendant cannot be permitted to
contradict the terms of the documents, i.e., of Exhibit D-2
and Exhibit D-4, which have been proved against her.
8.2.6. Further, the onus to prove the payment of Rs.20,00,000/- is
only on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The
Plaintiff has stated that she has made payment of the cash________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 61 of 65
and a substantive part of the same is stated to be borrowed
from her relatives. The Plaintiff has proved the agreement to
sell as well as the receipt in acknowledgment of the
payment, received by the Defendant.
8.2.7. The Defendant has purchased the suit property through sale
deed dated 30.03.2015 for an amount of Rs.18,40,000/- and
it is mentioned in the sale deed that Rs.13,40,000/- were paid
in cash. If the Defendant could make substantive payment in
cash one month before transaction, she could also accept the
payment in cash. The Defendant has been cross-examined on
the aspects of purchase of the suit property and it is evident
from her cross-examination that she neither visited the suit
property nor has met with the purchaser prior to execution of
the sale deed nor is she aware of the title chain of the suit
property. Though the title of the Defendant is not in dispute,
however it can be concluded from her cross-examination that
the transaction between the Defendant and the erstwhile
owner for purchase of the suit property was conducted only
through her father-in law. The Plaintiff in her cross-
examination also states that the transaction between her and
Defendant was conducted through her father in law, who was
neighbour of the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not dispute that
her father in law was not neighbour of the Plaintiff. Further
the Defendant has not examined her father in law to prove
that the transaction has not been conducted through him or
money was not so received by the Defendant.
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 62 of 65
8.2.8. The Defendant has taken up a false plea of her signatures
being obtained by force and by exercising threats of
implicating her family members in a false rape case. This
Court has discussed in details in discussion under Issue No.1
of the Civ DJ No.613425/2016 that the aforementioned
contentions of the Defendant were proven to be false. It has
thus been established on record that the Defendant executed
the Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-6 in favour of the Plaintiff and
handed over the possession of the suit property to the
Plaintiff. Such a course of events does not result in without
receiving money by the buyer. The Defendant has executed
the receipt of payment in favour of the Plaintiff. In such a
case, the onus shifts to the Defendant to explain as to why
would she execute the documents and acknowledge the
payment thereunder, if the sale consideration was not
received. The Defendant does not have any explanation to
offer except one, which has already been held as patently
false, in terms of discussion under Issue No.1. Therefore, the
scale of preponderance of probabilities is titled towards the
Plaintiff, in so far as the payment in question is concerned
and the Issue No.2 is accordingly decided in favour of the
Plaintiff and against the Defendant.
8.3. Issue No. 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
decree of specific performance of
agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015, as
prayed for? OPP
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 63 of 65
8.3.1. The Plaintiff has proved that she has entered into the
agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015 with the Defendant. The
Defendant has failed to prove that her signatures on the
agreement to sell were obtained forcibly. The Plaintiff has
further proved, in terms of the agreement to sell and receipt
dated 01.05.2015, i.e., Exhibit D-2 and Exhibit D-4 that she
has paid the sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- to the
Defendant. The agreement to sell does not mention the
period, within which the sale deed is to be executed. Though
the present suit has been filed, subsequent to the filing of a
suit for possession, however the suit has been filed within
the period of three years from the date of execution of the
agreement to sell in question and therefore is within
limitation. After payment of the sale consideration, nothing
much remains to be performed by the Plaintiff, in so far as
the readiness and willingness of the Plaintiff is concerned.
Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific
performance of the agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015. The
Issue No.3 is accordingly decided in favour of the Plaintiff
and against the Defendant.
9. Relief/Final Decision:
i. The Civil Suit No.613425/2016, titled as, “Sonia Vs.
Simran” is dismissed. The decree sheet be drawn
accordingly. The decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 64 of 65
ii. The Civil Suit No.468//2018, titled as, “Simran Vs. Sonia”
is decreed and a decree for specific performance of the
agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015 is passed in favour of
the Plaintiff and the Defendant is directed to execute a
registered sale deed of the suit property in favour of the
Plaintiff, in terms of agreement to sell dated 01.05.2015.
The decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
Digitally signed by
ANIL ANIL CHANDHEL
CHANDHEL Date: 2025.06.09
17:09:49 +0530
Announced in the open Court (ANIL CHANDHEL)
today on 9th of June, 2025 DISTRICT JUDGE-04
WEST DISTRICT
THC/DELHI/09.06.2025
________________________________________________________________
Sonia Vs. Simran (CIV DJ NO. 613425/2016) &
Simran Vs. Sonia (CIV DJ No.468/2018) Page No. 65 of 65