Delhi District Court
Ankita Arora And Ors vs Vardhman Properties Ltd on 24 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02: NORTH ROHINI
COURTS COMPLEX: DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-003889-2016
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020
IN THE MATTER OF:-
1. Ankita Arora
D/o Late Sh. Ajay Arora
R/o B-264, Derawal Nagar,
Delhi-110033.
2. Ajay Arora (deceased)
(I) Ankita Arora D/o Late Sh. Ajay Arora
(II) Aman Arora S/o Late Sh. Ajay Arora
Both R/o B-264, Derawal Nagar,
Delhi-110033.
.....Plaintiffs
Versus
Vardhman Properties Ltd.
G-9, Vardhman Trade Centre
Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019.
.....Defendant
Date of institution
(before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi ) : 05.12.2011
(before District Court) : 01/04/2016
Date of Conclusion of Argument : 19/07/2025
Date of Order Judgment : 24/07/2025
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date:
2025.07.24
16:41:56 +0530
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 1 of 45
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
POSSESSION, MANDATORY INJUNCTION,
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND RECOVERY
ORDER
Vide this judgment, this Court shall decide the present suit
filed by the plaintiffs for declaration, specific performance possession,
mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and recovery.
1. PLAINTIFF’S CASE
1. It is case of the plaintiffs as per amended plaint dated
24.11.2011/31.03.2012 (amendment was allowed vide order dt.
26.11.2012) that Suit property is immovable property comprising of a
Commercial space in a commercial complex known as Vardhman
Fortune Mall at G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit
property).
2. Omitting unnecessary details and giving due prominence to
material circumstances, facts as borne out from the record are that
defendant company gave an advertisement in 2006 inviting applications
for allotment of commercial spaces. On 08.03.2006 plaintiffs visited site
office of defendant. Application dated 08.03.2006 was filled up on same
day. The same was signed without reading its contents (para 5 of
amended plaint). It is case of plaintiffs that agreement being in standard
form is not binding upon therm. An amount of Rs.3,25,290/- earnest
Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:42:04 +0530
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 2 of 45
money was paid. Defendant gave schedule of remaining payment as
under :
“(i) 10% at the time of booking;
(ii) 10% within one month from the date of booking;
(iii) 10% within two months from the date of booking;
(iv) 10% at the time of Bhoomi Pujan;
(v) 10% at the time of completion of DPC or Basement Slab;
(vi) 10% at the time of completion of Roof Slab of Ground Floor;
(vii) 10% at the time of Roof Slab of Second Floor.
(viii) 5% at the time of completion of Roof Slab of Third Floor;
(ix) 5% + Allied Charges at the time of Possession.”
3. It is case of the plaintiffs that they were allotted unit no. G-
38, super area of 10 sq. feet on payment of 10% of total amount.
4. It is case of the plaintiffs that total payment of Rs.
36,40,450/- was made as detailed in para 8 of the plaint.
5. It is case of the plaintiffs that vide letter dated 31.07.2008
defendant informed plaintiffs regarding taking of possession after
payment of dues. Plaintiffs requested for providing of completion
certificate.
Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
Date:
BALI 2025.07.24
16:42:11 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 3 of 45
6. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that on 12.07.2009, 12
post dated cheques amounting to Rs.12,93,399/- were given to defendant
company for unit charge and government dues.
7. A further demand was raised by the defendant of Rs.
1,25,000/- towards allied charges. This amount was also paid on
07.02.2011.
8. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that in March, 2011
defendants sent two blank possession letters. They contained conditions
which were not acceptable to the plaintiffs. The conditions were that
plaintiffs acknowledges satisfaction qua quality of construction and
material. Further plaintiffs were raising claim even qua title of building.
9. It is case of the plaintiffs that they are aggrieved by excess
charges being sought by the defendant. Agreement dated 08.03.2006 is
challenged on the grounds mentioned in para 17 of the amended plaint.
Gist of grounds is as under:-
“A. Plaintiffs were not shown documents of title. So
plaintiffs cannot be bound by heading PROMOTERS TITLE TO
PROPERTY. The defendants are denying to show documents to the
plaintiffs i.e. Sanction Plan of total permissible affair, site plan,
light charges, NOC from various departments, competition certificate.
These documents are not been supplied to plaintiffs on the ground
that as per agreement dt. 08.03.2006, the plaintiffs has already satisfied
himself about title of the promoters.
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date:
2025.07.24
16:42:18 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 4 of 45
B. The allied charges are being challenged on the ground
that mere mentioned in the schedule of installment whereas in
para 2 of the Agreement dt. 08.03.2006 under the agreed rate,
only Rs.15,490/- per square feet on super area basis is
mentioned. Under the head of allied charges, the defendant is
raising undue claims and thus the said charges are being
challenged.
Further, the super area has been defined in the agreement
to include open spaces and staircases whereas under the buyers
rights limited, it is mentioned that open space, lobbies, service
area etc. shall remain the property of the promoters. This part is
challenged as super area has been defined to include open area and
staircases.
C. Further, grievance of the plaintiffs are that agreement dt.
08.03.2006 does not provide for transfer of title despite the fact that
plaintiffs has paid the consideration amount. It is mentioned therein
that conveyance deed will be executed, if permitted by the
authorities. In case of leasehold, the conversion to free hold is to be
undertaken by the buyers. It ought to have been the duty of the
seller to undertake the conversion.
D. Further grievance of the plaintiffs are that plaintiffs are
already bound to pay electrification charges, fire fighting charges,
property tax, vacation land tax, ground rent, common service charges
etc. Despite this, there is a clause for allied charges. The same is
vague and its nature has not been illustrated.
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
Date:
BALI 2025.07.24
16:42:24
+0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 5 of 45
E. Further grievance of the plaintiffs are that agreement dt.
08.03.2006 provides that buyer shall have no claim against promoters
after taking of possession. The unit may contain patent defect and
thus right of the plaintiffs cannot be curtailed in case there is any
claim for damages in future, especially qua patent defect.
10. The prayers made in the amended plaint are reproduced
herein-under for ready perusal :-
“A. To pass a Decree of DECLARATION in favour of the
plaintiffs thereby declaring the Clauses as mentioned in Para
17(A) to (E) of the Agreement dated 08.03.2006 purportedly
got executed from the plaintiffs pertaining to the Unit bearing
No. G-38, Vardhman Fortune Mall, Plot No. B, G. T. Karnal
Road, Delhi, as null, void ab-initio and unenforceable in the yes
of law; and to further declare all subsequent demands of the
Defendant Company towards the aforesaid Unit as wholly
illegal and void.
B. To pass a Decree of SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE in respect
of the Agreement dated 08.03.2006, except the impugned
clauses as mentioned in Para 17(A) to (E) of the Plaint, in
respect of which Declaration has been sought as above, in
favour of the plaintiffs and against the Defendant, its Directors,
officials, Executives, Company Secretaries, Attorneys,
authorized representatives or anybody acting on their behalf;
thereby directing the Defendant to execute the Sale
Deed/transfer documents in respect of the Unit bearing No. G-
VIKRAM Digitally signed by
VIKRAM BALIBALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:42:31 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 6 of 45
38, Vardhman Fortune Mall, Plot No. B, G. T. Karnal Road,
Delhi, and to direct the Defendant to deliver the vacant physical
possession of the aforesaid property as shown in red colour in
the site plan annexed to the Plaint, to the plaintiffs, and in the
event of the
Defendant failing to execute the Sale Deed or neglecting to
perform its part of the contract, this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to direct the execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the
plaintiffs qua the Unit bearing No. G-38, Vardhman Fortune
Mall, Plot No. B, G. T. Karnal Road, Delhi, through the
Registry of this Hon’ble Court.
C. To pass the Decree of PERMANENT INJUNCTION in
favour of the plaintiffs and against the Defendants, its
Directors, servants, agents, Executives, officials, Company
Secretaries, attorneys, authorised representatives or anybody
acting on their behalf; thereby restraining them from selling,
alienating, transferring,creating any third party interest, parting
with possession or encumbering the Unit in question bearing
No. G-38, Vardhman Fortune Mall, Plot B, G.T. Karnal Road,
in favour of anybody else except the plaintiffs; and
D. To pass a Decree of MANDATORY INJUNCTION in
favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, its agents,
Directors, etc. thereby directing them to provide to the
plaintiffs’s all the documents mentioned in Para 16 of the Plaint
and to thereafter direct the defendant to execute the requisite
documents of transfer of the Unit bearing No. G38, Vardhman
Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:42:38 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 7 of 45
Fortune Mall, Plot B, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi in favour of the
plaintiffs and to get the same registered from the office of the
Sub-Registrar in accordance with law.
E. To pass a Decree of Recovery against the defendant
company to refund all the excess payments made by the
plaintiffs in contravention of the agreed consideration amount,
as also in contravention of law, in the light of the wholly illegal
and unsustainable terms of the Agreement as mentioned in the
Plaint.
F. To award the costs of the suit throughout in favour of the
plaintiffs and against the Defendants.
G. To pass any other order (s) which this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case
in favour of the plaintiffs and against the Defendants.”
2. DEFENDANT’S CASE
11. The defendant filed amended WS supported by affidavit
dated 27.02.2013. Preliminary objection was taken that reliefs sought
are contradictory. Specific performance is barred under Specific Relief
Act. plaintiffs are seeking to indirectly enforce agreement dated
08.03.2006. Proper Court fees is not paid. Execution of sale deed a
consequential relief was not sought.
12. On merit, it is case of the defendant that cheques issued by
plaintiffs were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Defendant has
Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
Date:
BALI 2025.07.24
16:42:46 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 8 of 45
received necessary completion certificate on 26.06.2008. letter dated
31.07.2008 was issued in nature of demand cum possession letter.
plaintiffs did not come forward to complete formalities. One
proposal/settlement dated 28.07.2009 was entered into. Plaintiffs did not
make full payment as per the settlement.
13. It is case of the defendant that terms and conditions of
agreement dated 08.03.2006 were not complied with by the plaintiffs and
they are not liable to be declared null and void. It is further case of the
defendant that agreement dt. 08.03.2006 was fully read and understood
by plaintiffs before signing the same. plaintiffs were aware about terms
and conditions from day one.
14. It is further pleaded case of the defendant that plaintiffs
entered into an agreement with open eyes. The same is binding and has
been challenged after about six years.
15. It is further pleaded case of the defendant that plaintiffs did
not want to take possession as they would be required to pay stamp duty
on registration of conveyance deed. With these averments dismissal of
suit is prayed for.
3. REPLICATION
16. Replication dated 17.07.2013 was filed by the plaintiffs. In
essence facts in the plaint were reiterated and averments of written
statement were denied. It was clarified by the plaintiffs that relief of
VIKRAM Digitally signed by
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:42:53 +0530
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 9 of 45
specific performance in respect of agreement dt. 08.03.2006 was allowed
to be taken after amendment was allowed vide order dt. 26.11.2012.
4. ISSUES
17. Following issues were framed by the Court vide order dated
30.10.2013:
(i) Whether the clauses of the Agreement dated 8th
March, 2006 as elaborated in para 17(A) to 17(E)
of the plaint are illegal and void? OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing
to perform their obligation under the Agreement
dated 8th March, 2006? OPP
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs have paid the entire sale
consideration to the defendant? OPP
(iv) If answer to the issues No. (ii) and (iii) above
is in the affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are
entitled to a decree of specific performance in their
favour? OPP
(v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek the
reliefs of specific performance and declaration
together? OPD
(vi) Whether the suit has been properly valued for
the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction? OPD
Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:43:00 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 10 of 45
(vii) Relief.
18. Possession of the suit premises was received by the
plaintiffs pursuant to order dated 30.10.2013 passed by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi.
5. PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE
Sr. Name of witness Documents exhibited
No.
1. PW1 Sh. Ajay Arora He tender his further examination-
in-chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW-
1/A which bears my signatures at
points A and B. The contents of his
affidavits are true and correct and
he understood the contents before
signing the affidavit. He have relied
upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to
Ex.PW1/3. (Exhibition of
Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/3 is
objected to by Ld. Counsel for
defendant as per mode of proof.)
I also relied upon the documents
already exhibited as Ex. P35.
2. PW2 Sh.Prashant The electrification of plot in
Panigrahi question i.e. plot no. B, Shopping
Centre, G.t. Karnal Road, known as
Vardhman Fortune Mall was
completed on 24.10.2008. The total
cost of electrification of the entire
Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:43:06 +0530
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 11 of 45
building is Rs. 66,63,067/-. The
cost borne by the defendant was Rs.
36,48,994/-. I have brought the
receipts of the payment made by
M/s Vardhman Properties Ltd. The
copy of the same are now exhibited
as Ex. PW 2/1. The copy of
certificate issued by the Electrical
Inspector is Ex. PW 2/2.
3. PW 3 Sh. Dev Singh As per records, no water connection
has been installed in Plot No. B,
Shopping Centre, G.T. Karnal Road,
Delhi known as Vardhman Fortune
Mall, till date.
4. PW 4 Manish Kumar He states that “As per our records,
there is no reference of the building
situated in Plot no. B, Shopping
Centre, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi,
known as Vardhman Fortune, till
date. There is no correspondence
with regard to issuance of NOC
from the Fire Department for the
said building.
5. PW 5 Sh. Bhagwan He states that “I have brought the
certified copy of the newspaper
advertisement of Vardhman Fortune
Mall published in the Nav Bharat
Times on 11.05.2014. I have not
brought the original advertisement,
as the same are destroyed after three
months after preparing the micro
films of the same and copy has been
obtained from the micro film and
has been certified by Mr. Pranav
VIKRAM Digitally signed by
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:43:13 +0530
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 12 of 45
Priyadarshini, Reference Incharge,
Library. The copy of the same is
exhibited as Ex.PW5/1. I am not
dealing with the publication of
advertisements and cannot tell who
got this advertisement published.”
PW 5 Sh. Pradeep Arora He tendered his evidence by way of
(wrongly mentioned as PW affidavit which is Ex. PW 5/A. He
5 again) rely upon the documents already
Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-31.
6. PW6 Rajat Mehrotra He was a summoned witness. He
brought the summoned record i.e.
Perpetual Lease Deed dated
28.04.2006 and auction/demand
letter dated 10.03.2006 in favour of
defendant. The copies thereof are
exhibited as Ex. PW6/1 (running
into 9 pages back to back) and Ex.
PW6/2 (running into 2 pages)
respectively (OSR). He have also
brought sanctioned map, however,
copy thereof is not available.
7. PW 7 Parveen Kumar He did not brought the summoned
record as the area under reference
stands de-notified and falls under
the jurisdiction of MCD and no
records/files are available in our
department. A letter dated
07.09.2022 is placed on record and
exhibited as Ex. PW7/1 (running
into three pages).
19. PE was closed by the statement of the Counsel for the plaintiffs vide
order dated 16.12.2022. Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:43:20 +0530
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 13 of 45
6. DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
Sr. No. Name of witness Remarks/documents tendered
1. DW1 Sh. Udesh Kumar He tender his evidence by way of affidavit
which is Ex.DW1/A bearing his signatures
at points A and B. He state that the contents
stated herein are true and correct. He rely
upon the following documents i.e.
1. Copy of completion certificate dated
26.06.2008 as regards Plot No.3, Shoping
Centre, G. T. Karnal Road, Delhi is
Ex.DW1/1 (two pages, colly) (OSR).
2. Copy of statement of account of the
plaintiffs for calculation of interest on
delayed payments is Ex.DW1/2 (objected to
mode of proof by the Counsel for the
plaintiffs).
3. Copy of application for Allotment of
Commercial space by the
plaintiffs are Ex.DW1/3 (two pages, colly)
(OSR).
4. Copy of agreement dated 08.03.2006 is
Ex.DW1/4 (twelve pages, colly) (OSR).
5. Copy of dishonoured cheque alongwith
dishonour memo is Ex.DW1/5 (two pages,
colly) (objected to mode of proof by the
Counsel for the plaintiffs).
6. Copy of dishonoured cheque dated
11.03.2006 alongwith dishonour memo is
Ex.DW1/6 (two pages, colly) (objected to
mode of proof by the Counsel for the
plaintiffs).
Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
Date:
BALI 2025.07.24
16:43:27 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 14 of 45
7. Copy of letters (alongwith postal receipt)
dated 27.03.2006, 25.04.2006, 26.05.2006,
23.06.2006, 18.07.2006, 31.07.2006,
24.10.2006, 29.11.2006, 27.12.2006,
27.01.2007, 21.02.2007, 28.03.2007,
24.04.2007, 28.05.2007, 27.06.2007,
28,07,2007, 27.08.2007, 26.09.2007,
29.10.2007, 29.11.2007, 29.12.2007,
30.01.2008, 26.02.2008, 28.03.2008,
24.04.2008, 26.05.2008, 23.06.2008,
31.07.2008, 31.07.2008, 30.08.2008,
22.09.2008, 31.10.2008, 27.11.2008,
26.12.2008, 27.01.2009, 26.02.2009,
26.03.2009, 25.04.2009, 26.05.2009,
26.06.2009, 23.07.2009, 02.03.2010,
23.03.2010, 20.08.2010, 21.09.2010,
25.10.2010, 25.11.2010, 24.12.2010,
22.01.2011, 12.03.2011, 15.05.2011,
24.05.2011 (reply by defendant),
02.12.2011 are exhibited as Ex.DW1/7 to
Ex.DW1/61 (All OSR) respectively except
copy of letter dated 28.07.2009 exhibited as
Ex.DW1/48 in the affidavit with
photocopies of cheques issued by plaintiffs
which is now de-exhibited and marked as
Mark A (five pages, colly).
8. Copy of Board Resolution is
Ex.DW1/62.
20. DE was closed on 03.09.2024.
21. This Court has carefully heard rival contentions of the
Counsel for the parties, carefully pursued case record. After careful
consideration the findings are being returned.
Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:43:35 +0530
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 15 of 45
ISSUE WISE SUBMISSIONS RAISED AND FINDINGS ARE AS
UNDER:
ISSUE NO. 1 IS :
“Whether the clauses of the Agreement dated 8th March,
2006 as elaborated in para 17(A) to 17(E) of the plaint are
illegal and void? OPP”
FIRST ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS QUA
CHALLENGE TO AGREEMENT EX.P2 ON GROUNDS OF SAME
BEING UNREASONABLE, STANDARD FORM OF
CONTRACT,ETC.
22. A. It is argued that the plaintiffs signed the agreement Ex.P2
only on the assurance of the representatives of the defendant
company that the same was a mere formality and same are in
standard format.
B. It is further argued by Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs
that the clause in the agreement dt. 08.03.2006 to the effect that
freehold charges are to be paid by the purchaser are challenged.
The rest of the agreement dated 08.03.2006 ought to be
specifically performed by the defendant as per Section 12 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is clarified that plaintiffs has already
performed his part of the contract by making good the
Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:43:42 +0530
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 16 of 45
consideration except the illegal demands, which are under
challenge. Reliance is placed upon case titled as Rachakonda
Narayana Vs. Ponthala Parvathamma reported in (2001) 8
Supreme Court Cases 173, Civil Appeal No. 9166 of 1996 to
contend that once plaintiffs has performed his part, then specific
performance can be ordered.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT TO FIRST
ARGUMENT
23. Per contra Learned Counsel for the defendant has replied to
this Argument by submitting that PW1 Sh. Ajay Arora has admitted in
his cross-examination that he is a Pharmacy Graduate and therefore it is
presumed that being a literate person, he has knowingly signed the
agreement dt. 03.08.2006.
24. Learned Counsel for the defendant argued that plaintiffs
cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. On one hand he is
challenging clauses of agreement which are onerous to him while on the
other hand he is seeking endorsement of the part in his favour.
25. Learned Counsel for the defendant argued that plaintiffs
could not show any grounds to make the agreement dated 08.03.2006 as
voidable. Particulars of fraud have not been detailed as required u/o VI
Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:43:49 +0530
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 17 of 45
Rule 4 CPC. (Reliance is placed upon case titled as Electrosteel
Castings Limited v. UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and
others reported in (2022) 2 SCC 573).
26. Learned Counsel for the defendant argued that the Duly
signed agreement is admittedly not in dispute. Its invalidly ought to have
been independently established. In absence of any specific pleadings and
grounds to declare the same to be invalid, the agreement dated
08.03.2006 Ex. P2 is presumed to be genuine and as per law.
27. Learned Counsel for the defendant argued that Section 12
Specific relief act is inapplicable to present facts of the case. Plaintiffs
has failed to fulfill his part of agreement by paying charges for execution
of conveyance deed as per law. Section 16 of the Specific Relief
Act,1963 specifically mandates Specific performance of a contract
cannot be enforced in favour of a person who violates any essential term
of, the contract that on his part remains to be performed. Plaintiffs in
present case are impugning several clauses of agreement dated
08.03.2006. Plaintiffs wants seller-defendant to make payment to DDA.
This is against the spirit of agreement 08.03.2006 Ex. P2 vide which
plaintiffs had acknowledged liability to get property converted to
freehold on payment of charges (as per Ex.P2 internal page No. 8 under
the heading Transfer, it is provided that in both cases unearned
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date:
2025.07.24
16:43:55 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 18 of 45
increase /stamp duty for registration of conveyance deed or any other
charges levied by the authorities will be borne by the unit buyers).
SECOND ARGUMENT QUA PAYMENT OF CONVERSION FROM
LEASEHOLD TO FREEHOLD CHARGES
A. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs has argued on this issue that the
plaintiffs cannot be burdened with payment of CONVERSION FROM
LEASEHOLD to freehold charges. The same is duty of the defendant
and even otherwise as per law only the defendant can approach DDA.
plaintiffs in his individual capacity and all other buyers from the
defendant cannot individually approach DDA.
B. It is further argued Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs that as per
Section 55 (1) (a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it was duty of
the defendant to disclose any material defect in the property. The
CONVERSION FROM LEASEHOLD rights into freehold rights was
thus the duty of the defendant.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT TO SECOND
ARGUMENT
28. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the defendant has replied to
this Argument by submitting that as per Ex. P2 internal page No. 8 under
the heading Transfer, it is provided that in both cases unearned
Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:44:02 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 19 of 45
increase /stamp duty for registration of conveyance deed or any other
charges levied by the authorities will be borne by the unit buyers.
29. It is further argued by Counsel for the defendant that DW1
Sh. Udesh Kumar, AR of the defendant had clarified in the cross-
examination as under:
“Q. Can the defendant company execute
conveyance / sale deed of the unit to the plaintiffs
and if yes then what are the formalities for the
same?
Ans. There is no role of defendant company in
executing the conveyance deed as per the policy
of the DDA the unit buyer may approach the DDA
for getting the conveyance deed executed in their
favour in accordance with the terms and
conditions of that policy. Vol. The DDA has
already submitted its policy in this regard in the
Court.”
30. It is further argued by Counsel for the defendant that Ex.P2
i.e. Agreement dt. 08.03.2006 is an admitted document and the defendant
is ready to convey title to the plaintiffs subject to plaintiffs complying
with the requirement as per law as required by DDA.
Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:44:08 +0530
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 20 of 45
31. It is further argued that defendant has already placed on
record Ex.DW1/1 (OSR), which is occupancy certificate issued by DDA.
Same shows that clearance was duly given by Chief Fire Officer, Govt.
NCT of Delhi and the defendant has duly performed his part of the
agreement dt. 08.03.2006.
32. It is further argued by Counsel for the defendant that as per
Ex.DW1/3, which is also exhibited as Ex.P2 at internal page No. 9 that
the payment of registration charges as prescribed by Delhi
Administration shall be paid by unit buyer. Relevant part of the clause is
as under :-
“(c) As per notification of Delhi Administration, the
Promoters have no objection for registration of
Agreement to Sell, at the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Delhi. All the registration charges as prescribed by the
Delhi Administration, shall be paid by the Unit buyer. If
Unit buyer fails to register the same for any reason,
Space Buyer will be solely responsible for any
consequences”.
THIRD ARGUMENT QUA PLAINTIFFS PAYING THE COMPLETE
CONSIDERATION AMOUNT AND STILL GETTING NO TITLE
Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:44:14 +0530
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 21 of 45
33. A. It is argued by Counsel For plaintiffs that the manner
of transfer of title is even not mentioned in the agreement dt.
08.03.2006. Plaintiffs despite paying the complete consideration
amount, is without any title document in his favour. Consideration
amount was paid vide Annexure Ex.P29, which is an admitted
document pursuant to meeting and settlement of 27.07.2009.
B. It is further argued by Counsel For plaintiffs that in para 7(e) of
the amended written statement, the defendant only have
complained about the delay in making payment but the fact remain
that complete outstanding has been paid. Maintenance charges
have been paid to defendant vide admitted document Ex. P26.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT TO THIRD
ARGUMENT
34. Per contra It is further argued by Counsel for the defendant
that Ex. P2 i.e. Agreement dt. 08.03.2006 is an admitted document and
the defendant is ready to convey title to the plaintiffs subject to plaintiffs
complying with the requirement as per law as required by DDA. (as per
Ex. P2 internal page No. 8 under the heading Transfer, it is provided that
in both cases unearned increase /stamp duty for registration of
conveyance deed or any other charges levied by the authorities will be
borne by the unit buyers).
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM VIKRAM
Date:
BALI
BALI 2025.07.24
16:44:22
+0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 22 of 45
35. It is further argued that defendant has already placed on
record Ex.DW1/1 (OSR), which is occupancy certificate issued by DDA.
Same shows that clearance was duly given by Chief Fire Officer, Govt.
NCT of Delhi and the defendant has duly performed his part of the
agreement dt. 08.03.2006.
36. It is further argued by Counsel for the defendant that as per
Ex. DW1/3, which is also exhibited as Ex.P2 at internal page No. 9 that
the payment of registration charges as prescribed by Delhi
Administration shall be paid by unit buyer. Relevant part of the clause is
as under :
“(c) As per notification of Delhi Administration,
the Promoters have no objection for registration of
Agreement to Sell, at the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Delhi. All the registration charges as
prescribed by the Delhi Administration, shall be
paid by the Unit buyer. If Unit buyer fails to
register the same for any reason, Space Buyer will
be solely responsible for any consequences”.
37. It is further argued by Counsel for the defendant that that
defendant has no objection if plaintiffs are granted specific performance
subject to compiling with payment to DDA.
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM VIKRAM
Date:
BALI
BALI 2025.07.24
16:44:28
+0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 23 of 45
FINDING OF THE COURT ON ISSUE NO. 1
38. Tersely put plaintiffs are challenging clauses of agreement
Ex P-2 dated 08.03.2008 which are onerous to them while on the other
hand they seek endorsement of the part in their favour. Per contra it is
case of defendant that Ex.DW1/1 (OSR), is occupancy certificate issued
by DDA. Same shows that clearance was duly given by Chief Fire
Officer, Govt. NCT of Delhi and the defendant has duly performed his
part of the agreement dt. 08.03.2006. It is case of defendant that
plaintiffs are not complying with transfer requirements by paying
requisite charges to DDA.
FIRST ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS QUA
CHALLENGE TO AGREEMENT EX.P2 ON GROUNDS OF SAME
BEING UNREASONABLE, STANDARD FORM OF CONTRACT,
ETC.
39. The submission on behalf of plaintiffs that plaintiffs signed
the agreement Ex.P2 only on the assurance of the representatives of the
defendant company that the same was a mere formality and same are in
standard format so impugned clauses of agreement Ex.P2 be declared
null and void is without merits. Submission deserves rejection for
reasons in paragraphs to follow.
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM VIKRAM
Date:
BALI
BALI 2025.07.24
16:44:36
+0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 24 of 45
40. The further submission on behalf of plaintiffs that the clause
in the agreement dt. 08.03.2006 to the effect that freehold charges are to
be paid by the purchaser are challenged. The rest of the agreement dated
08.3.2006 ought to be specifically performed by the defendant as per
Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Further submission that
plaintiffs has already performed his part of the contract by making good
the consideration except the illegal demands, which are under challenge.
Further reliance placed upon case titled as Rachakonda Narayana Vs.
Ponthala Parvathamma reported in (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 173,
Civil Appeal No. 9166 of 1996 to contend that once plaintiffs has
performed his part, then specific performance can be ordered, are
without merits. These submissions are rejected for following reasons.
41. Their is no dispute in the proposition of law lais down in
case titled as Rachakonda Narayana Vs. Ponthala Parvathamma reported
in (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 173, Civil Appeal No. 9166 of 1996.
However the same is not applicable to facts of present case. In the facts
of case before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India seller did not have title
over one plot. Purchaser relinquished his claim over said plot. He
relinquished claim for compensation. On the other and in facts of present
case plaintiffs are not ready to pay DDA charges for execution of
documents. Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 bars relief if
party does not perform his essential part. plaintiffs are impugning
agreement to sell partly. Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 can
not be invoked to benefit the plaintiffs. Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date:
2025.07.24
16:44:42 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 25 of 45
42. Perusal of record shows that PW1 Sh. Ajay Arora has
admitted in his cross-examination that he is a Pharmacy Graduate and
therefore it is presumed that being a literate person, he has knowingly
signed the agreement dt. 03.08.2006.He admitted he can read and write
in english. He admitted delay in making some payments. He admitted
that in July 2008 defendant offered possession to him vide Ex P-27.
43. PW5- Sh Pradeep Arora in his examination in chief affidavit
has stated that he is into business of property and finance. plaintiffs no 2
consulted him as he is into real estate business. He claims to have visited
site office of defendant with plaintiffs. Deposition of PW5 Sh. Pradeep
Arora weakens the case of plaintiffs that they signed agreement without
understanding its implications as they were accompanied by PW-5 who
is into business of real estate.
44. Learned Counsel for the defendant has rightly argued that
plaintiffs cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. On one hand he is
challenging clauses of agreement which are onerous to him while on the
other hand he is seeking endorsement of the part in his favour. Such
course of action is against the spirit of Section 16 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963.
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date:
2025.07.24
16:44:48 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 26 of 45
45. Perusal of record shows that plaintiffs could not shown
specific grounds which would persuade Court to make the agreement
dated 08.03.2006 voidable. Particulars of misrepresentation etc. have not
been detailed as required u/o VI Rule 4 CPC. (Reliance is placed upon
case titled as Electrosteel Castings Limited v. UV Asset Reconstruction
Company Limited and others reported in (2022) 2 SCC 573). It has
simply been mentioned in Para 5 of amended plaint that plaintiffs in
bonafide manner acted on representations of officials of defendant
company. No particulars of alleged misrepresentation are detailed.
46. Perusal of record shows that duly signed agreement is
admittedly not in dispute. Its invalidly ought to have been independently
established. In absence of any specific pleadings and grounds to declare
the same to be invalid, the agreement dated 08.03.2006 Ex. P2 is
presumed to be genuine and as per law.
47. Learned Counsel for the defendant rightly argued that
Section 12 Specific relief act is inapplicable to present facts of the case.
plaintiffs has failed to fulfill his part of agreement by paying charges for
execution of conveyance deed as per law. Section 16 of the Specific
Relief Act,1963 specifically mandates Specific performance of a contract
cannot be enforced in favour of a person who violates any essential term
of, the contract that on his part remains to be performed. plaintiffs in
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM VIKRAM
Date:
BALI
BALI 2025.07.24
16:44:54
+0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 27 of 45
present case is himself impugning several clauses of agreement dated
08.03.2006.
48. Plaintiffs wants seller-defendant to make payment to DDA.
This is against the spirit of agreement 08.03.2006. Ex. P2 vide which
plaintiffs had acknowledged his liability to get property converted to
freehold on payment of charges. As per Ex.P2 internal page No. 8 under
the heading Transfer, it is provided as under:
“……..(a)Upon completion of the building and subject to receipt
of all of the consideration and other dues possession will be
handed over to the unit buyers. In case of freehold plot,
conveyance deed will be executed if permitted by the authorities.
All the permissions for this purpose are required to be obtained by
the unit buyers. In case of lease-hold plot, no conveyance deed
will be executed except when the building becomes free-hold
upon payment of one time free-hold conversion charges by all the
unit buyers directly to the authorities and clear all dues including
ground rent, penalty etc, and permission for the same will be
obtained by the unit buyers at their own cost and responsibility.
The promoter is not responsible in any manner to execute the
conveyance deed if permission is not obtained by the unit buyers.
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM VIKRAM
Date:
BALI
BALI 2025.07.24
16:45:00
+0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 28 of 45
In both cases unearned increase/stamp duty for registration of
conveyance deed levied by the authorities will be borne by the
unit buyers ……”
WHETHER CONTRACT DATED 8th MARCH 06 Ex P-2 HAS
UNCONSCIONABLE TERMS?
49. The first thing to be considered is the relations of parties.
Were they such as to put one in a position to dominate the will of the
other?
50. The plaintiffs were free to enter into bargain or not. It is not
case of the plaintiffs that defendant was in any dominating position.
51. Defendant was acting in ordinary course of business.
Illustration (d) to Section 16 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, is as under:
“(d) A applies to a banker for a loan at a time when
there is stringency in the money market. The
banker declines to make the loan except at an
unusually high rate of interest. A accepts the loan
on these terms. This is a transaction in the ordinary
course of business, and the contract is not induced
by undue influence.”
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date:
2025.07.24
16:45:06 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 29 of 45
52. Plaintiffs were free to enter into bargain or not. Once having
entered into the agreement plaintiffs cannot unilaterally seek variation in
the same to suit his interests.
53. It emerges that agreement was signed on same day.
Plaintiffs were not under any peculiar disability. He was not placed in a
position of helplessness. He was free not to enter into contract.
54. Hon’ble Madras High Court in case titled as The Agent And
Manager Of The Madras Vs. Govinda Rao decided on on 1 st of February,
1898 reported as (1898) 8MLJ85 held that once a written contract is
signed by party accepting, he becomes bound by all its terms, whether he
has read it or not.
55. Written contracts are intended to preserve the exact terms of
the obligations assumed, so that they may not be subject to the chances
of a want of recollection or an intentional misstatement. This
longstanding rule rests upon the fundamental need for security in
business transactions.
56. Sanctity is attached to a written instrument. Same cannot be
unilaterally diluted/altered without consensus ad idem.
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date:
2025.07.24
16:45:12 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 30 of 45
57. If pleas of plaintiffs are allowed then the sanctity attached to
written agreement shall stand diluted.
58. In considered opinion of the Court the clauses of the
contract are in ordinary course of business and not unconscionable,
biased, arbitrary or against the law.
SECOND ARGUMENT QUA PAYMENT OF CONVERSION FROM
LEASEHOLD TO FREEHOLD CHARGES
59. Submissions on behalf of plaintiffs that plaintiffs cannot be
burdened with payment of conversion from leasehold to freehold
charges, The same is duty of the defendant. Further submission that even
otherwise as per law only the defendant can approach DDA. plaintiffs in
his individual capacity and all other buyers from the defendant cannot
individually approach DDA, are without merits. These submissions are
rejected for reasons in paragraphs below.
60. Submissions on behalf of plaintiffs that as per Section 55 (1)
(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it was duty of the defendant to
disclose any material defect in the property. Further submission that the
Conversion from leasehold rights into freehold rights was thus the duty
of the defendant, are without merits. These submissions are rejected for
reasons in paragraphs below. Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
Date:
BALI 2025.07.24
16:45:19
+0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 31 of 45
61. Section 55 (1) (a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
applies in absence of contract to contrary between parties. In present
case Ex.P2i.e. Agreement dt. 08.03.2006 details agreed terms and
conditions between parties.
62. Perusal of record shows that as per Ex.P2 i.e. Agreement dt.
08.03.2006 internal page No. 8 under the heading Transfer, it is provided
that unearned increase /stamp duty for registration of conveyance deed
or any other charges levied by the authorities will be borne by the unit
buyers.
63. Perusal of record shows that DW1 Sh. Udesh Kumar, AR of
the defendant had clarified in the cross-examination dated 03.09.2024 as
under:
“Q. Can the defendant company execute
conveyance / sale deed of the unit to the plaintiffs
and if yes then what are the formalities for the
same?
Ans. There is no role of defendant company in
executing the conveyance deed as per the policy
of the DDA the unit buyer may approach the DDA
for getting the conveyance deed executed in their
favour in accordance with the terms and
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date:
2025.07.24
16:45:25 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 32 of 45
conditions of that policy. Vol. The DDA has
already submitted its policy in this regard in the
Court.”
64. Thus, plaintiffs as unit buyer could complete requisite
formalities as per law.
65. This stand of DW1 Sh. Udesh Kumar, AR of the defendant
has not been discredited by plaintiffs in cross-examination.
66. In view of submissions by Counsel for the defendant that
Ex.P2 i.e. Agreement dt. 08.03.2006 is an admitted document and the
defendant is ready to convey title to the plaintiffs subject to plaintiffs
complying with the requirement as per law as required by DDA,
plaintiffs are at liberty to pay DDA charges as per law and approach
defendant.
67. Perusal of record shows that Ex.DW1/1 (OSR), is
occupancy certificate issued by DDA. Same shows that clearance was
duly given by Chief Fire Officer, Govt. NCT of Delhi and the defendant
has duly performed his part of the agreement dt. 08.03.2006. Another
submission by Counsel for the defendant that as per Ex.DW1/3, which is
also exhibited as Ex.P2 at internal page No. 9 that the payment of
registration charges as prescribed by Delhi Administration shall be paid
by unit buyer is qua agreement to sell. It is correct that duty to pay
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date:
2025.07.24
16:45:31 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 33 of 45
requisite charges for registration of agreement to sell is also of unit
buyer.
THIRD ARGUMENT QUA PLAINTIFFS PAYING THE COMPLETE
CONSIDERATION AMOUNT AND STILL GETTING NO TITLE
68. Submissions on behalf of plaintiffs that the manner of
transfer of title is even not mentioned in the agreement dt. 08.03.2006
(document is unclear). Further submission that plaintiffs despite paying
the complete consideration amount, is without any title document in his
favour, so defendant must pay DDA charges for transfer, is without
merits. These submission are rejected for reasons in paragraphs below.
69. Perusal of record shows that Ex.P2 i.e. Agreement dt.
08.03.2006 is an admitted document and the defendant is ready to
convey title to the plaintiffs subject to plaintiffs complying with the
requirement as per law as required by DDA. As per Ex.P2 internal page
No. 8 under the heading Transfer, it is provided that unearned increase
/stamp duty for registration of conveyance deed or any other charges
levied by the authorities will be borne by the unit buyers. (This term is
clear and imposes liability upon unit buyer/plaintiffs herein). It is the
plaintiffs who are not complying with the essential requirements under
Ex. P2 i.e. Agreement dt. 08.03.2006.
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM VIKRAM
Date:
BALI
BALI 2025.07.24
16:45:37
+0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 34 of 45
70. Perusal of record shows that defendant has already placed
on record Ex.DW1/1 (OSR), which is occupancy certificate issued by
DDA. Same shows that clearance was duly given by Chief Fire Officer,
Govt. NCT of Delhi. Defendant has duly performed his part of the
agreement dt. 08.03.2006.
71. To sum up, the clauses of the contract are in ordinary course
of business. They are not unconscionable, biased, arbitrary or invalid.
72. Issue no. 1 is decided against plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO. 2 IS :
“Whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform
their obligation under the Agreement dated 8th March,
2006? OPP”
73. Ld. Counsel for the parties adopted their arguments on issue
No. 1.
FINDING OF THE COURT ON ISSUE NO. 2
NON-APPLICABILITY OF 2018 AMENDMENTS IN SPECIFIC
RELIEF ACT,1963 TO PRESENT CASE
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date:
2025.07.24
16:45:43
+0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 35 of 45
74. In case titled as Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra
Projects Pvt. Ltd. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 25.08.2022, ruled
that the 2018 amendments to the Specific Relief Act (SRA) of 1963 are
prospective and cannot apply to transactions that took place before
October 1st, 2018.
75. Present suit is for specific performance of Agreement dated
08.03.2006 Ex P-2. Provisions of 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief
Act do not apply to present case as the transaction (Agreement dated
08.03.2006) is before coming into force of 2018 amendments.
76. Section 16 and 20 of un-amended Specific Relief Act,1963
apply.
77. Un-amended Section 16 of Specific Relief Act,1963
requires willingness i.e. mental process and readiness i.e. translating the
will into action. plaintiffs has paid consideration to defendant pursuant to
agreement Ex P-2 dated 08.03.2006 but has unsuccessfully challenged
partly essential terms of agreement dated 08.03.2006. Thus plaintiffs has
not proved readiness and willingness to perform his part.
78. In view of the findings on issue no 1 it is clear that plaintiffs
were not ready and willing to perform his essential obligations under the
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date:
2025.07.24
16:45:49 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 36 of 45
agreement dated 8th March, 2006.Indeed he has himself partly impugned
the same in present case without sucess.
79. As per Ex.P2 i.e. Agreement dt. 08.03.2006 internal page
No. 8 under the heading Transfer, it is provided that unearned increase
/stamp duty for registration of conveyance deed or any other charges
levied by the authorities will be borne by the unit buyers.
80. Plaintiffs are unwilling to fulfill this term.
81. Issue no. 2 is decided against the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO. 3 IS :
“Whether the plaintiffs have paid the entire sale
consideration to the defendant? OPP”
82. It is argued by Counsel For plaintiffs that plaintiffs has paid
the complete consideration amount. Consideration amount was paid vide
Annexure Ex.P29, which is an admitted document pursuant to meeting
and settlement of 27.07.2009. .
83. It is further argued by Counsel For plaintiffs that in para
7(e) of the amended written statement, the defendant only have
complained about the delay in making payment but the fact remain that
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date:
2025.07.24
16:45:54 +0530
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 37 of 45
complete outstanding has been paid. Maintenance charges have been
paid to defendant vide admitted document Ex.P26.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
84. Per contra It is further argued by Counsel for the defendant
that Ex.P2 i.e. Agreement dt. 08.03.2006 is an admitted document and
the defendant is ready to convey title to the plaintiffs subject to plaintiffs
complying with the requirement as per law as required by DDA. (as per
Ex. P2) internal page No. 8 under the heading Transfer, it is provided
that in both cases unearned increase /stamp duty for registration of
conveyance deed or any other charges levied by the authorities will be
borne by the unit buyers).
85. It is further argued by Counsel for the defendant that that
defendant has no objection if plaintiffs are granted specific performance
subject to compiling with payment to DDA.
FINDING OF THE Court ON ISSUE NO. 3
86. Perusal of record shows that plaintiffs has paid the complete
consideration amount though after delay. Consideration amount was paid
as mentioned in Annexure Ex.P29. Same details Rs 12,93,399 as paid.
86. Perusal of same shows that after settlement of 27.07.2009
Rs 12,93,399 were to be paid by plaintiffs to defendant. In para 7(e) of
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date:
2025.07.24
16:46:00 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 38 of 45
amended settlement defendant has complained about delay in payment
and not honouring settlement dated 27.07.2009 within agreed time .e. by
1.07.10.
88. Ex.P29.is an admitted document pursuant to meeting and
settlement of 27.07.2009. Further Charges have been paid to defendant
vide admitted document Ex.P26 of Rs. 1.25 Lakh by cash on 7-02-
11.Full and final payment is mentioned there in.
89. DW1 Sh. Udesh Kumar, AR of the defendant in cross-
examination dated 03.09.2024 stated/admitted as under:-
“…..The cost of unit in question is 32,52,900/-
plus allied charges Rs.3,57,819/- plus
maintenance charges Rs. 59,000/- something. It is
correct that till date plaintiffs have paid
approximately Rs. 36 lakhs. It may be correct that
the plaintiffs might have paid Rs. 36,40,450/-”
90. In view of admissions of DW1 Sh. Udesh Kumar, admitted
documents Ex.P29 and Ex.P26 it is proved that plaintiffs paid sale
consideration and other charges though after delay.
91. Issue no. 3 is decided in favour of plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO. 4 IS :
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date:
2025.07.24
16:46:06 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 39 of 45
“If answer to the issues No. (ii) and (iii) above is in the
affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of
specific performance in their favour? OPP”
92. Ld. Counsel for the parties adopted their arguments on
issues No. 1, 2 and 3.
FINDING OF THE COURT ON ISSUE NO. 4
93. Issues No. 2 has been decided against the plaintiffs.
Consequentially, plaintiffs are not ready and willing to perform his part
under the agreement dt. 08.03.2006 Ex. P2.
94. Section 20 of Specific Relief Act,1963 ( Pre 2018
amendments) conferred discretion on Court to grant specific
performance or not. Their is no righteous dealing by the plaintiffs in
present case. plaintiffs have themselves unsuccessfully challenged
essential terms of agreement dated 06.03.2018. Keeping in view the
conduct of plaintiffs, discretion to grant specific performance is refused.
95. Issue no. 4 is decided against the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO. 5 IS :
“Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek the reliefs of
specific performance and declaration together? OPD”
Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:46:11 +0530
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 40 of 45
96 Ld. Counsel for the parties adopted their arguments on
issue No. 1.
FINDING OF THE Court ON ISSUE NO. 5
97. In view of unamended Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in
favour of a person who fails to aver and prove that he has performed or
has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the
contract which are to be performed by him
98. Plaintiffs cannot impugn agreement to sell and seek
enforcement also.
99. Plaintiffs cannot blow hot and cold in same breath. Findings
on issue no 1 have been returned that agreement between parties is not
invalidated.
100. plaintiffs wants seller-defendant to make payment to DDA.
This is against the spirit of agreement 08.03.2006 Ex. P2 vide which
plaintiffs had acknowledged his liability to get property converted to
Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:46:17 +0530
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 41 of 45
freehold on payment of charges (as per Ex. P2 internal page No. 8 under
the heading Transfer, it is provided that in unearned increase /stamp duty
for registration of conveyance deed or any other charges levied by the
authorities will be borne by the unit buyers).
101. On one hand plaintiffs challenge clauses of agreement
which are onerous to him while on the other hand he is seeking
endorsement of the part in his favour. Such course is against the spirit of
un-amended Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
102. Issue no. 5 is decided in favour of defendant.
ISSUE NO. 6 IS
“Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purposes
of Court fees and jurisdiction? OPD”
103. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued appropriate Court
fees on the sale consideration amount of Rs. 36,40,000/- has not been
paid. Same has been given only on Rs.33,00,000/-.
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date:
2025.07.24
16:46:23 +0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 42 of 45
104. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that pursuant to
order dt. 26.11.2012, amendment plaint was taken on record and
appropriate Court fee on the sale consideration amount as per Section
7(X) of the Court Fees Act has been paid.
FINDING OF THE Court ON ISSUE NO. 6
105. Submission on behalf of defendant that defendant
appropriate Court fees on the sale consideration amount of Rs.
36,40,000/- has not been paid. Same has been given only on Rs.
33,00,000/-,is without merits. Same is rejected.
106. Perusal of record shows that pursuant to order dt.
26.11.2012, amendment plaint was taken on record. Appropriate Court
fee on the sale consideration amount as per Section 7(x) of the Court
Fees Act,1870 has been paid.
107. Issue no 6 is decided against the defendant.
REFUND OF THE EARNEST MONEY
108. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Desh Raj
Vs. Rohtash Singh decided on 14 December, 2022 has held that unless a
plaintiffs specifically seeks the refund of the earnest money at the time of
filing of the suit or by way of amendment, no such relief can be granted
to him. Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM VIKRAM BALI
Date:
BALI 2025.07.24
16:46:29
+0530CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 43 of 45
109. Any other relief to which plaintiffs may be entitled,
including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or made by
him, in case his claim for specific performance is refused could be
granted under Section 22 of The Specific Relief Act, 1963.
110. However, the prayer clause is a sine qua non for grant of
decree of refund of earnest money or deposit paid or made by him . In
present case in absence of prayer no such relief can be granted to
plaintiffs.
111. Recovery against the defendant company to refund all the
excess payments made by the plaintiffs in contravention of the agreed
consideration amount, as also in contravention of law, in the light of the
wholly illegal and unsustainable terms of the Agreement as mentioned in
the Plaint has been sought. However in view of findings on issues above
Ex P-2 has been upheld. Sale consideration cannot be ordered to be
returned to plaintiffs in absence of specific prayer for recovery of same.
POSSESSION
112. Possession as an interim measure was given to plaintiffs
pursuant to order dated 30.10.2013 passed by Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi. However on trial after evidence, the plaintiffs suit is hereby
dismissed.
RELIEF Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM VIKRAM
Date:
BALI
BALI 2025.07.24
16:46:36
+0530
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 44 of 45
113. In view of the findings on issue no. 1 to 5 the suit of the
plaintiffs are dismissed with costs.
114. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to
record room. Digitally signed
VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI
BALI Date: 2025.07.24
16:46:43 +0530
(Vikram Bali)
District Judge-02, North
Announced in the open Court. Rohini Court Complex, Rohini
(Order contains 45 pages) Delhi/24.07.2025.
CS (COMM) No. 126/2020 Ankita Arora & Ors. Vs. Vardhman Properties Ltd. Page No. 45 of 45