[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ajay Kumar Goyal vs Sanjay Goyal Now Deceased Through Legal ... on 19 December, 2025
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 19.12.2025
+ FAO 91/2025 and CM APPL. 20553/2025
AJAY KUMAR GOYAL .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rakesh Tanwar, Ms. Sanjana
Gupta and Mr. Varun Arora,
Advocates.
versus
SANJAY GOYAL NOW DECEASED
THROUGH LEGAL HEIR ANJU GOYAL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rohit Goel and Mr. Avdesh Rai,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. This appeal under XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) has been filed by the plaintiff in Civ DJ
163/2023 on the file of learned District Judge-05 (West), Tis
Hazari Courts, New Delhi, aggrieved by the order dated
03.03.2025, whereby his application under Order XXXIX Rule 1
of the CPC was dismissed.
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 91/2025 Page 1
2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, he entered into an
agreement to purchase dated 11.10.2021 (the sale agreement) with
the father of the respondents/defendants for the purchase of the suit
property and paid approximately 10% of the agreed sale
consideration as advance, in cash, at the time of execution of the
agreement. As the sale agreement did not materialize, the plaintiff
filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement. An
application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC was moved by
the appellant/plaintiff, apprehending creation of third-party interest
in the suit property by the respondents/defendants.
3. The respondents/defendants entered appearance and
contended, inter alia, that the sale agreement relied upon by the
appellant/ plaintiff is forged and fabricated and that their father had
never executed any such agreement.
4. The trial court, after hearing both sides, was not inclined to
allow the prayer on the ground that the appellant/plaintiff was
admittedly not in possession of the suit property. The relevant
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 91/2025 Page 2
portion of the impugned order reads thus:-
"Plaintiff is admittedly not in possession of the property in
question since August, 2023. While there is available on record
the registered sale deed of the property in dispute in favour of Sh.
Sanjay Goel, all that the plaintiff has to show his prima facie
case is an agreement to sell with respect to the same property in
his favour (the authenticity of which is declined by the LRs of Sh.
Sanjay Goel) Further, admittedly the plaintiff had only paid a
nominal advance amount towards purchase of the disputed
property when entering into the agreement to sell.
Thus at this stage, no prima facie case is made out in
favour of the plaintiff and balance of convenience does not lie in
favour of the plaintiff in the face of the registered sale deed
available with the LRs of Sh. Sanjay Goel. The rights of the LRs
of the registered owner of an immovable property cannot be
lightly interfered with.
Thus no ground for grant of an interim injunction is made
out. Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied)
5. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has come up in the appeal.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/plaintiff that the question as to whether the sale
agreement is forged and fabricated can only be adjudicated after
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 91/2025 Page 3
evidence is led by both sides. In such circumstances, creation of a
third-party interest during the pendency of the suit would
complicate the current state of affairs and defeat the purpose of the
suit. Therefore, the trial court ought to have granted the injunction
prayed for.
7. Per contra, it is strenuously and persuasively submitted by
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants that
no infirmity has been committed by the trial court calling for an
interference by this Court. According to the learned counsel, the
respondents/defendants have produced materials on record which
would show that the sale agreement relied on by the
appellant/plaintiff is forged and fabricated. It is also submitted
that the father of the respondents/defendants was suffering from
cancer and had undergone a surgery, and, therefore, it is highly
impossible and improbable for him to have executed the sale
agreement. It is also submitted that the respondents/defendants do
not have any independent source of livelihood and hence, it is
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 91/2025 Page 4
necessary for them to rent out the suit property for their
sustenance. In these circumstances, he submits that no relief be
granted to the appellant/ plaintiff.
7.1. The learned counsel for the respondents also point out
that no prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable
injury would be caused if the injunction sought for is not granted.
8. Heard both sides.
9. Admittedly, the appellant/plaintiff is the paternal uncle of
the respondents/defendants. The appellant/plaintiff relies on an
agreement to purchase dated 11.10.2021, which, according to the
respondents/defendants, is a forged and fabricated document. The
question whether the sale agreement was, in fact, executed by the
predecessor-in-interest or the respondents/defendants is a matter
that needs to be adjudicated by the trial court after consideration of
oral and documentary evidence.
10. The other aspect pointed out by the learned counsel for
the respondents/defendants is that it was impossible and
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 91/2025 Page 5
improbable for their predecessor-in-interest to have executed the
sale agreement due to his illness and surgery. Again, these are
matters that cannot be considered or decided without letting the
parties adduce their evidence before the trial court.
11. The trial court dismissed the application mainly on the
ground that the appellant/plaintiff is not in possession of the suit
property and that there is a registered sale deed in favour of the
predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/defendants. In the plaint,
the plaintiff has never a case that he is in possession of the suit
property. In a suit for specific performance, it is not necessary for
the plaintiff to be in possession of the property. As far as the
finding that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had a
registered sale deed in his favour is also no ground to dismiss the
application for injunction because it is only the owner or anyone
on his behalf, who can enter into an agreement for sale. That being
the position, till the rival contentions of the parties are decided, it
is necessary that the subject matter of the suit be preserved and,
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 91/2025 Page 6
therefore, the trial court ought to have granted the prayer to the
limited extent of not creating any third-party interest in the
property till the disposal of the suit.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent,
and the parties are directed not to create any third-party interest in
the suit property or act in any manner that would be prejudicial to
the interest of the opposite side, till the disposal of the suit.
13. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 19, 2025
kd/rs
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 91/2025 Page 7
