[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ram Niwas vs M/S Pienne Industrial Consulants Pvt ... on 9 April, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 13th January, 2026
Pronounced on: 09th April, 2026
+ RFA 636/2024, CM APPL. 55728/2024 (Stay)
RAM NIWAS
S / o Late Sh. Rattan Lal
R/ o VPO Badusarai, New Delhi.
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. G.S. Sharma and Mr. V.K.
Sharma, Advocates
versus
M/S PIENNE INDUSTRIAL CONSULANTS
PVT. LTD.
226, 2nd Floor, Vardhman Plus Citi Mall,
LSC, Sector-23, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Abhilash Vashisht and
Mr. Neeraj, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 &
2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟)
has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/Defendant, to challenge the
Judgment and Decree dated 08.04.2024, whereby the Suit of the
Plaintiff/Respondent for Specific Performance has been decreed and the
Appellant/Defendant has been directed to execute the Sale Deed in favour of
the Plaintiff/Respondent and also restrain from creating third party interest
in the Suit Property.
2. The Plaintiff/Respondent- M/s Pienne Industrial Consultants Pvt.
Ltd. filed a Suit for Specific Performance and Permanent Injunction.
3. The facts in brief are that Plaintiff entered into an Agreement to Sell
dated 19.09.2012 in respect of 1/4th share of Defendant- Ram Niwas in the
land admeasuring 14 Bigha 19 Biswas comprised in Mustatil No. 8, Killa
No. 20 West (4-13), Mustatil No. 11, Killa No. 1 (1-12), Mustatil No. 12,
Killa No. 25 (3-04), Mustatil No. 19, Killa No. 5 (1-16), Mustatil No. 20,
Killa No. 1 (0-11), Mustatil No. 21, Killa No. 4 East (1-04), 5 (1-19),
situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Badu Sarai, Tehsil Najafgarh,
(Palam), District South West, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the
"Suit Property").
4. The Plaintiff had explained that the lands of Village Badu Sarai had
been a subject matter of consolidation proceedings during which, vide
Resolution Number 62 dated 31.01.2015 changes were carried out in the
land holdings of the Defendant and as such, in place of land bearing Khasra
Nos. 9/15 (0-06), 16 (0-11) and 8/20 (0-07) and land bearing Khasra No.
20/(0-09), 21/4 (0-04) and 21/5 (0-11) were added into the khata of the
Defendant.
5. Because of the aforesaid changes, the current holding of the
Defendant in the Suit Property in the year 2012, is in the land admeasuring
14 Bigha 19 Biswas comprised in Mustatil No. 8, Killa No. 20 West (4-13),
Mustatil No. 11, Killa No. 1 (1-12), Mustatil No. 12, Killa No. 25 (3-04),
Mustatil No. 19, Killa No. 5 (1-16), Mustatil No. 20, Killa No. 1 (0-11),
Mustatil No. 21, Killa No. 4 East (1-04), 5 (1-19), situated in the Revenue
Estate of Village Badu Sarai, Tehsil Najafgarh, (Palam), District South
West, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as suit property).
6. The Plaintiff/Respondent entered into the Agreement to Sell dated
25.07.2012, to purchase the 1/4th undivided share of Defendant/Appellant-
Ram Niwas, for a total sale consideration of Rs.77,86,500/-
7. The Plaintiff paid Rs.7.75 lakhs as part sale consideration, out of
which a sum of Rs.1 lakh was paid in cash, while the remaining sum of
Rs.6.75 lakhs was paid through cheque bearing no. 047337 dated 25.07.2012
drawn on ICICI Bank, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. The payment was duly
acknowledged by the Appellant/Defendant by way of a separate receipt. The
remaining amount of Rs.70,11,500/-, out of the total sale consideration was
to be paid to the Defendant on 19.09.2012 out of which Rs.69,25,000/- was
paid vide cheque bearing no. 047354 dated 19.09.2012 and the balance of
Rs.86,500/- was paid in cash.
8. The Defendant executed a fresh Agreement to Sell dated 19.09.2012
recording the full payment of sale consideration. He also executed SPA in
favor of Vidhu Sharma, i.e., the signatory of plaint, GPA dated 19.09.2012
in favor of Vidhu Sharma, Indemnity Bond, Affidavit and a Will in favor of
Sh. Prem Raj Sharma, who was one of the Directors of the Plaintiff
Company. All these documents were duly notarized.
9. It was claimed that neither the Agreement to Sell dated 25.07.2012
nor the Agreement to Sell dated 19.09.2012, prescribed any specific time
limit for execution of the Sale Deed. The consolidation proceedings in the
Village were completed in the month of February 2015, and the Revenue
authorities had started issuing NOC / Permission for sale. Thereafter,
the Defendant stated that he would execute the Sale Deed in the month of
April 2015 and in the meanwhile, NOC/permission for sale could be
obtained.
10. It was further claimed that Sh. Vidhu Sharma, signatory of the
plaint, received a Notice dated 13.04.2015 on behalf of the Defendant
through his Advocate, wherein it was stated that SPA dated 19.09.2012 had
been cancelled by the Defendant. The Plaintiff tried to contact the
Defendant, who stated that he would execute the Sale Deed only if the
Plaintiff agreed to pay the additional money, as there was manifold increase
in the price of the land. The Defendant also threatened to create third party
rights in the Suit Property. Aggrieved, Plaintiff filed Suit for Specific
Performance and Permanent Injunction against the Defendant Ram Niwas.
11. The Defendant/Appellant in the Written Statement claimed that
the Plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has
suppressed material facts. A fraud has been played against the Defendant by
preparing the documents with lesser amount than the agreed amount,
between the parties. Therefore, the Defendant has cancelled the SPA in
favor of Plaintiff Company, on coming to know this fact.
12. The Plaintiff has ongoing dispute against many villagers, namely,
Rajesh s/o Mehar Singh, Ashok s/o Hari Ram, Deen Dayal s/o Hari Ram,
Om Prakash s/o Hari Ram, Nand Kishore s/o Hari Ram, Rajesh s/o Hari
Ram and Rajendra s/o Sher Singh, all residents of Village Badusarai, P.S.
Chhawla, Delhi.
13. Furthermore, the documents on which the Plaintiff had has placed
reliance are not registered and therefore, do not give rise to any cause of
action against the Defendant. Moreover, the consolidated proceedings have
not been completed in the village and number of litigations are pending
before higher authority. The Suit is not maintainable as it has not been
disclosed in what capacity Vidhu Sharma, has been authorized to file the
Suit.
14. It is denied that the Defendant ever approached the Plaintiff; rather
it was Jai Singh, broker of the Company who had approached the Defendant
in respect of sale and purchase of land of the Defendant.
15. It was agreed between Defendant and Jai Singh that 1/4th share of
the Defendant would be sold for a total consideration of Rs.3,20,00,000/-.
When the Defendant noticed the less consideration amount, he immediately
cancelled the SPA in favor of Vidhu Sharma, the Notice of which was sent
to the Plaintiff.
16. It was further submitted that no Shizra Plan showing the portion of
the Defendant, had been supplied to the Defendant. He was under an
impression that the total sale consideration was Rs.3,20,00,000/- and had
also insisted on getting the Agreement to Sell registered. The alleged
consideration of Rs.77, 86,500/-, is contrary to the oral agreement that had
taken place between the parties.
17. Furthermore, several objections were pending in the Court of
Deputy Commissioner and other authorities. It was claimed that Plaintiff
wanted to grab the property of the Defendant, through SPA, to get the land
of the Defendant transferred to the Plaintiff Company.
18. It is further submitted that Prem Raj Sharma and Vidhu Sharma are
father and son and they have colluded to cheat the Defendant. He claimed
that he was willing to return the amount received from the Plaintiff
Company without interest. He was also ready to get his share transferred in
the name of the Plaintiff, provided the balance sale consideration of
Rs.2,42,13,500/- was paid to the Defendant.
19. The issues on the pleadings were framed by the learned District
Judge on 21.02.2019 as under:
"(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree directing defendant to
perform his part of agreement to sell dated 19.09.2012 by executing
registered sale deed in respect of his 1/4th share in the land in
favour of plaintiff and/or its nominee? (OPP)
(ii) Whether plaintiff, in the alternative, is entitled to decree
directing defendant to refund Rs.77,86,500/- along with interest @
24% per annum w.e.f. 19.09.2012 till the date of actual payment?
(OPP)
(iii) Whether fraud has been played by the plaintiff upon defendant
by preparing documents mentioning lesser amount? (OPD)
(iv) Whether plaintiff's suit is not maintainable as consolidation
proceedings in Village Badu Sarai have not been completed? (OPD)
(v) Relief."
20. The Plaintiff in support of his evidence examined PW1 Prem Raj
Sharma, who tendered his evidence by way of Affidavit Ex. PW1/A and
proved the documents in support of his case.
21. PW2 S.K. Srivastava, proved Legal Notice dated 13.04.2015
Ex.PW1/17 issued for cancellation of SPA dated 19.09.2012 executed in
favour of Vidhu Sharma.
22. PW3 T. Minz, Office Kanungo, SDM Office Najafgarh, Delhi,
proved the summoned record, i.e., Resolution No. 62 dated 31.01.2015 of
Consolidation Officer of Village Badu Sarai Ex. PW3/A.
23. PW4 Leela Dhar Sharma, Patwari, proved the Revenue Records
in respect of the Suit Property.
24. PW5 Ashok Pandey, Relationship Manager, ICICI Bank, proved
the certified copies of the bank statement of the Plaintiff Company as Ex.
PW5/1.
25. PW6 Vidhu Sharma deposed about the facts of this case.
26. The Defendant in support of his case examined himself as DW1
and proved the requisite documents in support of his defence.
27. DW2 Ram Khiladi, corroborated the testimony of DW1 by way of
his Affidavit of evidence Ex.DW2/A.
28. The learned District Judge considered the rival evidence proved by
both the parties and held that the Defendant had validly entered into the
Agreement to Sell in respect of the Suit Property and that the entire sale
consideration already stood paid. Consequently, the Suit of the Plaintiff was
decreed, and Defendant/Appellant was directed to execute the Sale Deed in
favour of the Plaintiff and was restrained from creating third party rights in
the Suit Property till the transfer of the land.
29. Aggrieved by the said judgement, the present Appeal under
Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been filed.
30. The main grounds of challenge are that the Plaintiff was not a
competent witness to prove the disputed documents. Furthermore, these
were not registered documents, which could create any right in favour of the
Plaintiff. Moreover, these documents were disputed and had not been proved
by examining any attesting witness, which has caused miscarriage of justice.
31. The Appellant has relied upon Suraj Lamps v. State of Haryana 183
(2011) DLT 1 (SC), wherein it is asserted that any transaction in respect of
immovable property which is for more than Rs.100/-, can be affected only
through on registered document. The documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/17
clearly reflects the bad intention of the Plaintiff as he got prepared two sets
of documents, one in favour of Plaintiff and other in favour of his son, i.e.,
SPA holder.
32. It was asserted that there was a fraud not only played by the Plaintiff
against the Defendant, but there is no explanation as to why he got a
registered SPA prepared in the name of his son. The intention of the Plaintiff
was that as soon as the consolidation proceedings are cleared/completed,
then his son would transfer the property in the name of the Plaintiff by
executing the Sale Deed. The SPA had, therefore, been rightly cancelled by
the Defendant to meet the ends of justice.
33. The testimony of PW1 Sh. Ram Niwas has been clear and was
overlooked wherein, he has admitted that prior to ·the filing of suit in
consolidation proceedings, was not completed. The consolidation
proceedings had not been completed. The stand of the Defendant in the Suit
was that it was pre-mature as the consolidation proceedings, were still
pending. It has not been considered that the Plaintiff was dishonest person
who had litigation with other residents, as mentioned in the Written
Statement. Furthermore, the testimony of the Defendant in this regard had
not been challenged by the Plaintiff's examination and should not have been
ignored by the learned Trial Court.
34. The PW1 had deposed in his cross-examination that he was
authorized by the Company to enter into the Agreement with the Defendant
for purchase of land. He further admitted that Mr. Vidhu Sharma was not
authorized to enter into the Agreement with the Defendant. It is contended
that when Vidhu Sharma was not the authorized or competent person, then
how did he come into the picture and succeed in getting registered SPA in
his favour. The testimony of PW1 should have been rejected as being
unreliable.
35. Furthermore, the Plaintiff is not concerned with village Badu Sarai,
then how did he meet the Defendant. It was through some middlemen who
had come between the Company and the farmers including the Defendant.
The question also rises about who the attesting witnesses are and why he has
not been examined by the Plaintiff. It is thus, claimed that various issues
have been raised to question the judgement and decree judgement dated
08.04.2026. Hence, a prayer is made that the judgement, be set aside.
36. Written Submissions have been filed on behalf of the Appellant on
similar lines as the contentions raised in the in the Appeal.
37. The Respondent in his Written Submissions, has reiterated the entire
pleadings and the findings on the issues and has submitted that the Suit has
been rightly decided in favour of the Plaintiff.
38. There is no merit in the Appeal, which is liable to be dismissed.
Submissions heard and the record perused.
39. The first plea taken by the Appellant/Defendant, to challenge the
Judgment is that there was a fraud played by the Plaintiff upon the
Defendant, by preparing documents mentioning lesser amount. The
Defendant had taken a plea in the Written Statement, that Mr. Jai Singh,
broker of the Company, had approached the Defendant for purchase of the
land and he had agreed to sell his 1/4 th share for a total consideration of
Rs.3,20,00,000/-. When he came to know that the documents mentioned
lesser sale consideration, he got cancelled the Special Power of Attorney
executed in favour of the Plaintiff Company.
40. The plea of fraud taken by the Defendant/Appellant, was that the
sale consideration was much less sale consideration than the agreed amount,
got mentioned in the Agreement to Sell and, therefore, a fraud was
committed upon him.
41. The learned Trial Court rightly noted that the Defendant had taken a
plea of non est factum, which basically means "it is not my deed" a legal
ingredient of which have been explained in various judicial authorities.
42. In the case of Foster vs. Mackinnon (I.L.R.) 4 C.P. 704, the
Defendant claimed to have been induced to endorse a bill of exchange on a
false representation that it was a guarantee similar to the one he had signed
on a previous occasion. It was observed that the Defendant neither intended
to sign that contract or any other contract. He never intended to put his name
on the instrument, then or thereafter. He was deceived, not merely as to the
legal effect, but also to the „actual contents‟ of the instrument.
43. This Judgment was referred to with approval in the case of
Ningawwa vs. Byrappa, (1968) 2 SCR 797 wherein it was held that a
contract or a transaction induced or tainted by fraud, is not void, but only
voidable at the option of the party defrauded. Until it is avoided, the
transaction is valid, so that third parties without notice of the fraud may in
the meantime acquire rights and interests in the matter, which they may
enforce against the party defrauded. It was held that such transaction was
only voidable but the position was held to be different if the fraud and
misrepresentation related to the character of the document.
44. In the case of Saunders vs. Agnlia Building Society, (1971) A.C.
1004, it was observed that the plea of non est factum could not be available
to anyone who signed without taking a trouble to find out at least the general
effect of the document nor it could be available to a person whose mistake
was really a mistake as to the legal effect of the document. There must be a
radical or fundamental difference between what he signed and what he
thought he was signing.
45. In the case of Bismillah vs. Janeshwaar Prasad and Ors., (1990) 1
SCC 207 the Plaintiff had claimed that she was a Pardanashin lady and on
the representation of the Defendant/Respondent, had appointed them as
agent to manage the estate under a written document, which was drafted in
Hindi, a language she did not know. Subsequently, she discovered that it
contained an authorised clause empowering sale of properties. Taking
advantage of this clause, the said agents had executed fraudulent and elusive
sale of the Property. The Supreme Court considered a distinction between
the fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document and a
fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents thereof. It was held that the
defence of non est factum was available only when there is a mistake as to
the very nature or character of the transaction and not to a clause mentioned
in the document.
46. It was explained in the case of Bismillah (supra) that the common
law defence of non est factum to actions on specialities in its origin, was
available where an illiterate person, to whom the contents of a deed had
been wrongly read, executed it under a mistake as to its nature and contents,
who could say that it was not his deed at all. In the modern application, this
doctrine can be extended to cases other than those of illiteracy and to other
contracts in writing and distinction needs to be drawn between fraudulent
misrepresentation as to the character of the document and fraudulent
misrepresentation as to the contents thereby. The defence is available only
if the mistake was as to the very nature or character of the transaction.
47. The proposition of law had been summed up by Lord Pearson, in the
case of Bismillah (supra), which are as under:-
"In my opinion, the plea of non est factum ought to be
available in a proper case for the relief of a person who
for permanent or temporary reasons (not limited to
blindness or illiteracy) is not capable of both reading and
sufficiently understanding the deed or the other document
to be signed. By "sufficiently understanding" I mean
understanding at least the point of detecting a fundamental
difference between the actual document and the document
as the signed had believed it to be."
48. The law as crystalised in the case of Ramathal vs. K. Rajamano,
2023 SCC Online SC 1022, is that the legal position would be different if
there is a fraudulent misrepresentation not merely as to the contents of the
document as to its character. There is a clear distinction between the
fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document and
fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents thereof. While the fraudulent
misrepresentation as to the character makes the transaction void, in the latter
case, it is merely voidable.
49. In the light of the aforesaid proposition of law, the facts of the
present case, may be considered. The Defendant had taken a plea that on
account of his illiteracy and inability to understand the language of English,
he was fraudulently made to sign the documents. The Defendant examined
himself as DW-1 and also examined DW-2 Mr. Ram Khilari, in his support.
The Defendant/Appellant in his Affidavit merely replicated the averments
made in the Written Statement. In his cross-examination as DW-1, he
deposed that he had not entered into any Agreement to Sell with the Plaintiff
Company. However, when confronted with the Agreement to Sell dated
25.06.2012, 19.12.2012 Receipt dated 26.07.2012, Special Power of
Attorney, General Power of Attorney and Will dated 19.12.2012, he
admitted his signatures and thumb impressions on all of these documents,
wherein the sale consideration was mentioned as 77,86,500/-. It is pertinent
to note that in the second Agreement to Sell dated 19.09.2012, admittedly
executed between the parties, not only was the total sale consideration as
Rs.77,86,500/- was mentioned but the details of the payments that were
made to the Defendant, was specifically mentioned.
50. The learned District Judge rightly observed that it is only a bald
assertions that he did not understand the nature of the document as there was
nothing to show that he was even unable to understand the figures
mentioned in the documents. Pertinently, there was no denial that he had
received the a total sum of Rs.77,86,500/-, pursuant to the Agreement to Sell
dated 19.09.2012, Ex.PW-1/8.
51. Interestingly, while he claimed that he was not aware of the figure
mentioned in the Agreement to Sell, he remained absolutely silent till the
Plaintiff started asking him for execution of the Sale Deed in the year 2015.
This in fact, triggered the Defendant, to send a Legal Notice dated
13.04.2015 i.e. after almost three years of execution of Agreement to Sell to
only to cancel the Special Power of Attorney, issued in the name of Mr.
Vidhu Sharma.
52. Pertinently, as has been rightly observed by the learned District
Judge, this Notice did not even whisper that the sale consideration had not
been rightly reflected in the Agreement to Sell, while cancelling the SPA.
Had there been actually a fraud committed in mentioning of the sale
consideration, there was nothing which prevented the Appellant, from
rescinding this Agreement in the three long years, after the execution of the
Agreement to Sell; rather it is emerged from the cross-examination of the
Appellant that in this time, the price of the land had increased manifold in
the three years and that is the mala fide reason for rescinding from the
Agreement to Sell and refusal to execute the Agreement to Sell dated
19.09.2012, Ex.PW-1/8.
53. The Appellant had also tried to avoid the Agreement to Sell, on the
grounds that it could not have been executed in the year 2012, as the
consolidation proceedings had been not been completed. The learned
District Judge has rightly observed that it is on this account, that the date of
execution of the Sale Deed, was not mentioned in the Agreement to Sell. It
has emerged from the testimony of PW-3, Office Kanoongo and Patwari and
PW-4 that the consolidation proceedings stand completed in the year 2016.
It is only then that the Plaintiff had rightly started insisting on the execution
of the Agreement to Sell.
54. The learned District Judge has rightly, rejected the plea of the
Defendant and decreed the Suit in favour of the Plaintiff.
55. There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby
dismissed. The pending Applications are also, disposed of.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
APRIL 09, 2026
N/RS
