Final RFA As Filed-GAGAN-19.12.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

R.F.A No. of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
RUPINDER KAUR GILL (DECEASED)

THROUGH HER L.R. …. APPELLANT
Versus
DHARMENDER AND OTHERS …. RESPONDENTS
INDEX
Sl.No. Particulars Court Fee Page Nos.

1. Listing Proforma Nil 1-2
2. Opening Sheet Nil
3. Court Fee
4. Urgent Application
5. Memo of Parties
6. List of Dates
7. Grounds of Appeal, with affidavit
8. Stay Application Under Order XLI Rule
5, C.P.C, with affidavit
9. Exemption Application, with

Affidavit
10. Exemption Application, with Rs.

Affidavit
11. ANNEXURE A-1

A copy of judgment and
decree dated 24.10.2016
12. Annexure A-2

A copy of plaint dated
14.02.2008
13. Annexure A-3
A copy of alleged agreement
to sell dated 16.05.2006
with its typed copy
14. Annexure A-4

A copy of alleged receipts
dated 15.05.2006 and
16.05.2006 with typed
copies
15. Annexure A-5

A copy of Perpetual Lease
Deed dated 16.05.2006 with
typed copy
16. Annexure A-6

Copy of alleged notice dated
09.01.2008
17. Annexure A-7

A copy of written statement
dated 18.12.2008
18. Annexure A-8

A copy of alleged Agreement
between Smt.Rupinder Kaur
Gill and Sh.Rinesh Saini with
its typed copy
19. Annexure A-9

A copy of alleged Power of
Attorney by Smt. Rupinder
Kaur Gill in favour of
Sh.Rinesh Saini with its
typed copy
20. Annexure A-10

Copy of allotment letter
dated 22.1.1987 with typed
copy
21. Annexure A-11

Copy of alleged receipt
22. Annexure A-12
Copy of alleged Will with
typed copy
23. Annexure A-13

Copy of alleged affidavit with
typed copy
24. Annexure A-14

Copy of mutation order
dated 15.02.2006 with typed
copy
25. Annexure A-15

A copy of Replication dated
17.03.2009
26. Annexure A-16 (Colly)

A copy of affidavit of
evidence of PW-1 Sh.
Dharmender and PW-2 Sh.
Dharamveer along with
copies of their cross-
examination
27. Annexure A-17

A copy of ex parte judgment
and decree dated
19.02.2016 passed by the
Court of Sh. Ajay Goel, Ld.
Additional District Judge-I,
North District, Delhi in C.S.
No. 41 of 2016
28. Annexure A-18 (Colly)

Copies of evidence affidavit
of DW-1 Sh. Amrinder Singh
Gill, DW-2 Sh. Rahul Sharma
and DW-3 Smt. Tanvir Kaur
along with copies of their
cross-examination
29. Annexure A-19

Copy of G.P.A of the
appellant
30. Vakalatnama
31. Total Court Fee Paid
P.S.
1. No Caveat notice has been received.

2. No similar/connected matter has been filed by the appellant in this
Hon’ble Court.
NEW DELHI (GAGAN GUPTA)

Dated: Advocate for the appellant
D-20, Ground Floor, Jangpura Extension,
NEW DELHI-110014
Ph.: 011-24310120, 43581120,
98112-12776, 9868066879
E-mail: gagang222@gmail.com
Enrolment No.D-590/2000
Code: G-497
R.F.A No. of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 AND ORDER

XLI OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AS AMENDED
UPTO DATE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
24.10.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SH.AJAY GOEL, LD.
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-1, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI IN CIVIL SUIT NO.59505/16
MEMO OF PARTIES
RUPINDER KAUR GILL (SINCE DECEASED)

(Wife of Late Amarjeet Singh Gill)
Through her Legal Representative
Amrinder Singh Gill (Son)
Resident of 32/252, Kumber Gate,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan, India
Presently resident at 230,
Saddle Brook Way Ne
Calgary (Alberta) T300B5
CANADA
Through his G.P.A holder Sh.Harjit Singh Nagra
Son of Sh.Partap Singh Nagra
Resident of 5199/2, Modern Housing Complex,
Manimajra, Chandigarh, UT ….. APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Dharmender
Son of Sh.Attar Singh Saini
Resident of A-24, Yadav Nagar,
Samaypur,
DELHI 110042 CONTESTING RESPONDENT
2. RUPINDER KAUR GILL (SINCE DECEASED)

(Wife of Late Amarjeet Singh Gill)
Through her Other Legal Representatives:
(i) Manpreet Chaddha, Daughter
(ii) Justine Gill, Daughter
(iii) Moninder Yeramilli, Daughter
(iv) Tanvir Kaur, Daughter
All Residents of 32/252, Kumber Gate,
Bharatpur, Rajasthan, India
Presently resident at 230,
Saddle Brook Way Ne
Calgary (Alberta) T300B5
CANADA …. PROFORMA RESPONDENTS
NEW DELHI (GAGAN GUPTA)

Dated: Advocate for the appellant
D-20, Ground Floor, Jangpura Extension,
NEW DELHI-110014
Ph.: 011-24310120, 43581120,
98112-12776, 9868066879
E-mail: gagang222@gmail.com
Enrolment No.D-590/2000
Code: G-497
R.F.A No. of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 AND ORDER

XLI OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AS AMENDED
UPTO DATE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
24.10.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SH.AJAY GOEL, LD.
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-1, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI IN CIVIL SUIT NO.59505/16
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
BRIEF FACTS:
1. This Appeal Is Directed Against The Judgment And Decree
Dated 24.10.2016 Passed By The Court Of Sh.Ajay Goel, Ld.
Additional District Judge-1, North District, Rohini Courts
Complex, Delhi In Civil Suit No.59505/16 filed by the
respondent no.1 herein whereby a suit for specific performance,
possession and permanent injunction filed by the respondent
no.1 has been erroneously decreed. A copy of judgment and

decree dated 24.10.2016 is annexed herewith and is marked as
Annexure A-1.
2. That the respondent no.1 filed a suit for specific performance,
possession and permanent injunction, against the predecessor
of the appellant viz. Smt.Rupinder Kaur Gill (since deceased). It
was inter alia pleaded in the plaint that Late Sh. Amarjeet Singh
Gill (since deceased) was owner of built-up property being Plot
No.76, Block No.AG, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,
Samaypur, Delhi – 110042 measuring 440 sq. mts, hereinafter
referred to as “the suit property”, as proprietor of M/s New
Goodwill Transport Company. Sh.Amarjeet Singh Gill passed
away on 15.08.2005 and the suit property was mutated in the
name of Smt. Rupinder Kaur Gill and on 16.05.2006 MCD also
executed and got registered a Perpetual Lease Deed in her
favour. It was alleged that on 16.05.2006 itself the respondent
no.1 herein entered into an agreement to sell with
Smt.Rupinder Kaur Gill with respect to the suit property for a
total sum of Rs.40 Lakh out of which Rs. 25 Lakh was paid in
cash on 15.05.2006 and 16.05.2006 and the remaining Rs.15
Lakh was agreed to be paid on or before 15.01.2008 which was
the date fixed for execution and registration of Sale Deed. It
was alleged that the respondent no.1 –plaintiff had paid a sum
of Rs.2,28,193/- to the MCD from the account of his relative on

behalf of Smt.Rupinder Kaur Gill and a further amount of
Rs.36,080/- on 21.04.2006 to MCD on behalf of Smt. Rupinder
Kaur Gill which amount Smt. Rupinder Kaur Gill had promised to
return with interest @18% per annum on or before 12.02.2008
but the same was not done. It was further alleged that the
respondent no.1–plaintiff reached the office of concerned Sub-
Registrar on 15.01.2008 but the defendant Smt. Rupinder Kaur
Gill did not turn up. It was prayed that a decree for specific
performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.05.2006, and for
possession and permanent injunction be passed. A copy of
plaint dated 14.02.2008 is annexed herewith and is marked as
Annexure A-2. A copy of alleged agreement to sell dated
16.05.2006 with its typed copy is annexed herewith and is
marked as Annexure A-3. A copy of alleged receipts dated
15.05.2006 and 16.05.2006 with typed copies is annexed
herewith and is marked as Annexure A-4. A copy of Perpetual
Lease Deed dated 16.05.2006 with typed copy is annexed
herewith and is marked as Annexure A-5. The plaintiff –
respondent no.1 filed other documents such as alleged notice
dated 09.01.2008 (copy of which is annexed herewith and is
marked as Annexure A-6), affidavit dated 15.01.2008,
photograph etc.
3. That the defendant Smt. Rupinder Kaur Gill filed a written
statement in the suit, inter alia pleading that the alleged
agreement was a sham and fabricated document which the
defendant saw for the first time when she received notice of the
Civil Suit; in the year 2006 market value of the suit property at
least was Rs.4 Crores and there was no reason to sell it for
Rs.40 lakh; the defendant did not receive any earnest money
from the plaintiff; the services of the plaintiff had been engaged
by the defendant to get the property mutated in her name after
the death of her husband and also to rent out the same and for
execution and registration of perpetual lease deed from MCD;
signatures of the defendant and her daughter and son-in-law
were obtained on a large number of papers which they signed
in good faith without reading the same while the defendant
misused the trust; the defendant is not a well educated person
and needs assistance even to sign the papers; papers were got
signed by the defendant and her daughter and son-in-law
outside the office of Sub-Registrar while sitting in the car; that
in fact the signatures on all pages of even the Perpetual Lease
Deed are not of the defendant and her signatures only exist on
the backside of the last page of the Perpetual Lease Deed. It
was also pleaded that on an earlier occasion relatives of the
plaintiff Sh. Rinesh Saini and others had tried to defraud the
defendant. It was thus pleaded that the alleged agreement and
the alleged receipts were surrounded by suspicious
circumstances and were liable to be disbelieved and discarded
and the suit was liable to be dismissed. A copy of written
statement dated 18.12.2008 is annexed herewith and is marked
as Annexure A-7. A copy of alleged Agreement between
Smt.Rupinder Kaur Gill and Sh.Rinesh Saini with its typed copy
is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure A-8. A copy
of alleged Power of Attorney by Smt. Rupinder Kaur Gill in
favour of Sh.Rinesh Saini with its typed copy is annexed
herewith and is marked as Annexure A-9. The defendant also
filed other documents such as allotment letter dated 22.1.1987
(copy with its typed copy is annexed herewith and is marked as
Annexure A-10), alleged receipt (copy with its typed copy is
annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure A-11), alleged
Will (copy with its typed copy is annexed herewith and is
marked as Annexure A-12), alleged affidavit (copy with its
typed copy is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure A-
13), mutation order dated 15.02.2006 (copy with its typed copy
is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure A-14), rent
agreements dated 02.05.2006 and 06.10.2007, copy of police
complaint, copy of rent agreement dated 01.08.2008, etc.

4. That the plaintiff – respondent no.1 filed his replication. A copy of
Replication dated 17.03.2009 is annexed herewith and is
marked as Annexure A-15. Thereafter issues were framed.
The plaintiff – respondent no.1 filed evidence by way of his
affidavit as also the affidavit of PW-2 Sh. Dharamveer and they
were cross-examined as well. A copy of affidavit of evidence of
PW-1 Sh. Dharmender and PW-2 Sh. Dharamveer along with
copies of their cross-examination is annexed herewith and is
marked as Annexure A-16 (Colly).
5. That in the interregnum Smt.Rupinder Kaur Gill had expired on
21.07.2013 leaving behind Manpreet Chaddha, Justine Gill,
Moninder Yeramilli, Smt. Tanvir Kaur and Amrinder Singh Gill as
her legal heirs. They were substituted in place of the original
defendant by virtue of order dated 21.08.2014. However by
way of her Will dated 31.03.2013 the original defendant had
bequeathed her entire estate including the suit property in
favour of her son Amrinder Singh Gill.
6. In view of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts the
matter was transferred from this Hon’ble Court to the Rohini
Courts Complex, Delhi. At the initial stage in the District Courts,
the appellant and proforma respondents were proceeded
against ex-parte and ex-parte judgment dated 19.02.2016 was
passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge. A copy of ex parte

judgment and decree dated 19.02.2016 passed by the Court of
Sh. Ajay Goel, Ld. Additional District Judge-I, North District,
Delhi in C.S. No. 41 of 2016 is annexed herewith and is marked
as Annexure A-17.
7. That on 11.05.2016 the ex-parte judgment and decree was set
aside and the matter thereafter proceeded for defence
evidence. Copies of evidence affidavit of DW-1 Sh. Amrinder
Singh Gill, DW-2 Sh. Rahul Sharma and DW-3 Smt. Tanvir Kaur
along with copies of their cross-examination is annexed
herewith and is marked as Annexure A-18 (Colly).
8. That on 24.10.2016 the suit was erroneously decreed by the Ld.
Trial Court. Hence the present First Appeal is being filed in this
Hon’ble Court inter alia on the following among other grounds:
GROUNDS
a. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the market
value of the suit property in the year 2006 was around Rs.4
Crores and there was no reason for Smt. Rupinder Kaur Gill to
enter into an agreement with the plaintiff- respondent no.1 to
sell the same for Rs.40 Lakh only.
b. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the
agreement dated 16.05.2006 was an un-registered agreement
and was thus not admissible in evidence. The plaintiff-
respondent no.1 paid deficit stamp duty and penalty on the

agreement under orders of this Hon’ble Court, however the
agreement remained an un-registered agreement.
c. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that payment of
Rs.25 Lakh in Cash was not permissible under the Income Tax
Act even at the relevant time. Further it is unusual and
unbelievable that a prospective vendee would pay such huge
amount in cash without there being any component of payment
by Cheque or Demand Draft in the name of the prospective
vendor.
d. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that it was
unusual for the parties to decide that the Sale Deed shall be
executed after 20 months of the alleged agreement to sell. It is
submitted that neither in the agreement nor in the plaint was it
mentioned that the period of 20 months was agreed upon as
Smt.Rupinder Kaur Gill was travelling to Canada. Even if
presuming this was so without admitting it to be correct, a sale
deed could have been executed and got registered by seeking
permission of MCD before the defendant left for Canada and no
prudent purchaser or seller would agree for a period of 20
months for the said purpose.
e. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that it was
unusual that the agreement to sell would accompany delivery of
possession to the plaintiff by the defendant particularly when

even allegedly only 25 Lakh out of Rs.40 Lakh was paid by the
plaintiff and he allegedly agreed to pay the balance only after
20 months.
f. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that it was the
own allegation of the plaintiff- respondent no.1 in his plaint that
he had paid Rs.2,22,193/- as also Rs.36,080/- to the MCD on
account of the defendant, that too from his relative’s account.
This fact, even if presumed without admitting it to be so, clearly
reveals that the defendant had engaged the services of the
plaintiff for mutation of the suit property in her favour as also
for coordination in connection with execution and registration of
Perpetual Lease Deed by M.C.D in favour of the defendant
which matter was otherwise pending since the life time of
husband of the defendant.
g. When as per own case of the plaintiff/ respondent no.1 even for
the small amount of Rs, 2,22,193/- as also for an amount of
Rs.36080/- of to be paid to MCD, he took shelter in bank
account of his relative, it is impossible that the plaintiff/
respondent no.1 was having Rs. 25 Lakh in cash with him,
which he alleges to have paid to the defendant in cash as
alleged payment of Sale consideration.
h. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the suit
property is a lease hold property governed by the terms and

conditions of the Perpetual Lease Deed dated 16.05.2006
executed by M.C.D in favour of the defendant and that being
so, M.C.D was a necessary and proper party to the suit. In any
case the decree passed by the Ld. Trial Court is not enforceable
or executable.
i. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that it is
unnatural conduct on the part of the plaintiff in as much as it is
his admitted case that Perpetual Lease Deed was executed and
got registered on 16.05.2006. That being so nothing prevented
the plaintiff and the defendant from getting the alleged
agreement to sell also registered before the same Sub Registrar
on the same day, particularly when the law had already
undergone a change and such agreements had been made
compulsorily registrable. It is pertinent to mention that the
alleged agreement to sell is alleged to have been executed on
the same day i.e. 16.05.2006 at the residence of the plaintiff-
respondent no.1.
j. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that in the
absence of the defendant and her son and daughters who were
in Delhi, the plaintiff made illegal attempt to create false
evidence of his possession by putting his lock on the suit
property, however on police intervention the said lock could be
removed and the defendant could let out the property to

tenants and thus it is clearly proved that it was a false recital in
the alleged agreement to sell dated 16.05.2006 that possession
had been delivered to the plaintiff- respondent no.1 and he also
falsely pleaded so in the plaint.
k. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the
plaintiff- respondent no.1 did not lead any evidence as to
availability and source of cash amount of Rs.25 Lakh which he
allegedly paid to the defendant (Rs.5.5 lakh on 15.05.2016 and
Rs.19.5 lakh on 16.05.2016.) As per his own evidence the
plaintiff- respondent no.1 is only in the business of running a
Ration Shop.
l. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that there were
minor and insignificant discrepancies in the testimony of the
witnesses of the defendant and the same could not be relied
upon to decree the false and frivolous suit of the plaintiff-
respondent no.1. It is well settled law that a plaintiff must stand
on his own legs.
m. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that it was
another suspicious circumstance that while the alleged receipts
dated 15.05.2016 and 16.05.2016 are alleged to have been
witnessed by defendant’s daughter Tanvir Kaur and son-in- law
Rahul Sharma, the alleged agreement dated 16.05.2006 is
alleged to have been witnessed by different set of persons viz.

Mr.Subhash Yadav and Sh. Dharamveer. Moreover Sh.Subhash
Yadav has not appeared in evidence as a witness.
n. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that in his cross-
examination, the plaintiff- respondent no.1 admitted that he
had not disclosed payment of Rs. 25 Lakh in his Income Tax
Returns. He further stated that the alleged agreement and the
alleged receipts were executed at his residence, which is
unusual as the Perpetual Lease Deed was executed and
registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar concerned on the
same day.
o. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the
plaintiff- respondent no.1 had misused the trust imposed upon
him by the defendant and her daughter and her son-in- law
and that he had misled them into putting their signatures on
alleged agreement and alleged receipts. It is pertinent to
mention that even the Perpetual Lease Deed dated 16.05.2016
was witnessed by one Sh.Sachin who is the son of the plaintiff’s
brother Sh.Pratap Singh as also by the same Sh. Subhash
Yadav who is alleged to have signed the alleged agreement to
sell as well, as a witness. It is proved on record from the
document itself that the plaintiff- respondent no.1 created such
an atmosphere that the defendant and her daughter and son-
in-law were misled and rushed into signing of various blank

papers which were later on utilized by the plaintiff- respondent
no.1 and his accomplices to fabricate the alleged agreement to
sell and receipts.
p. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the
plaintiff- respondent no.1 also admitted in his cross-examination
that Rinesh Saini and Yanesh Saini, who had earlier tried to
dupe the defendant, were his cousins. It is established on
record that having failed to dupe the defendant on the earlier
occasion, it appears that Rinesh Saini and his accomplices
hatched a conspiracy with the plaintiff- respondent no.1 and
started another round of fraud with the defendant.
q. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that PW-2
Sh.Dharamveer admitted that he is a good friend of the
plaintiff- respondent no.1 and that he also is a friend of
Mr.Subhash Yadav. He admitted that he had not counted the
alleged earnest money of Rs.25 Lakh and that he had not read
the alleged agreement dated 16.05.2006 before signing it. He in
any case was an interested witness and not an independent
one.
r. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the suit
property was in possession of tenants event at the time of the
execution of the alleged agreement to sell and thus it was false

for the plaintiff- respondent no.1 to plead that possession of the
property was given to him.
s. Because the Ld. Trial Court erred in observing that no dent
could be created in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. Their
respective cross-examination would reveal that the same was
replete with contradictions, inconsistencies and falsehood.
t. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the
plaintiff- respondent no.1 was in a position of trust qua the
defendant as his services had been engaged by the defendant
only for coordination with respect to the mutation, execution
and registration of the Lease Deed in her favour by M.C.D,
therefore onus was on the plaintiff- respondent no.1 to prove
under what circumstances the documents in question were
executed by the defendant and the defendant due to her age,
circumstances and literacy status was to be accorded the same
status as that of a Pardanashin lady. The plaintiff miserably
failed to explain the circumstances and also the payment of
Rs.25 Lakh as earnest money and that being so, the defendant
having duly explained that her signatures were obtained on
blank papers which were later misused, the alleged agreement
and receipts could not have been made the basis for decreeing
the false and frivolous suit of the plaintiff.

u. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the
defendant had expired during the pendency of the suit and
evidence was led by witnesses being her daughter, son and
son-in-law and there was nothing in their testimony which
would be detrimental to the case of the defendant. All of them
had been rushed by the plaintiff- respondent no.1 and his
accomplices into signing blank documents on the premise that
the documents were required for mutation and registration and
execution of Perpetual Lease Deed in favour of the defendant
and that none of them could read or understand where or what
they were signing while the plaintiff- respondent no.1 misused
his position of trust.
v. Because the Ld. Trial Court has relied on conjectures, surmises,
presumptions and assumptions in decreeing the suit filed by the
plaintiff- respondent no.1.
w. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the
defendant and her representatives had made police complaints
against the plaintiff- respondent no.1 and once the police
intervened and the plaintiff- respondent no.1 removed his locks
from the suit property, the defendant and her representatives in
their wisdom were under the belief that no further action was
to be taken at the end of the police. They are residents of

Canada, so it was in any case difficult for them to pursue
multiple litigation in India.
x. Because the Ld. Trial Court has not even noticed much less
referred to the discrepancies, contradictions and inconsistencies
in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2.
y. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the
plaintiff- respondent no.1 was never handed over possession of
the suit property.
z. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that in fact the
plaintiff- respondent no.1 being in possession of the original
Perpetual Lease Deed in favour of the defendant clearly shows
that his services had been engaged for the purpose as
enumerated above and that he managed to get hold of the
document from M.C.D/office of Sub Registrar on behalf of the
defendant. No prospective vendor will otherwise handover the
original title document of the property to a prospective vendee
at the time of execution of alleged agreement to sell itself. In
fact, it is no where mentioned in the alleged agreement to sell
itself that the original Perpetual Lease Deed had been handed
over to the plaintiff- respondent no.1. In any case, it is common
practice that the document is handed over to a party after 2-3
days of its registration in the office of the Sub Registrar.

aa. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the
alleged first witness Sh. Subhash Yadav and the alleged scribe
of the alleged agreement to sell were not produced in evidence
by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 and in fact names of the
alleged witnesses were hand written and not typed in the
alleged agreement and that being so, the plaintiff- respondent
no.1 could not explain the circumstances in which the alleged
agreement to sell came to be signed by the defendant. In fact
the alleged agreement does not even mention the name of the
scribe and there is no pleading as well to that effect.
bb. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the
alleged receipts dated 15.5.2006 and 16.5.2006 and the alleged
agreement to sell dated 16.5.2006 were not alleged to have
been executed at the same time and a bare look at the said
documents also reveals so. They are all typed in different font
and typeset. There is thus a serious suspicion and dark cloud
over the authenticity of the alleged agreement to sell and the
alleged receipts.
cc.Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that it is the
admitted case of the plaintiff- respondent no.1 that he had not
produced the alleged agreement to sell before the police
authorities.
dd. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the
plaintiff- respondent no.1 alleged that he had been given Rs.25
Lakh by his father, however it is pertinent to mention that
father of the plaintiff- respondent no.1 was not produced in
evidence and thus adverse inference ought to be drawn against
the plaintiff- respondent no.1.
ee. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that in the
alleged notice dated 09.01.2008 it was not mentioned by the
plaintiff- respondent no.1 that Rs.5.5 Lakh was paid on
15.05.2006 and Rs.19.5 Lakh was paid on 16.05.2006. It was
further not mentioned in the notice that possession had been
delivered to the plaintiff- respondent no.1.
ff. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that PW-2 was
an interested witness being a close friend of the plaintiff-
respondent no.1.
gg. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that even
otherwise the alleged agreement to sell does not permit the
plaintiff- respondent no.1 to seek remedy of specific
performance against the defendant.
hh. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that in
fact PW-2 had not even read his evidence affidavit before or
after signing it.

ii. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the written
submissions and judgments filed on behalf of the plaintiff-
respondent no.1.
jj. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that it was
unusual and impossible for the defendant to appear before the
Sub-Registrar at Pitam Pura for execution and registration of
Perpetual Lease Deed in her favour by M.C.D, purchase stamp
papers from Tis Hazari Court for execution of the alleged
agreement to sell and also visit the house of the plaintiff-
respondent no.1 to execute the alleged agreement, all on the
same day viz. 16.05.2006.
kk. Because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that when
no permission to sell from M.C.D was applied for, much less
obtained, there was no occasion for the plaintiff- respondent
no.1 to reach the office of the Sub Registrar on the given day
i.e. 15.1.2008. There was no mention of requirement any such
permission in the notice dated 09.01.2008 alleged to have been
served upon the defendant by the plaintiff- respondent no.1.
9. That the appellant has not filed any other appeal or proceeding
against the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.10.2016
either in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India.
10. That this appeal is being filed within the period of limitation
prescribed under the law.
11. That court fee of Rs.41530, as was paid on the plaint, is being
paid in this appeal.
12. That this appeal is being filed by the son of the original
defendant through his father in law and General Power of
Attorney holder, copy of which is annexed herewith and is
marked as Annexure A-19. The other Legal Representatives
of the original defendant being his four daughters have no
objection to the Will executed by the original defendant and are
proforma respondents in this appeal.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court shall
be most graciously pleased to:
(a) Allow this appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment And
Decree Dated 24.10.2016 Passed By The Court Of Sh.Ajay Goel,
Ld. Additional District Judge-1, North District, Rohini Courts
respondent no.1 herein;
(b) dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent no.1, and
(c) pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper, in favour of the appellant and against the respondent
no.1.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS OF YOUR LORDSHIP THE
APPELLANT HEREIN AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER SHALL PRAY.
NEW DELHI/ (APPELLANT)
Through his G.P.A holder
DATED: THROUGH:
(GAGAN GUPTA)
ADVOCATE
R.F.A No. of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Sh.Harjit Singh Nagra Son of Sh.Partap Singh Nagra
Resident of 5199/2, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra,
Chandigarh, UT aged about 65 years, presently at New Delhi
I, the above named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare
as under:
1. That I am the General Power of Attorney holder of the appellant
in the present case and being well conversant with the facts of
the case, and having been duly authorized, I am competent to
depose this affidavit.
2. That the accompanying appeal has been drafted by my counsel
on my behalf and under my instructions. I have gone through
the contents of the same and having fully understood them, I
depose that the facts stated therein are true and correct to my
knowledge and belief. Annexures are true copies/true translated
copies of their originals.
(DEPONENT)
Verification: Verified at New Delhi on 21.12.2016 that the contents
of paras 1 and 2 of my above affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
(DEPONENT)
C.M.NO. OF 2016
IN
R.F.A No. of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT UNDER

SECTION 151, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AS
AMENDED UPTO DATE, FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING
ORIGINALS AND/OR CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE ANNEXURES
1. That the appellant is filing the captioned appeal in this Hon’ble
Court. The contents of the said appeal may kindly be read as
part and parcel of this application as the same are not being
repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
2. That along with the appeal, the appellant is filing copies of
various documents as annexures, originals and/or certified
copies of which are not readily available with the appellant.

3. That since there is an urgency in filing the present appeal, the
appellant could not obtain the originals and/or certified copies
of the annexures.
4. That the appellant undertakes to file originals and/or certified
copies of the said annexures as and when directed by this
Hon’ble Court to do so.
PRAYER
(a) exempt the appellant from filing the originals and/or certified
copies of the annexures;
(b) pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
no.1.
DATED: THROUGH:
(GAGAN GUPTA)
ADVOCATE
C.M.NO. OF 2016
IN
R.F.A No. of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus

AFFIDAVIT
as under:
2. That the accompanying application has been drafted by my
counsel on my behalf and under my instructions. I have gone
through the contents of the same and having fully understood
them, I depose that the facts stated therein are true and
correct to my knowledge and belief.
(DEPONENT)
(DEPONENT)
C.M.NO. OF 2016
IN
R.F.A No. of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT UNDER ORDER

XLI RULE 5 READ WITH SECTION 151, CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908, AS AMENDED UPTO DATE, FOR STAY
Court. The contents of the said appeal may kindly be read as
part and parcel of this application as the same are not being
repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
2. That this appeal is being filed against the Judgment And Decree
Dated 24.10.2016 Passed By The Court Of Sh.Ajay Goel, Ld.
Additional District Judge-1, North District, Rohini Courts
respondent no.1 herein, whereby the suit filed by the
respondent no.1 herein was erroneously decreed.

3. That the appellant has a prima facie case in his favour and
balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellant.
Irreparable loss and injury shall be caused to the appellant in
case interim relief as prayed for is not granted by this Hon’ble
Court.
4. That the Ld. Trial Court has directed the appellant and
proforma respondents to execute a sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff-respondent no.1 with respect to the suit property within
two months of 24.10.2016 and to hand over possession of the
same to the plaintiff-respondent no.1.
5. That the plaintiff-respondent no.1 is likely to file an Execution
Petition, if not already filed.
6. That this application is being filed bonafide and in the interest
of justice.
PRAYER
(a) grant ex parte ad interim stay to the appellant, thereby staying
the operation, effect and execution of the Judgment And
Decree Dated 24.10.2016 Passed By The Court Of Sh.Ajay Goel,
Ld. Additional District Judge-1, North District, Rohini Courts
respondent no.1 herein;

no.1.
DATED: THROUGH:
(GAGAN GUPTA)
ADVOCATE
C.M.NO. OF 2016
IN
R.F.A No. of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus

AFFIDAVIT
as under:
(DEPONENT)
(DEPONENT)
R.F.A No. of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
LIST OF DATES
15.08.2005 Sh.Amarjeet Singh Gill, husband of the original
defendant and owner of the suit property, passed
away on 15.08.2005.
16.05.2006 M.C.D executed and got registered a Perpetual
Lease Deed in favour of the widow/original
defendant. It is alleged that on 16.05.2006 itself the
respondent no.1 herein entered into an agreement
to sell with the widow Smt.Rupinder Kaur Gill with
respect to the suit property for a total sum of Rs.40
Lakh out of which Rs.25 Lakh was paid in cash on
15.05.2006 and 16.05.2006 and the remaining
Rs.25 Lakh was agreed to be paid on or before
15.01.2008 (that is, period of 20 months) which was
the date fixed for execution and registration of Sale
Deed.
14.2.2008 The respondent no.1 filed a suit for specific
performance, possession and permanent injunction,
against the predecessor of the appellant and
proforma respondents viz. Smt. Rupinder Kaur Gill
(since deceased).
18.12.2008 That the defendant Smt. Rupinder Kaur Gill filed a
written statement in the suit.
17.03.2009 The plaintiff – respondent no.1 filed his replication.
Thereafter issues were framed. The plaintiff –
respondent no.1 filed evidence by way of his
affidavit as also the affidavit of PW-2
Sh.Dharamveer and they were cross-examined as
well.
31.03.2013
21.07.2013
21.08.2014 In the interregnum Smt.Rupinder Kaur had Gill
expired on 21.07.2013 leaving behind Manpreet
Chaddha, Justine Gill, Moninder Yeramilli,
Smt.Tanvir Kaur and Amrinder Singh Gill as her legal
heirs. They were substituted in place of the original
defendant by virtue of order dated 21.08.2014.
However by way of her Will dated 31.03.2013 the
original defendant had bequeathed her entire estate

including the suit property in favour of her son
Amrinder Singh Gill-appellant.
In view of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction
the matter was transferred from this Hon’ble Court
to the Rohini Courts Complex, Delhi.
19.02.2016 At the initial stage in the District Courts, the
appellant and proforma respondents were
proceeded against ex-parte and ex-parte judgment
dated 19.02.2016 was passed by the Ld. Additional
District Judge.
11.05.2016 The ex-parte judgment and decree was set aside
and the matter thereafter proceeded for defence
evidence. DW-1 Sh. Amrinder Singh Gill, DW-2
Sh.Rahul Sharma and DW-3 Smt. Tanvir Kaur
appeared as Defendant’s Witnesses.
24.10.2016 The suit was erroneously decreed by the Ld. Trial
Court.
Hence the present First Appeal is being filed in this
Hon’ble Court.
(APPELLANT)
THROUGH:
NEW DELHI/
DATED: (GAGAN GUPTA)
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS
C.M.NO. OF 2016
IN
R.F.A No. of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT UNDER

SECTION 151, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AS
AMENDED UPTO DATE, FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING
RETYPED/LEGIBLE COPIES OF ANNEXURES WITH 4 CM
MARGIN
Court.
2. That along with the appeal, the appellant is also filing copies of
various documents as annexures, retyped and/or legible copies
of which are not readily available with the appellant. Some
documents do not have the margin of 4 cm on the left hand
side.
3. That since there is an urgency in filing the present appeal, the
appellant could not obtain the legible and/or retyped copies of
certain annexures with 4 cm margin on the left side.
4. That the appellant undertakes to file retyped and/or legible
copies of the said annexures with 4 cm left side margin as and
when directed by this Hon’ble Court to do so.
PRAYER
(a) exempt the appellant from filing the legible and/or retyped
copies of the annexures with 4 cm margin on the left side;
proper, in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.
APPELLANTS HEREIN AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER SHALL PRAY.

DATED: THROUGH:
(GAGAN GUPTA)
ADVOCATE
C.M.NO. OF 2016
IN
R.F.A No. of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus

AFFIDAVIT
as under:
(DEPONENT)
(DEPONENT)
R.F.A No. of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
URGENT APPLICATION
To:
The Registrar
High Court of Delhi
New Delhi
Sir,
Kindly treat the accompanying appeal as an urgent one in
accordance with the Delhi High Court Rules and Procedure. The
grounds of urgency are that the appellant is seeking stay.
(GAGAN GUPTA)
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT
New Delhi
Dated:

Final RFA As Filed-GAGAN-19.12.16

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final RFA As Filed-GAGAN-19.12.16

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

RUPINDER KAUR GILL (DECEASED)

DHARMENDER AND OTHERS …. RESPONDENTS

Sl.No. Particulars Court Fee Page Nos.

9. Exemption Application, with

10. Exemption Application, with Rs.

11. ANNEXURE A-1

12. Annexure A-2

14. Annexure A-4

15. Annexure A-5

16. Annexure A-6

17. Annexure A-7

18. Annexure A-8

19. Annexure A-9

20. Annexure A-10

21. Annexure A-11

23. Annexure A-13

24. Annexure A-14

25. Annexure A-15

26. Annexure A-16 (Colly)

27. Annexure A-17

28. Annexure A-18 (Colly)

29. Annexure A-19

31. Total Court Fee Paid

1. No Caveat notice has been received.

NEW DELHI (GAGAN GUPTA)

DHARMENDER AND OTHERS …. RESPONDENTS

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 AND ORDER

RUPINDER KAUR GILL (SINCE DECEASED)

2. RUPINDER KAUR GILL (SINCE DECEASED)

NEW DELHI (GAGAN GUPTA)

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

R.F.A No. of 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

RUPINDER KAUR GILL (DECEASED)

DHARMENDER AND OTHERS …. RESPONDENTS

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 AND ORDER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. This Appeal Is Directed Against The Judgment And Decree

Dated 24.10.2016 Passed By The Court Of Sh.Ajay Goel, Ld.

Additional District Judge-1, North District, Rohini Courts

Complex, Delhi In Civil Suit No.59505/16 filed by the

respondent no.1 herein whereby a suit for specific performance,

possession and permanent injunction filed by the respondent

no.1 has been erroneously decreed. A copy of judgment and

2. That the respondent no.1 filed a suit for specific performance,

possession and permanent injunction, against the predecessor

of the appellant viz. Smt.Rupinder Kaur Gill (since deceased). It

Gill (since deceased) was owner of built-up property being Plot

No.76, Block No.AG, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar,

Samaypur, Delhi – 110042 measuring 440 sq. mts, hereinafter

referred to as “the suit property”, as proprietor of M/s New

Goodwill Transport Company. Sh.Amarjeet Singh Gill passed

away on 15.08.2005 and the suit property was mutated in the

name of Smt. Rupinder Kaur Gill and on 16.05.2006 MCD also

executed and got registered a Perpetual Lease Deed in her

favour. It was alleged that on 16.05.2006 itself the respondent

no.1 herein entered into an agreement to sell with

Smt.Rupinder Kaur Gill with respect to the suit property for a

cash on 15.05.2006 and 16.05.2006 and the remaining Rs.15

Lakh was agreed to be paid on or before 15.01.2008 which was