Surjeet Kaur Khurana v. Sumitra Devi and Ors

GAURANG KANTH, J. NOVEMBER 14, 2022

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 14.11.2022 + SURJEET KAUR KHURANA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Praveen Suri, Advocate. versus SUMITRA DEVI AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gurjesh Kumar Mall, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH GAURANG KANTH J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 48619/2022 (Exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. RFA 559/2022 and C.M. No. 48620/2022 (Stay) 3. The Appellant (Original Defendant) has preferred the present Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.2022 ("impugned judgment") passed by the ADJ-07, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in Suit No. 473/2021 titled as Sumitra Devi & Anr Vs Surjeet Kumar Khurana & Anr. Vide the Impugned Judgment & Decree dated 30.08.2022, the learned Trial Court was pleased to allow the application filed by Respondent Nos.1&2 (Original Plaintiffs) under Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code,1908 and partly decreed the suit and granted the possession of the suit property in favour of Respondent Nos.1&2. Facts relevant for the consideration of the present Appeal are as follows: 4. Ms. Sumitra Devi, Respondent No. 1 herein is a senior citizen and a widow. Respondent No.2 is the daughter-in-law of Respondent No.1. The Appellant was the owner of the residential property located at Khasra No. 28, situated in abadi known as Ranjit Nagar, Gali No.6 in the area of Village Shadipur, New Delhi vide a registered sale deed dated 16.03.2011 ("Suit Property"). The Appellant was constructing a new building at the Residential Property. 5. The dispute pertains to the entire flat on the second floor ad- measuring 125 sq. yards along with one car parking and a single two wheeler parking located at the stilt level of the residential building constructed by the Appellant at the Residential Property. 6. That in the month of March 2011, Respondent Nos.1 & 2, through their Special Power of Attorney holder Mr. Rajesh Santani approached Mr. Inder Singh Khurana, son and attorney of the Appellant, for the purchase of Suit Property which formed a part of the under construction building. The total consideration to be payable by the Respondents to the Appellant for the Suit Property was agreed at Rs.47,00,000/-. 7. To materialise their understanding, Respondent No.1 and the Appellant entered into a Property Development Agreement dated 25.12.2011 (the "PDA") with respect to the Suit Property. In accordance with the said PDA, the Suit Property i.e., the flat was required to be ready for possession by January 2012. The completely constructed Suit Property in a ready to move condition was required to be handed over to Respondent No.1 latest by 31.5.2012 failing which the Appellant was under an obligation to pay interest @ 18% p.a for the delayed period on the total amount paid by Respondent No.1. The said PDA further stated that out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 47,00,000/-, Respondent No.1 had paid an advance of Rs. 25,50,000/- (Rs.17,45,000/- was paid through cheques/ bank transfer and Rs.8,05,000/- was paid in cash) to the Appellant. The balance sale consideration of Rs. 21,50,000/- was required to be paid according to the progress of the construction of the Suit Property. The said PDA further records that the Appellant will inform Respondent No.1 through email regarding the progress of construction and accordingly raise demand on Respondent No. 1 for the payment of instalments. Respondent No.1 is required to honour the said demand note within 5 days failing which interest @ 18% p.a. for the delayed period is required to be paid by Respondent No.1 on such due amount. 8. Subsequently, the Appellant executed a registered sale deed dated 23.10.2012 with respect to the Suit Property in favour of Respondent Nos.1&2 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The said registered sale deed records that the Appellant received the total sale consideration of