Sanjay Narang & Anr. v. Raj Rani Saini

15. In reply to the said application, the Defendant reiterated his stand that he had paid a substantial amount of money to purchase the suit property.

16. In the meantime, an order dated 7th May 2024 came to be passed by the ld. District Judge-04, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the plaint filed by the Plaintiff had been returned for institution before the appropriate Commercial Court. This order dated 7th May 2024 was challenged in FAO 299/2024 titled ‘Smt Raj Rani Saini v. Sh. Sanjay Narang’, wherein, a ld. Single Judge of this Court directly transferred the suit as it stands to the appropriate Commercial Court.

17. As per the proceeding sheets before the Trial Court, the arguments in the application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was heard on 12th March, 2026 and the matter was put up for orders on 28th March,

2026. However, on the said date i.e., 28th March, 2026 when the matter was listed for orders, the Defendant sought to file an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the written statement. The Defendant also filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the CPC for taking on record certain additional documents. The Defendant also sought to file a counter-claim on the very same day.

18. The Trial Court then passed the impugned order on 30th March, 2026. The Trial Court, in the impugned order, has taken note of the defence of the Defendant that he had paid a sum of ₹50,00,000/- and therefore, his possession is protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act,

1882. The relevant observations of the Trial Court read as under:

19. In fact, the Trial Court takes serious note of the fact that after the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was filed by the Plaintiff, the Defendant made an attempt to file an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

20. Insofar as the attempt made by the Defendant to file an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and a counter-claim at a late stage is concerned, the Trial Court took a strict view of the matter and observed as under:–

21. Thus, the reasoning of the Trial Court is that since there was no Agreement to Sell in existence and in any event, the same was not registered, the defence under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 would not be available to the Defendant. Further, the Trial Court also came to the conclusion that even if the prayer in the counter-claim is taken into consideration i.e., that the title documents ought to be executed in favour of the Defendant in respect of the suit property, the said prayer, unless and until allowed, would not in any manner, establish any legal right in favour of the Defendant to continue to remain in possession of the shop. This impugned order is challenged by the Defendant in the present appeal. Submissions on behalf of the Parties

22. Before this Court, the submission on behalf of the Defendant i.e., Appellant herein, by Mr. Tanmay Mehta, ld. Counsel is that there is a substantial defence which has been raised by the Defendant. Ld. Counsel submits that the Defendant has been able to produce various receipts showing the receipt of Rs.50,00,000/- towards sale consideration of the suit property.

23. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant/Defendant submits that the documents placed before this Court would further show that the transaction of sale for the suit property has actually taken place and these facts deserved to be adjudicated at trial. It is further submitted that the Defendant is willing to pay the outstanding rent, if any, for the period during which the Defendant continued to remain in possession of the suit property.

24. Mr. Mehta, ld. Counsel for the Appellant relies upon the following judgments to argue that whenever a defence of a sale transaction is raised in such a case, the same deserves to be adjudicated after a trial is held and not in a summary manner:i) Daljeet Singh Anand v. Harjinder Singh Anand, 2008:DHC2533-DB ii) S.M. Asif v. Virender Kumar Bajaj, (2015) 9 SCC 287 iii) Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar, (2022) 10 SCC 496

25. It is further urged that the documents which are placed on record would show that the sale transaction had in fact taken place and this fact was conceded by the Plaintiff in the Trial Court. Various cash receipts, stamp paper, etc. are all relied upon along with the copies of the cheques issued by the Plaintiff’s husband.

26. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff i.e., Respondent herein has raised serious objections in respect to the documents relied upon by the Defendants. According to the ld. Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff, all the receipts which have been filed are forged and fabricated. Various discrepancies in the documents are pointed out by the ld. Counsel.

27. It is the case of the Plaintiff that there are no written documents which have been executed for sale of the suit property and prior to March 2026, none of the said documents were filed on record by the Defendant. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff submits that even the counter-claim is a complete after thought.

28. Further, it is the submission on behalf of the Plaintiff that all the payments towards the sale consideration of the suit property are claimed to have been made in cash by the Defendant. There is not a single payment which has been made through banking channels. It is also argued that while the Defendant is in possession of one shop, the receipts which are placed on record claim that money has been paid for sale of the entire property itself i.e., the plot, where there are a total of 10 shops. According to the ld. Counsel, this itself shows that the documents are fabricated.

29. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B Gunashekar & Anr., 2025 INSC 490 to argue that whenever such high amounts are paid by cash and suits are filed either for recovery or claiming any rights on the basis of cash payments, there is a clear violation of the law. In fact, this would be a fit case where the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Department ought to be directed to verify the transaction and the violations of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis and Findings

30. The Court has perused the pleadings, the documents as also the impugned order. The tenancy is clearly admitted and the fact that the Defendant had taken the suit property on rent by three separate rent agreements from time to time is also admitted. The rent agreements have not been renewed since 2019, so the Defendant is clearly a month-to-month tenant.

31. In the light of these facts, the question is whether the Defendant can continue to retain the suit property and whether the Defendant has any legal right to do so.

32. The case of the Defendant is that a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- has been paid by him to the Plaintiff for purchase of the suit property. Apart from the receipts and other documents which were sought to be filed at a belated stage by the Defendant, there is no other proof of payment which has come forward.

33. The originals of the receipts were also produced by the Defendant before the Court. The same have been perused by this Court and were retained in a sealed cover with the Registry of this Court.

34. A perusal of the said receipts would show that there is no consistency in the description of the property as mentioned therein. In some of the receipts the suit property is described as ‘...sale of built on property number WZ-77 & 79, Plot number D-1, part of Khasra No 443 situated at Fateh Nagar, New Delhi. …’

35. Most of the receipts placed on record by the Defendant relate to the entire plot and not just the suit property. Obviously, the Defendant was not a tenant in the entire plot but only in one shop. Thus, the receipts are clearly not reliable. The sale consideration for the entire plot could not have been Rs.80,00,000/- and in any case, it is not even the case of the Defendant that the entire plot was to be purchased by him.

36. In one of the documents placed on record by the Defendant which is described as a cash receipt, the description given is as under:- As per the above receipt a sum of rupees 2 lakhs was paid towards some scooter/car.

37. One of the receipts relied upon by the Defendant, is a ‘Promissory Note’ for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Moreover, in another handwritten receipt placed on record by the Defendant, the description for payment of sum of Rs.2,50,000/- is as mentioned as: “Do Lakh Pachas Hazar biyaj par liye.” [2.50 lakhs taken (as loan) upon interest] There are four such receipts where the claim is that the amount has been received as a loan.

38. There is yet another receipt where the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is claimed to be received ‘.....as a security against the said tenancy of one shop built on ground floor, without roof rights, built on property No. D-1, situated at Fateh Nagar, New Delhi. …’

39. Thus, clearly wherever the amount has been paid as security deposit, the description is of the shop i.e., the suit property and not of the entire plot. However, when it comes to the other receipts, the description is of the entire property/plot and not of one shop. Further, the Defendant has relied upon a receipt executed on a stamp paper to show the receipt of a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, and the date of the said stamp paper is 17th April, 2008.

40. In the opinion of this Court, the said documents do not inspire confidence and prima facie appear to be fabricated inasmuch as the description of the property itself is wholly inaccurate and cannot be accepted as credible. Some of the documents also do not relate to a sale transaction for an immoveable property and appear to be some unexplained loan, promissory note or payment for a scooter/car. These receipts are irreconcilable and cannot establish a case of payment of consideration for sale of the property.

41. Moreover, the entire payment is stated to be made in cash by the Defendant which is a substantial amount and the Court cannot take into consideration such payment as being valid tender in view of the clear decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution (Supra). Further, since the entire transaction is alleged to be a cash transaction, no benefit can be extended to the Defendant on the basis thereof.

42. No defence in law can therefore be taken by the Defendant to claim any valid legal right to remain in occupation of the suit property. As against the documents filed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s documents are clear and categorical. There are three rent agreements, all of which are admitted. Thus, the landlord-tenant relationship is not in dispute. Even the amount of monthly rent which was being paid from time to time is not in dispute.

43. In the present case, the conduct of the Defendant is also noteworthy. The Defendant did not place these documents along with his written statement. No counterclaim was filed initially. Only after when the application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC was filed, heard and was listed for orders, a belated and malafide attempt was made by the Defendant to file an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC to amend the written statement, to file further documents and to also seek relief by way of a counter-claim.

44. This conduct of the Defendant itself leads to severe doubt as to the bona fides of the Defendant. The Defendant has relied upon the judgments mentioned above which are completely distinguishable.

45. In the decision in Daljeet Singh Anand (Supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had rejected the prayer for the decree of partition in a suit involving two brothers. In the said case, an application was filed seeking passing of a preliminary decree on the basis of admissions. The Defendant therein had taken a defence that the transfer documents were fraudulent. Thus, the Court came to the conclusion that at the time of examining an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, the strength of the documents cannot be seen. Paragraph 17 of the said judgment reads as under:-

The said decision was given in a unique set of facts where the parties were brothers and certain documents were claimed to have been fraudulently executed. The said case would have no application to the facts of the present case.

46. In the remaining two decisions relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the Defendant i.e., S. M. Asif (Supra) and Karan Kapoor (Supra), which involved landlord-tenant disputes, a proper Agreement to Sell had been executed between the parties in both cases, demonstrating that an actual sale transaction was contemplated between the parties. Thus, even these two judgments are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case.

47. Recently, the Supreme Court, in the decision in Pushpa & Ors. v. Dayawati & Ors., 2026 INSC 603, has discussed the scope and principles governing the passing of a decree on the basis of admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as under:

48. In the present case, there is no document executed between the parties which shows any remote intention of sale of the suit property. The receipts filed by the Defendant are not reliable and at this stage, the Court refrains from making any further observations.

49. Moreover, the filing of the counter-claim and application to amend the written statement at the stage when the orders were to be pronounced in the application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC itself shows that the Defendant was reluctant to place these documents on record for whatever reason.

50. Even these documents themselves speak in different tones. In some documents, the amount is stated to have been paid for sale of the entire plot. Whereas in some of the documents, the amount is stated to have been paid towards a loan. Further, the issuance of the cheques by the Plaintiff’s husband to the Defendant would also show that there are certain financial transactions that may have taken place between the parties, however, the manner in which they are linked with the tenancy of the suit property is not clear. The Defendant is stated to have already filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which would proceed parallelly. The Plaintiff has also filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant alleging that the certain cheques were stolen by the Defendant. Even this case would have to proceed to know the actual truth.

51. In the meantime, the question is whether the Defendant can continue to enjoy the possession of suit property in question or not. The answer, in the opinion of this Court, is a clear NO. 52. The suit property does not belong to the Defendant and the Plaintiff is the lawful owner thereof. The Plaintiff, who is dependent upon the rental amounts derived from the shops let out by her, cannot be deprived of the possession, enjoyment and beneficial use of the suit property, she being the admitted landlady.

53. Under these circumstances, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the Appellant/Defendant to the Respondent/Plaintiff within a period of 4 weeks. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE MADHU JAIN JUDGE JULY 07, 2026 MR/Ck