Delhi High Court · 2025-10-15
JAGWINDER SINGH KHURANA AND ANR. vs SMT. TEJINDER KAUR BAWEJA & ANR.
- Citation / case number
- CS(OS)-666/2018 2025:DHC:9337
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- JAGWINDER SINGH KHURANA AND ANR.
- Respondent
- SMT. TEJINDER KAUR BAWEJA & ANR.
Judgment text excerpt
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 15th October, 2025 + CS(OS) 666/2018 & I.A. 17760/2018 JAGWINDER SINGH KHURANA AND ANR. .....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate. versus SMT. TEJINDER KAUR BAWEJA & ANR. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Mandeep Singh Vinaik, Amicus Curiae. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. The present suit has been filed seeking specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 15th June, 2018 (hereinafter ‘Agreement’), which was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants for the purchase of entire first floor and second floor with roof/terrace rights in the built-up property on a plot of land measuring 344 sq. yds. in freehold Plot No.18 in Block J-13, Rajouri Garden New Delhi. 2. In terms of the aforesaid Agreement, the total sale consideration was Rs. 4,50,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- had been paid at the time of execution of Agreement to Sell, i.e. on 15th June, 2018 and the balance amount of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- was to be paid on or before 31st December, 2019 upon execution of the sale deed in respect of the aforesaid Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(OS) 666/2018 Page 1 of 6 By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:25.10.2025 11:26:37 property and handing over of the possession and original title documents by the defendants to the plaintiffs. 3. The plaintiffs made a further payment of Rs. 87,00,000/- to the defendants on various occasions through RTGS/Cheque. The proof of the same has been filed by the plaintiffs, which has been marked as Exhibit PW- 1/4 and Exhibit PW-2/4. It is the case of the plaintiff that upon payment of the said money, the date of execution of the sale deed would be advanced. 4. The plaintiffs approached the defendants with t