RAJEEV MIGLANI vs URMIL GUJRAL & ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 16thDecember, 2025 Pronounced on: 27th March, 2026 + RFA 545/2016 RAJEEV MIGLANI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ashim Vachher, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Saiba. M. Rajpal, Advocate (M:9910946849) versus URMIL GUJRAL & Anr. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Ms. Anshika Juneja, Advocates for R-1 (M:9877135434) CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA JUDGEMENT MINI PUSHKARNA, J. Introduction: 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), against the judgment and decree dated 02nd March, 2016 (“impugned judgment”), passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (“ADJ”) – 09, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Suit No. 258/14 (Old Suit No. 179/06), titled as ―Smt. Urmal Gujral Versus Sh. Som Nath & Ors.‖. 2. The aforesaid suit was instituted under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (“Specific Relief Act”) by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 herein, i.e., Smt. Urmil Gujral, inter alia, seeking a declaration that the Signature Not Verified RFA 545/2016 Page 1 of 86 Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:27.03.2026 19:53:15 Agreement to Sell dated 18th August, 2006 executed by the defendant no. 1/respondent no. 2, i.e., Shri Som Nath in favour of the defendant no. 2/appellant, i.e., Shri Rajeev Miglani, as null and void, and seeking cancellation of the same. There was further prayer seeking a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the appellant and respondent no. 2 from entering into any transaction in respect of the property, admeasuring 100 sq. yards, and bearing No. 10/64, Tihar-I, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi– 110027 (“suit property”), on the basis of the Agreement to Sell dated 18th August, 2006 and the Substitution Letter dated 08t