Delhi High Court Finds Property Documents Forged as Owners Were Abroad; Declares Subsequent Transfers and Injunction-Breaching Sale to Defendant’s Wife Void and Non-Existent
Delhi High Court Nullifies Sale of Disputed Property to Defendant’s Wife During Injunction; Holds Transactions Made in Defiance of Court Orders Legally Non-Existent
Facts
The plaintiffs, Pawan Chaudhry and another, claimed ownership and possession of Plot No. 40, Sector 11, Dwarka, New Delhi. The property had originally been allotted to Bhiku Ram and his wife Parwati. The plaintiffs purchased it through an Agreement to Sell and other documents, and the DDA subsequently executed a registered Conveyance Deed dated 13 July 2006 in their favour.
In January 2020, the plaintiffs learnt that Defendant No. 1, Nimesh Jain, was claiming ownership over the property and had applied for an electricity connection in his own name. They discovered a chain of documents under which they had allegedly transferred the property to Defendant No. 2 on 13 November 2006, followed by Defendant No. 2 allegedly transferring it to Defendant No. 1 on 28 May 2007.
The plaintiffs denied executing the 2006 documents and sought declarations that the Agreements to Sell and GPAs were fraudulent, illegal and void, along with a permanent injunction protecting their possession. They also initially claimed ₹50 lakh in damages.
On 3 February 2020, the High Court restrained the defendants from alienating, encumbering or creating third-party interests in the property and from dispossessing the plaintiffs.
Defendant No. 1 failed to file his written statement within time, while Defendant No. 2 was eventually proceeded ex parte. An earlier application seeking judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC was rejected because the Court held that allegations of forgery still required proof through evidence despite the defendants’ failure to defend the proceedings.
The plaintiffs thereafter led oral and documentary evidence. Crucially, their passports established that on 13 November 2006, when they had supposedly executed the disputed documents in Delhi, Plaintiff No. 1 was in Germany and Plaintiff No. 2 was in Kuwait.
None of the plaintiffs’ three witnesses was cross-examined.
There was a further development during the suit. Despite the subsisting restraint order of 3 February 2020, Defendant No. 1 executed a registered sale deed dated 12 August 2024 in favour of his wife, Parul Jain, for ₹2.75 crore. The plaintiffs consequently initiated contempt proceedings.
Issues
The principal issues before the High Court were:
- Whether the plaintiffs had established lawful ownership of the Dwarka property;
- Whether the Agreement to Sell, GPA and connected documents allegedly executed by the plaintiffs on 13 November 2006 were forged and fabricated;
- Whether passport and immigration records proving that both plaintiffs were outside India on the alleged execution date were sufficient to establish forgery;
- What was the evidentiary effect of the defendants’ failure to cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses;
- Whether an unregistered Agreement to Sell/GPA transaction could convey title in immovable property;
- Whether Defendant No. 2 acquired any title capable of being subsequently transferred to Defendant No. 1 in 2007;
- Whether a subsequent transaction founded upon forged documents was itself void;
- Whether Defendant No. 1’s 2024 sale of the property to his wife, despite an express judicial restraint against alienation, had any legal existence; and
- Whether the Court could nullify a transaction executed in violation of its injunction.
Plaintiffs’ Arguments
The plaintiffs argued that the documents dated 13 November 2006 were demonstrably forged because neither plaintiff was present in India when they were supposedly executed in Delhi.
Their passport and immigration records showed that Plaintiff No. 1 was in Germany and Plaintiff No. 2 was in Kuwait.
They further relied upon several surrounding circumstances:
- they continued to possess the original title documents, including the perpetual lease and registered conveyance deed;
- the disputed documents did not properly disclose details of their purported witnesses;
- Defendant No. 2 neither filed a written statement nor produced evidence supporting the alleged transaction;
- all three plaintiffs’ witnesses testified that the documents were forged; and
- none of those witnesses was cross-examined.
The plaintiffs argued that once the alleged transfer to Defendant No. 2 was found forged and void, Defendant No. 2 could not convey any title to Defendant No. 1. The entire derivative chain therefore had to fail.
They also argued that the disputed Agreements to Sell and GPAs were unregistered and therefore incapable, independently, of transferring title to immovable property.
Regarding the 2024 transaction, the plaintiffs submitted that Defendant No. 1’s sale to his wife was executed in blatant violation of the subsisting 3 February 2020 restraint order and therefore had to be treated as non-est and void.
Respondents’ Arguments
The judgment records no substantive defence on merits from the defendants at the final stage.
Defendant No. 1’s right to file a written statement had been closed after expiry of the statutory period. Defendant No. 2 did not file a written statement and was proceeded ex parte.
Despite opportunities, none of the three witnesses produced by the plaintiffs was cross-examined.
Likewise, Defendant No. 1 did not appear in the contempt proceedings despite service and even failed to comply with a direction requiring his personal presence.
Accordingly, the Court decided the controversy on the basis of the plaintiffs’ evidence and the applicable law.
Analysis of the Law
1. Fraud and Forgery Must Be Proved Even in an Undefended Suit
An important aspect of the case is that the plaintiffs did not automatically succeed merely because the defendants failed to file written statements.
The Court had earlier rejected the plaintiffs’ Order VIII Rule 10 CPC application, holding that allegations of fraud and forgery require proof. The burden rests upon the person alleging forgery, which may be discharged through appropriate oral and documentary evidence or expert evidence depending upon the circumstances.
The plaintiffs thereafter led the necessary evidence.
2. Passport Records Established Impossibility of Execution
The passport evidence was decisive.
Plaintiff No. 1’s passport showed that he entered Germany on 12 November 2006 and left on 18 November 2006. Thus, he was in Germany on 13 November.
Plaintiff No. 2’s passport established that she was in Kuwait between 21 July and 23 December 2006.
Consequently, both were outside India when the disputed documents were supposedly executed in Delhi on 13 November 2006.
The Court therefore held the Agreement to Sell, GPA and related documents purportedly executed on that date to be manifestly forged and fabricated.
3. Effect of Failure to Cross-Examine
The Court attached considerable significance to the defendants’ failure to cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses.
Relying upon Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana, (2016) 12 SCC 288, the Court reiterated that a party must put its competing version to a witness in cross-examination.
Where material testimony is left unchallenged, the Court may treat that testimony as having been accepted.
Here, the plaintiffs’ documentary and oral evidence remained entirely uncontroverted and was therefore accepted by the Court.
4. Plaintiffs’ Registered Conveyance Established Title
The plaintiffs had a registered Conveyance Deed dated 13 July 2006 executed by the DDA.
The Court held that this established their title and found nothing on record casting any doubt upon their ownership.
The plaintiffs also continued to possess the original title documents, further reinforcing their case.
5. Agreement to Sell and GPA Do Not Transfer Ownership
The disputed documents relied upon by the defendants were merely unregistered Agreements to Sell, GPAs and related documents.
Applying Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (II) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656, the Court reiterated that immovable property is legally transferred through a registered conveyance, and GPA/Agreement to Sell transactions do not themselves convey ownership or create title.
Thus, even apart from the finding of forgery, the defendants’ documents could not displace the plaintiffs’ registered title.
6. Forged Transaction Is Void From the Beginning
The Court relied upon Dhurandar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 534.
Once a document alleged to be fraudulent or fabricated is proved to be forged and a declaration is made accordingly, the transaction becomes void from its inception.
Accordingly, the 13 November 2006 transaction in favour of Defendant No. 2 was void ab initio.
Defendant No. 2 therefore acquired no title capable of being transferred onward.
Consequently, the Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 28 May 2007 executed by Defendant No. 2 in favour of Defendant No. 1 were equally void and without authority.
7. Sale Executed in Violation of Injunction Is Non-Existent
The second major legal principle concerned Defendant No. 1’s subsequent sale of the property to his wife.
The Court had expressly restrained the defendants on 3 February 2020 from alienating, encumbering or creating third-party rights in the property. That order had never been vacated or modified.
Despite this, Defendant No. 1 executed the sale deed dated 12 August 2024.
The High Court held that the law concerning alienation in the teeth of a judicial restraint was settled: a sale of immovable property executed in violation of a court order must be treated as non-existent.
The 2024 sale deed was therefore declared non-est and void and incapable of conferring any right, title or interest upon Defendant No. 1’s wife.
Precedent Analysis
Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana, (2016) 12 SCC 288
Applied for the proposition that cross-examination is substantive: where a party fails to put its competing case to a witness, the Court may presume that the witness’s account has been accepted.
This supported acceptance of the plaintiffs’ unchallenged testimony concerning forgery and title.
Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (II) v. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656
Applied to reiterate that GPA sales and Agreement to Sell/GPA arrangements do not convey title to immovable property. A lawful transfer requires a registered conveyance.
Dhurandar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 534
Applied to hold that once a document is judicially established to be forged and fabricated, the underlying transaction becomes void from the beginning.
This meant Defendant No. 2 acquired no title and therefore could convey none to Defendant No. 1.
Sonu Bhati v. Archana Jain, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 270
The Delhi High Court relied upon this Division Bench judgment for the proposition that a transfer of immovable property undertaken in violation of a subsisting court order must be treated as non-existent.
Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, (2023) 17 SCC 545
The precedent recognised the power of a contempt court not merely to punish disobedience but also to neutralise the benefit obtained through contemptuous conduct, including by reversing or declaring offending transactions void.
DDA v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 622
The Supreme Court principle applied was that a contemnor should not be permitted to retain the fruits of contempt. The legal consequences of acts committed in violation of an injunction can be undone so as to restore the position existing before the violation.
Vidur Impex & Traders (P) Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd., (2012) 8 SCC 384
This authority was relied upon for the proposition that sale transactions carried out in the teeth of an injunction lack legal foundation and cannot be allowed to defeat the court’s existing restraint.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found the plaintiffs’ evidence compelling on multiple independent grounds.
First, their title stood supported by a valid registered DDA Conveyance Deed dated 13 July 2006.
Second, their passports objectively demonstrated that neither plaintiff was in India on 13 November 2006. Documents supposedly executed by them personally in Delhi on that date were therefore manifestly forged.
Third, the defendants neither produced a credible alternative explanation nor cross-examined the plaintiffs’ witnesses. There was also no evidence of any consideration having been paid by Defendant No. 2 to the plaintiffs.
Fourth, the disputed Agreement to Sell/GPA documents were independently incapable of transferring ownership because they were not registered conveyances.
Fifth, because Defendant No. 2 acquired no title under the forged 2006 documents, his purported transfer to Defendant No. 1 in 2007 necessarily failed.
Finally, Defendant No. 1’s subsequent attempt to sell the property to his wife during the pendency of the express restraint order could not be permitted to create rights. The Court held that the 2024 sale was executed in direct and wilful defiance of the injunction and therefore had to be treated as non-est and void.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit with costs in favour of the plaintiffs.
It:
- declared the Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 13 November 2006, allegedly executed by the plaintiffs in favour of Defendant No. 2, null and void;
- declared the Agreement to Sell and GPA dated 28 May 2007, executed by Defendant No. 2 in favour of Defendant No. 1, null and void; and
- permanently restrained the defendants and persons claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession of the property.
Separately, the Court declared Defendant No. 1’s 12 August 2024 sale deed in favour of his wife non-est and void, holding that it conferred no right, title or interest upon her. The Court observed that Defendant No. 1’s conduct prima facie appeared contemptuous, but since the plaintiffs did not press the contempt petition further after obtaining the substantive relief, the Court put a quietus to the matter and disposed of the contempt proceedings.
Case Details
Case: Pawan Chaudhry & Anr. v. Nimesh Jain & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: CS(OS) 44/2020 with connected IAs and CCP(O) 132/2025
Judge: Justice Vikas Mahajan
Date: 12 August 2026
Result: Suit decreed with costs; plaintiffs declared lawful owners; forged 2006 and derivative 2007 transactions declared null and void; permanent injunction granted; 2024 sale deed executed in favour of Defendant No. 1’s wife during subsisting restraint order declared non-est and void
