IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) RSA No.5326 of 2019 (O&M) Suraj Pal . . . Appellant vs. Karishma Floricultures Limited and others . . . . Respondents (ii) RSA No.5336 of 2019 (O&M) Dev Bhushan Gupta . . . Appellant vs. Sat Narayan Bansal and others . . . . Respondents * * ** (iii) RSA No.5337 of 2019 (O&M) Suraj Pal . . . Appellant vs. Sat Narayan Bansal and others . . . . Respondents * * ** (iv) RSA No.5338 of 2019 (O&M) Dev Bhushan Gupta . . . Appellant vs. Karishma Floricultures Limited and others . . . . Respondents * * ** (v) COCP No.1945 of 2025 (O&M) Bimla Jain . . . Pe99oner vs. Sat Narayan Bansal and another . . . . Respondents * * ** (vi) COCP No.265 of 2025 (O&M) Prabhat Kumar and another . . . Pe99oners vs. Sat Narayan Bansal and others . . . . Respondents * * ** SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) Reserved on: August 11, 2026 Pronounced on: September 02, 2026 Pronounced fully/opera9ve part : Fully * * * * CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued By:- Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Da#a, Mr. S.K. Tiwani and Mr. Shubham Goyal, Assis&ng counsels for the appellant(s) in RSA No.5336 & 5338 of 2019. Mr. Aashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Varun Aryan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s) in RSA Nos.5326 & 5337 of 2019. Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Aeshna Jain, Advocate, for the applicant in CM-5129-C-2022 in RSA-5336-2019. Mr. Suvir Sidhu and Mr. Mandeep Singla, Advocates, for the applicant in CM-396-C-2020 in RSA-5336-2019. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Pundir and Mr. Lokesh Bhola, Advocates for the applicant(s) in CM-2827-C-2021 in RSA-5338-2019, CM-2828-C-2021 in RSA-5336-2019, CM-2833-C-2021 in RSA- 5337-2019, CM-2839-C-2021 in RSA-5326-2019 and for pe&&oner(s) in COCP-265-2025. Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bhavya Vats, Advocate for the pe&&oner(s) in COCP No.1945 of 2025. for the applicant in CMs.2875 & 2881-2020. Mr. Rupinder Singh Khosla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aman Sharma, Chirag Suri, Yogendar Verma, Mankreet Sangar, Mr.Aryan Katoch, Mr.Sandeep Sharma and Mr. Sartej Singh Sudan, Assis&ng counsels for the respondent(s). Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocates for the respondent(s) in RSA No.5326, 5336, 5337 & 5338 of 2019. Mr. Rakesh Dhiman and Mr. Kamaljeet Dahiya, Advocates, for the respondent (in CM-10490-C-2026 in RSA-5336-2019). Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aruindpal Singh Grover, Advocate for the applicant in CM No.2881-C of 2020 in RSA-5336-2019. Mr. Kamaljeet Dahiya, Advocate for the applicant in SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) CM-10490-C-2026 in RSA-5336-2019. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Introduc on: This common judgment shall dispose of four Regular Second Appeals, two contempt pe&&ons and the connected miscellaneous applica&ons ﬁled during pendency of the appeals. Since all the proceedings arise out of the same li&ga&on and concern overlapping ques&ons rela&ng to the &tle to and possession of the same property, they are being considered together. The applica&ons concerning impleadment, subsequent transac&ons and withdrawal/ compromise shall be dealt with separately at the appropriate stage. Background Facts : 2. The li&ga&on has its origin in Civil Suit No.308 of 1990, ins&tuted ini&ally by plain&ﬀ No.1-Dev Bhushan Gupta against defendants No.1 to 5. The scope of suit was subsequently enlarged, during its pendency, by impleadment of defendants No.6 and 7 and, aBer restora&on of the ex parte decree, by impleadment of plain&ﬀ Nos.2 to 5 and defendant No.8. Thus, by the &me the suit was ﬁnally adjudicated aBer due contest, there were ﬁve plain&ﬀs and eight defendants. 3. The suit was one for declara&on with consequen&al relief of permanent injunc&on in respect of the land described in paragraphs 1 (a) and 1(b) of the plaint. The major controversy was whether plain&ﬀ No.1-Dev Bhushan Gupta had executed a General Power of A#orney dated 26.07.1990 in favour of defendant No.1-Devender Kumar Vashisht and, if so, whether the ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 on the strength of the said GPA were valid and binding upon the plain&ﬀ. Plain ﬀ’s Case: 4. The case of plain&ﬀ No.1 was that he had acquired &tle to the suit property through registered sale deeds dated 30.01.1989, followed by muta&ons Nos.396 and 397 sanc&oned on 23.02.1989. According to him, he SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) never executed any General Power of A#orney in favour of defendant No.1. His case further was that he came to know that an a#empt was being made to fabricate or misuse a GPA in his name and, accordingly, he approached the registra&on authori&es by telegrams and wri#en communica&ons before the subsequent sale transac&ons were registered. Despite those objec&ons, a GPA dated 05.07.1990, shown as registered on 26.07.1990, came to be relied upon by defendant No.1 for execu&on of ﬁve sale deeds, all dated 28.07.1990, in favour of defendants No.2 to 4. 5. Plain&ﬀ No.1 accordingly challenged the GPA as forged, fabricated and unauthorised and consequen&ally assailed the ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990 as null, void, illegal and not binding upon his rights. The subsequent transac&ons made by defendants No.2 to 4 in favour of defendants No.6 and 7 were also brought within the challenge. Stand of Defendants: 6.1 Defendants No.1 and 5 did not contest the suit and were proceeded against ex parte. 6.2 Defendants No.2 to 4 contested the suit and claimed themselves to be bona ﬁde purchasers. 6.3 Defendants No.6 and 7, who subsequently became the principal contestants, denied the allega&ons and supported the validity of the GPA and the transac&ons ﬂowing therefrom. Proceedings before Courts below: 7. The procedural history of the suit is somewhat unusual. ABer defendants No.6 and 7 had ini&ally been proceeded ex parte, an ex parte decree came to be passed on 12.04.1999. On an applica&on moved by defendants No.6 and 7, the said ex parte decree was subsequently set aside and the suit was restored for adjudica&on on merits. In the restored proceedings, plain&ﬀ Nos.2 to 5 were impleaded on the basis of transac&ons, through which they claimed &tle from plain&ﬀ No.1 or his subsequent SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) vendee, while defendant No.8-IDBI Bank was impleaded on the ground that defendant No.6 had mortgaged the property with the Bank. 8. The Trial Court, aBer recording evidence of the par&es and considering the documentary material, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 07.01.2013. The Trial Court accepted the plain&ﬀ's challenge to the GPA and consequently held the sale transac&ons founded thereon to be ineﬀec&ve against the rights claimed by the plain&ﬀs. 9. Two appeals came to be preferred against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, one by defendant No.6-Sat Narayan Bansal and the other by defendant No.7-Karishma Floriculture Limited. 10. The learned First Appellate Court, vide common judgment dated 18.09.2019, allowed both appeals and reversed the decree of the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court accepted the GPA as genuine and consequently upheld the transac&ons ﬂowing therefrom, resul&ng in dismissal of the suit. 11. It is against the aforesaid reversal that the present four Regular Second Appeals have been preferred. Two appeals have been ﬁled by plain&ﬀ No.1-Dev Bhushan Gupta, and two by plain&ﬀ No.5-Suraj Pal. 12. Since all four appeals arise from the same common judgment and involve substan&ally overlapping ques&ons concerning the &tle to the suit property besides the validity of the GPA and the transac&ons emana&ng therefrom, they are being decided together. Subsequent developments: 13. The li&ga&on, however, did not end with the ﬁling of the present appeals. During their pendency, several transac&ons concerning diﬀerent por&ons of the suit property were brought to the no&ce of this Court. This Court, vide order dated 04.12.2019, directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the suit property. 14. Despite pendency of the appeals and the aforesaid interim order, further transac&ons have been placed on record, resul&ng in several SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) applica&ons for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 and/or Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, besides applica&ons for taking subsequent compromises on record and applica&ons seeking withdrawal of the appeals. 15. One set of applicants claim through plain&ﬀ No.1-Dev Bhushan Gupta and the subsequent vendees deriving &tle through him; whereas another set claims through defendant No.6-Sat Narayan Bansal and persons deriving &tle from him. The respec&ve claims of these applicants cannot be examined in isola&on from the result of the present appeals because the validity of the compe&ng chains of &tle ul&mately will depend on the ﬁnding to the ques&on as to whether the GPA relied upon by defendant No.1 was validly executed by Dev Bhushan Gupta. 16. During pendency of the appeals, plain&ﬀ No.1-Dev Bhushan Gupta also moved applica&ons seeking withdrawal of his appeals on the basis of subsequent se#lements. Plain&ﬀ No.5-Suraj Pal similarly sought withdrawal of his appeals on the basis of se#lements stated to have been entered into with persons represen&ng the opposite chain of &tle. These applica&ons have been opposed by various applicants claiming that their interests would be prejudiced if the appeals are permi#ed to be withdrawn without considera&on of their asserted rights. 17. The Court has before it, therefore, two dis&nct but interconnected aspects. The ﬁrst concerns the rights of persons, who claim to have acquired interests in the suit property during pendency of the li&ga&on. The second concerns the substan&ve adjudica&on of the four appeals, in which the central issue remains the validity and genuineness of the GPA. 18. The subsequent applica&ons shall be considered separately. At this stage, it is suﬃcient to observe that the pendency of such applica&ons and the subsequent transac&ons do not alter the original controversy, which this Court is required to determine in the four Regular Second Appeals. Rival cases on the main controversy: SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 19. The case of plain&ﬀ No.1, in substance, is that he remained the owner of the suit property; that he never authorised defendant No.1 to alienate the same; that the GPA dated 05.07.1990 was not executed by him; and that the ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990 were consequently executed without authority and could not aﬀect his &tle. The plain&ﬀ relies, inter alia, upon the disputed signatures appearing on the GPA, the opinions of the handwri&ng expert, the telegrams and no&ces preceding the sale transac&ons, and his prompt ins&tu&on of the suit aBer coming to know of the aliena&ons. 20. The contes&ng defendants, on the other hand, maintain that the plain&ﬀ had been dealing in property along with defendant No.1; that nego&a&ons for sale of the property were in progress; that an amount of ₹3,50,000/- was paid to the plain&ﬀ; that the GPA was voluntarily executed by him; that it was thereaBer duly registered; and that defendant No.1 acted within the authority conferred upon him while execu&ng the ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990. They further rely upon the tes&mony of the a#es&ng witness and the Sub-Registrar, the presence of several signatures of the plain&ﬀ on the GPA and the subsequent possession of the original &tle documents by the purchasers. 21. The controversy is complicated by the handwri&ng evidence. The plain&ﬀ's expert ques&oned the genuineness of the signatures on GPA relied upon by the defendants, whereas the defence expert accepted several signatures appearing on the GPA as those of Dev Bhushan but also opined that Q6/D1 were not his signatures and had been subsequently inserted. Thus, the eviden&ary ques&on is not capable of being answered merely by saying that the en&re GPA is either wholly genuine or wholly forged. The Court is required to determine what inference, if any, follows from the conﬂic&ng expert evidence when considered with the remaining evidence. Substan al ques on of law and scope of interference 22. Since the present proceedings arise under Sec&on 100 CPC, this Court cannot convert the second appeal into a third round of apprecia&on of SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) evidence merely because another view of the evidence may be possible. The First Appellate Court is the ﬁnal Court on facts and its conclusion is ordinarily en&tled to acceptance. Interference is jus&ﬁed, where the ﬁnding is vi&ated by a substan&al error of law, perversity, considera&on of irrelevant material, exclusion of material evidence, or where the evidence taken as a whole is incapable of reasonably suppor&ng the conclusion reached. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that perversity in a ﬁnding of fact may itself furnish a substan&al ques&on of law, but has equally cau&oned that the High Court cannot subs&tute its own apprecia&on merely because it may prefer another view. Reliance can be placed on Hero Vinoth (minor) v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545; Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali, (2010) 12 SCC 740; and Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan, (2010) 11 SCC 483. 23. In the present case, the ques&on is therefore not whether this Court, if siNng as the ﬁrst appellate Court, might have reached a diﬀerent conclusion. The ques&on is whether the conclusion reached by the learned First Appellate Court that the GPA was genuinely executed by Dev Bhushan, is legally sustainable on the evidence, and whether the reasoning adopted in support thereof suﬀers from such inﬁrmity as would warrant interference under Sec&on 100 CPC. Standard of Proof: 24. The ﬁrst aspect requiring considera&on is the standard on which the allega&on that the GPA is forged and fabricated has to be examined. The learned First Appellate Court, while dealing with the allega&on of fraud and forgery, appears to have proceeded on the premise that such allega&on was required to be established beyond reasonable doubt. That proposi&on, insofar as it equates the standard in the present civil proceedings with the standard applicable to a criminal prosecu&on, cannot be accepted. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ra:an Singh and others v. Nirmal Gill and others, 2021 (15) SCC 300, while dealing with a challenge to a General Power of A#orney of the year 1990 on the allega&on of fraud and forgery, reiterated that the standard of proof in a civil dispute is SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) preponderance of probabili&es and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court, while considering discrepancies in the disputed GPA, assessed the evidence of the a#es&ng witness, scribe and other witnesses cumula&vely and held that the surrounding evidence had to be seen as a whole. 26. The seriousness of an allega&on of fraud or forgery undoubtedly calls for careful scru&ny and cogent evidence; but the civil standard remains that of preponderance of probabili&es. The gravity of the allega&on does not, by itself, convert the civil standard into the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 27. The burden, therefore, ini&ally lay upon plain&ﬀ No.1, who asserted that he had never executed the GPA and that the document relied upon by the defendants was fabricated in his name. The ques&on before this Court is whether, on considera&on of the en&re evidence, that asser&on is more probable than the defence version that the GPA was voluntarily executed by him. 28. The Court is conscious that the document in ques&on is not an isolated piece of paper produced for the ﬁrst &me during the li&ga&on. It bears a speciﬁc date of execu&on, was registered shortly thereaBer, was acted upon by defendant No.1 through the ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990, and was followed by subsequent transac&ons in respect of the property. Each of these circumstances has to be examined, without trea&ng any one of them as conclusive. Handwri ng expert evidence: 29. Considerable emphasis has been placed by both sides upon the handwri&ng evidence. Plain&ﬀ's expert ques&oned the genuineness of the signatures relied upon by the defendants. The defendant’s expert, on the other hand, accepted several signatures appearing on the GPA as genuine signatures of Dev Bhushan, though he opined that Q6/D1 were not his signatures and had subsequently been inserted. Page 9 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 30. Thus, the expert evidence does not present a simple situa&on in which one expert says that the en&re document bears forged signatures and the other says that every signature is genuine. The defence expert himself has accepted the possibility of interpola&on in respect of Q6/D1. That circumstance has to be given its due weight. 31. At the same &me, expert opinion regarding handwri&ng is only opinion evidence and is not conclusive by itself. The reason for requiring cau&on is also inherent in the nature of handwri&ng comparison. Unlike iden&ﬁca&on through ﬁngerprints or thumb impressions, where the iden&fying characteris&cs are highly dis&nc&ve and the science of comparison has a#ained a very high degree of reliability, handwri&ng is a product of human movement and may vary depending upon the age, health, physical condi&on, wri&ng instrument, speed, pressure, circumstances and other factors a#ending the act of wri&ng. Consequently, even an expert opinion based upon comparison of admi#ed and disputed signatures is not infallible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1980) 1 SCC 704, while explaining the dis&nc&on, observed that the science of iden&ﬁca&on of ﬁngerprints had a#ained near-perfec&on, whereas iden&ﬁca&on of handwri&ng was not equally perfect and therefore carried a higher risk of error. The Court consequently held that the reasons suppor&ng the expert's opinion must be carefully examined and the opinion assessed in the light of the other evidence on record. 32. This dis&nc&on assumes par&cular implica&on in the present case because the Court is confronted with conﬂic&ng opinions of two handwri&ng experts. The Court is not required to choose between the two opinions merely by coun&ng the number of signatures found to be similar or dissimilar. What is required is to examine the reasons forming the basis of each opinion and then test those opinions against the proved and admi#ed circumstances. As explained in Murari Lal’s Case (supra), an expert deposes but does not decide; the ul&mate determina&on remains that of the Court aBer considering the expert's reasoning together with the other evidence. Page 10 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 33. The circumstance that several signatures appearing on the GPA have been found to be genuine is therefore of considerable signiﬁcance. It cannot be treated as equivalent to a ﬁngerprint match, nor does it by itself conclusively establish execu&on of the document. But it is also not a circumstance, which can be brushed aside. The Court has to consider what probability arises, when those genuine signatures are viewed alongside the disputed signature, the registra&on of the document, the admi#ed nego&a&ons between the par&es, the receipt of ₹3,50,000/-, the evidence concerning custody of the original &tle documents and the subsequent conduct of the par&es. 34. The eviden&ary value of the expert opinions, therefore, lies not in their mere existence but in the extent to which they ﬁt with the proved and admi#ed circumstances of the case. 35. In the present case, ﬁve signatures appearing on the document have been found by the defendant’s expert to be genuine signatures of Dev Bhushan. That circumstance cannot be treated as insigniﬁcant. If the plain&ﬀ's case is that he never executed the GPA at all, the existence of several admi#ed or otherwise established genuine signatures of his on the same instrument requires an explana&on. 36. It is true that a person may have signed blank papers or may have signed a document without understanding its contents. But that was not the speciﬁc case pleaded by Dev Bhushan. His case was substan&ally one of complete non-execu&on of the GPA. 37. Once several signatures are found to be genuine, the Court cannot simply assume that the document was fabricated in its en&rety. Nor would it be appropriate to reason that because Q6/D1 are disputed, all the other genuine signatures must necessarily have been used fraudulently. 38. There is another aspect, which deserves no&ce. If the en&re GPA was fabricated by the defendants with the object of crea&ng a false appearance of authority, there would ordinarily be no apparent reason for SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) inser&ng a number of genuine signatures of Dev Bhushan and thereaBer deliberately introducing only one disputed signature so as to create an instrument capable of being acted upon. The presence of the genuine signatures therefore cons&tutes a circumstance suppor&ng the existence of an underlying genuine dealing, though it cannot by itself establish the precise manner in which the document came to be completed. 39. The possibility that Q6/D1 were subsequently inserted, therefore, cannot be equated with proof that Dev Bhushan never executed the GPA. The former circumstance may create doubt about the manner of comple&on of the document; it does not necessarily destroy the la#er. 40. If the plain&ﬀ had never executed the GPA, the presence of several genuine signatures of his on the same instrument becomes a circumstance requiring a cogent explana&on. The disputed signature may cast doubt upon the manner in which that par&cular por&on of the document came to be incorporated, but it does not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the en&re instrument was fabricated. The Court must, therefore, dis&nguish between a possible irregularity or interpola&on in one part of the document and the much broader allega&on that the GPA itself was never executed by the plain&ﬀ. 41. The Court accordingly treats Q6/D1 as a circumstance crea&ng suspicion, but not as a circumstance which is conclusive of the plain&ﬀ's plea of total non-execu&on. Registra on of the GPA: 42. The GPA was stated to have been executed on 05.07.1990 and registered on 26.07.1990. The registra&on assumes signiﬁcance because the document was presented before a statutory registra&on authority contemporaneously with the transac&on. 43. Registra&on by itself does not make a forged document genuine. A registered document can undoubtedly be challenged and its execu&on can be disproved by appropriate evidence. At the same &me, registra&on is a SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) relevant circumstance in assessing whether the document relied upon by the defendants was merely a subsequently fabricated instrument. 44. The evidence of the registra&on oﬃcial shows that the instrument was presented and registered in the ordinary course. The fact that iden&ﬁca&on may have been undertaken through iden&fying witnesses rather than by an independent veriﬁca&on of the executant does not render the registra&on meaningless. It merely limits the extent to which the registra&on evidence can independently establish iden&ty. 45. Thus, the registra&on evidence cannot be treated as conclusive proof of execu&on; but neither can it be excluded from considera&on while assessing the probability of the rival versions. A:es ng witness and other witnesses: 46. The defendants also rely upon the tes&mony of DW8-Hemant Vashisht, an a#es&ng witness to the GPA. He speciﬁcally deposed that Dev Bhushan had executed the GPA in favour of defendant No.1 and that he had a#ested the document. The plain&ﬀ has seriously ques&oned the credibility of this witness on the ground that he is the real brother of defendant No.1. The rela&onship is undoubtedly a circumstance, which requires the Court to examine his tes&mony with cau&on. It does not, however, cons&tute a legal ground for discarding his evidence altogether. 47. The fact that the witness was related to defendant No.1 was within the knowledge of the plain&ﬀ. The plain&ﬀ had full opportunity to cross-examine him on the circumstances, in which the GPA was allegedly executed and a#ested and to bring on record material, if available, indica&ng that his asser&on regarding the execu&on of the GPA was false. The mere fact that the witness was a close rela&ve of defendant No.1 cannot, therefore, be treated as suﬃcient cause to reject his tes&mony. Rela&onship is a circumstance relevant to the apprecia&on of evidence, but not by itself a ground for discarding otherwise admissible tes&mony. Page 13 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 48. More importantly, the evidence of DW8 does not stand alone. His tes&mony has to be considered along with the contemporaneous registra&on of the GPA, the evidence of the Sub-Registrar, the presence of several signatures of Dev Bhushan, which the defendant’s expert found to be genuine, the admi#ed nego&a&ons and receipt of ₹3,50,000/-, and the circumstances concerning the original &tle documents. The ques&on, therefore, is not whether DW8 can be regarded as an en&rely independent witness, but whether his tes&mony, when tested against the other evidence on record, adds probability to the defendants' version. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ra:an Singh’s Case (supra) cau&oned against discarding the evidence of a witness merely because he was acquainted with the party, whose case he supported, where his tes&mony was otherwise consistent with the surrounding evidence. 49. The plain&ﬀ has also relied upon the opinion of his handwri&ng expert and the evidence concerning Q6/D1 to contend that the statement of DW8 that Dev Bhushan signed the GPA in his presence cannot be accepted. That circumstance certainly aﬀects the weight of his tes&mony. But the Court must be cau&ous not to reason backwards from the disputed signature to the complete rejec&on of the witness's evidence. The expert opinion itself has to be evaluated along with the other circumstances, and the ul&mate ques&on remains whether the plain&ﬀ has established that he never executed the GPA at all. Telegram and no ces issued by Dev Bhushan: 50. The plain&ﬀ has relied strongly upon the telegrams and wri#en communica&ons sent by him in July 1990, before registra&on of the GPA, reques&ng the authori&es not to register any sale deed through an alleged a#orney. 51. This is undoubtedly a noteworthy circumstance in favour of the plain&ﬀ. A person who apprehends misuse of a power of a#orney in his name would ordinarily be expected to alert the registra&on authori&es. The Court cannot, however, stop the enquiry at this point. The existence of the SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) telegrams establishes that Dev Bhushan had, by that &me, developed apprehension concerning an alleged GPA or its possible misuse. It does not by itself establish that no GPA had been executed by him on 05.07.1990. 52. The chronology is important. The GPA bears the date 05.07.1990; the plain&ﬀ's ﬁrst telegram was sent on 07.07.1990; the GPA was registered on 26.07.1990; the ﬁve sale deeds were executed on 28.07.1990; and the suit was ins&tuted on 03.08.1990. 53. The plain&ﬀ's prompt ins&tu&on of the suit is wholly consistent with his case that he objected to the transac&ons immediately upon learning of them. It is not, by itself, evidence that he had an&cipated the execu&on of the sale deeds. At the same &me, the telegrams do not answer the anterior ques&on whether the GPA had actually been executed two days before the ﬁrst telegram. They are therefore an important circumstance, but not a decisive one. Admi:ed nego a ons and receipt of ₹3,50,000/-: 54. A further circumstance, which requires par&cular considera&on is the admi#ed receipt of ₹3,50,000/- by Dev Bhushan. The amount was not disclosed by him in the plaint and came to light during his cross-examina&on, when the defendants confronted him with their case. Dev Bhushan admi#ed receipt of the amount, but explained that it had been received during nego&a&ons and bargaining and that the nego&a&ons ul&mately did not culminate in a concluded transac&on. 55. The mere receipt of money during nego&a&ons cannot, by itself, establish that a concluded transac&on had taken place. Par&es may exchange money by way of advance, earnest money or otherwise even while nego&a&ons are con&nuing. The explana&on oﬀered by Dev Bhushan is, therefore, not inherently impossible. However, once receipt of such a substan&al amount is admi#ed, his subsequent conduct assumes signiﬁcance. If the nego&a&ons had failed and there was no concluded transac&on, the Court would reasonably expect some explana&on as to what happened to the amount thereaBer and, in par&cular, why the money was SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) retained instead of being promptly returned to the person from whom it had been received. No sa&sfactory explana&on in this regard emerges from the evidence. 56. The omission to disclose the receipt of ₹3,50,000/- in the plaint is also not an irrelevant circumstance. The plain&ﬀ was himself asser&ng that there had been no genuine transac&on or dealing, which could have led to the disputed GPA and sale deeds. In that background, the existence of a substan&al monetary transac&on between him and persons connected with the subsequent conveyances was a material fact. Its disclosure only when speciﬁcally confronted in cross-examina&on aﬀects the weight of the explana&on subsequently oﬀered by him. 57. At the same &me, this circumstance cannot be elevated into proof that the GPA was necessarily executed or that the disputed sale transac&ons were concluded pursuant to a prior bargain. Its proper signiﬁcance is narrower but important, as it establishes that there were real ﬁnancial dealings and nego&a&ons concerning the very property between Dev Bhushan and persons connected with the subsequent transac&ons. 58. When this circumstance is considered cumula&vely with the other evidence, it makes the defendants' version of some genuine underlying dealings more probable than a case of a wholly fabricated transac&on having no connec&on whatsoever with Dev Bhushan. This circumstance materially weakens the theory that the en&re transac&on was fabricated without any genuine dealing between the par&es. Original tle deeds and Ex.D12 59. The circumstance concerning sale deed Ex.D12 deserves separate and detailed considera&on because it relates to the very root of &tle. This original registered sale deed, through which Dev Bhushan had acquired ownership of the suit property ul&mately came to be produced from the custody of persons claiming through the disputed GPA and the subsequent transac&ons. An original &tle deed rela&ng to valuable immovable property is not ordinarily expected to come into the possession of SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) a stranger without some underlying transac&on or explana&on. Its custody, therefore, is a circumstance of considerable eviden&ary signiﬁcance. 60. The learned Trial Court viewed this circumstance with suspicion, par&cularly with regard to the manner in which the document came to be produced and the explana&on oﬀered by the defendants regarding its custody. That aspect cannot be brushed aside. At the same &me, while apprecia&ng this circumstance, the Court has to consider not merely whether the defendants have explained every detail concerning the custody of Ex.D12, but also whether the plain&ﬀ's own explana&on as to how his original &tle deed leB his possession and ul&mately came into the hands of persons claiming under the disputed transac&on is sa&sfactory. 61. Dev Bhushan explained that the documents had been misplaced while he was staying at the house of the sister of defendant No.1. The explana&on is not inherently impossible. Documents can undoubtedly be misplaced or lost. However, the document in ques&on was the original &tle deed of valuable immovable property. In such circumstances, the Court would ordinarily expect some contemporaneous conduct indica&ng that the plain&ﬀ had no&ced its disappearance and had taken steps for its recovery or had reported its loss. 62. No contemporaneous police report, DDR, public no&ce or other independent material has been brought on record to show that the plain&ﬀ had treated the disappearance of the original &tle deed as an event requiring immediate ac&on. More importantly, there is no sa&sfactory evidence explaining when the plain&ﬀ discovered that the original &tle deed was no longer in his possession, what steps he took thereaBer to recover it, or how it ul&mately came to be traced to persons claiming through the disputed transac&on. The explana&on, therefore, remains essen&ally an asser&on made in the course of the li&ga&on and is not supported by contemporaneous conduct. 63. The implica&on of this circumstance becomes greater, when the nature of the compe&ng cases is kept in view. The defendants' case is that SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) the original &tle documents formed part of the chain of transac&ons pursuant to which the property was dealt with and thereaBer remained with the purchasers. If that version is accepted, the presence of the original &tle deed with persons claiming through the transac&ons is readily understandable. If, on the other hand, the plain&ﬀ's case that he never executed the GPA and that the en&re transac&on was fabricated is accepted, the presence of his original &tle deed with the persons claiming under that very transac&on requires a further explana&on. 64. The Court is conscious that custody of an original &tle deed cannot, by itself, establish execu&on of the GPA or validate an otherwise forged transac&on. Equally, the mere fact that the defendants were found in possession of the original document cannot conclusively establish that the plain&ﬀ voluntarily delivered it to them. The circumstance is therefore not being treated as conclusive. Its consequence lies in its corrobora&ve value while tes&ng the compe&ng versions on the standard of preponderance of probabili&es. 65. In this context, the absence of contemporaneous evidence regarding the alleged loss of the original &tle deed assumes importance. The plain&ﬀ took the posi&on that he had an&cipated misuse of the alleged GPA and, according to his own case, took several precau&ons by sending telegrams and no&ces to the registra&on authori&es. Yet, when the original &tle deed itself was allegedly lost or misplaced, there is no corresponding contemporaneous record of his having reported or otherwise acted upon such loss. This contrast in his conduct is a circumstance, which cannot be ignored. 66. When Ex.D12 is considered cumula&vely with the admi#ed nego&a&ons and receipt of ₹3,50,000/-, the several signatures of Dev Bhushan found to be genuine by the defendant’s expert, the contemporaneous registra&on of the GPA and the evidence surrounding its execu&on, the custody of the original &tle deed materially strengthens the defendants' version. It is not, by itself, proof of execu&on; but taken together SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) with these other circumstances, it makes the existence of a genuine underlying transac&on substan&ally more probable than the plain&ﬀ's version of a wholly fabricated transac&on in which he had no par&cipa&on whatsoever. Subsequent conduct and investment: 67. The defendants have also relied upon the subsequent possession, development, investment and mortgage of the property. 68. The subsequent conduct can neither retrospec&vely validate an instrument which was void from incep&on, nor can substan&al investment create &tle where none existed. Its eviden&ary implica&on is narrower. When compe&ng versions are being tested on the standard of preponderance of probabili&es, the conduct of par&es, who acted upon registered documents for years may cons&tute corrobora&ve evidence of the manner in which the par&es themselves understood the transac&on. 69. The fact that purchasers dealt with the property, obtained possession of original &tle documents, created mortgage rights and invested substan&al amounts is thus not being treated as proof of execu&on of the GPA. However, it is a circumstance, which ﬁts more naturally with the existence of a transac&on than with the theory that the en&re chain was fabricated without any genuine dealing. Cumula ve assessment of the evidence: 70. ABer considering the material circumstances relied upon by both sides individually, the ques&on before the court now is whether those circumstances, when placed together and viewed in their proper chronological and eviden&ary seNng, establish the plain&ﬀ's case that he never executed the GPA or, on the contrary, make the defendants' version that the GPA was genuinely executed by him the more probable one. Since the issue is one of fact to be determined on the civil standard of preponderance of probabili&es, the Court must assess the overall probability emerging from the en&re evidence, rather than a#aching decisive signiﬁcance to any isolated circumstance. Page 19 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 71. The plain&ﬀ's case is founded upon a speciﬁc and empha&c asser&on that he never executed the GPA dated 05.07.1990 and that the document relied upon by the defendants was a forged and fabricated instrument. The allega&on, therefore, is not merely that the document was subsequently misused, or that its terms were exceeded, or that some part of it was subsequently altered. The case set up by the plain&ﬀ is substan&ally one of complete non-execu&on. 72. The following are the circumstances relied upon by the plain&ﬀ in support of that case, which are not immaterial. He sent telegrams and no&ces to the concerned authori&es in July 1990; he objected to registra&on of any transac&on through an alleged a#orney; he ins&tuted the civil suit within a few days of the execu&on of the ﬁve sale deeds; he consistently denied execu&on of the GPA; and his handwri&ng expert disputed the genuineness of the signatures in ques&on. The opinion of the defendant’s expert regarding Q6/D1 also does not completely support the defendants, as that expert himself opined that the said signature was not that of Dev Bhushan. 73. These circumstances undoubtedly create suspicion and have, therefore, been given due considera&on. In par&cular, the telegrams preceding registra&on of the GPA cannot be brushed aside. A person, who apprehends misuse of an alleged power of a#orney would ordinarily be expected to take steps to alert the registra&on authori&es. Likewise, the prompt ins&tu&on of the suit is consistent with the plain&ﬀ having objected to the transac&ons at the earliest opportunity. 74. But the existence of the above circumstances does not, by itself, answer the anterior ques&on, as to whether Dev Bhushan had in fact SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) executed the GPA on 05.07.1990. The telegrams establish his apprehension and objec&on; the prompt suit establishes his subsequent challenge. Neither circumstance conclusively establishes that the GPA was never executed. The Court must, therefore, examine these circumstances against the evidence concerning what preceded and followed them. 75. The ﬁrst circumstance, which materially weighs with the Court is the admi#ed receipt of ₹3,50,000/- by Dev Bhushan. This was not a transac&on, which the defendants were required to establish solely through disputed documentary evidence. The plain&ﬀ himself admi#ed receipt of the amount, though he explained it as money received during nego&a&ons, which ul&mately failed. 76. The explana&on is possible and the Court does not treat the receipt of money as proof by itself of execu&on of the GPA. But two aspects of the plain&ﬀ's conduct assume signiﬁcance. Firstly, the receipt of such a substan&al amount was not disclosed in the plaint, despite the plain&ﬀ's case that there had been no genuine transac&on concerning the property. Secondly, if the nego&a&ons had failed and there was no concluded transac&on, the reten&on of the amount called for some explana&on. There is no sa&sfactory evidence showing its prompt return or explaining why the amount con&nued to remain with the plain&ﬀ. 77. The importance of this circumstance is not that reten&on of the money necessarily establishes a completed sale. It does not. Its implica&on is that it validates the existence of real and substan&al ﬁnancial dealings between Dev Bhushan and persons connected with the subsequent transac&ons. That circumstance sits uneasily with a theory that the en&re transac&on was fabricated by the defendants without any genuine underlying dealing with the plain&ﬀ. 78. The second and more important circumstance is the custody of the original &tle deed, Ex.D12. The original document through which Dev Bhushan had acquired &tle to the property ul&mately came into the possession of persons claiming through the disputed transac&on. The SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) plain&ﬀ's explana&on that the documents had been misplaced while he was staying at the house of the sister of defendant No.1 is possible, but it lacks contemporaneous corrobora&on. There is no sa&sfactory material showing when the document was discovered to be missing, what steps were taken for its recovery, or that its alleged loss was contemporaneously reported. 79. The signiﬁcance of Ex.D12 becomes apparent, when the rival theories are compared. If the plain&ﬀ's case of complete fabrica&on is accepted, the presence of his original &tle deed with persons claiming under the very transac&on alleged to be fabricated requires an addi&onal and convincing explana&on. If, on the other hand, the defendants' case of an actual transac&on is accepted, the presence of the original &tle document in the transac&on chain becomes readily understandable. The Court is not trea&ng custody of the original &tle deed as conclusive proof of the GPA; but as a circumstance in the cumula&ve assessment, it carries substan&al weight. 80. The third circumstance concerns the signatures appearing on the GPA. The defendant’s expert found several signatures of Dev Bhushan to be genuine. The plain&ﬀ's case of complete non-execu&on necessarily requires the Court to explain how several genuine signatures of Dev Bhushan came to appear on the same instrument. The possibility of subsequent inser&on or altera&on cannot be ruled out merely because one signature, Q6/D1, has been found disputed. But that possibility does not, without further evidence, establish that the en&re instrument was fabricated. 81. The dis&nc&on between Q6/D1 and the other signatures is therefore material. If one par&cular signature is found to be doubRul or subsequently introduced, the Court has to determine whether that circumstance destroys the en&re transac&on or merely raises a ques&on concerning that par&cular part of the document. In the present case, there is no suﬃcient evidence to establish that the existence of Q6/D1 necessarily means that all the other genuine signatures were procured or u&lised without the plain&ﬀ's knowledge. Page 22 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 82. The Court has also considered the tes&mony of DW8-Hemant Vashisht, the a#es&ng witness to the GPA. His rela&onship with defendant No.1 undoubtedly requires cau&on in apprecia&ng his tes&mony. But rela&onship is a circumstance aﬀec&ng weight and not an automa&c ground for rejec&on. His tes&mony has to be examined alongside the documentary and other independent circumstances. When so examined, it cannot be said that his evidence stands wholly isolated from the rest of the record. 83. The fact of registra&on of the GPA also assumes some signiﬁcance. Registra&on does not conclusively establish execu&on, and a registered document can undoubtedly be challenged on the ground of forgery. Nevertheless, the GPA was presented before the registra&on authority, was got registered on 26.07.1990 and was immediately acted upon by execu&on of ﬁve sale deeds on 28.07.1990. The registra&on evidence, therefore, cons&tutes a contemporaneous circumstance, which is more consistent with an instrument being treated as opera&ve at that &me than with a document fabricated much later for purposes of li&ga&on. 84. The plain&ﬀ's conduct aBer the transac&on, though suppor&ng his prompt challenge, also contains aspects, which require considera&on against him. He took several precau&ons by sending telegrams and no&ces to prevent registra&on through the alleged a#orney, yet there is no contemporaneous criminal complaint or other independent material showing that, aBer discovery of the alleged forgery and execu&on of the sale deeds, he treated the ma#er as one of forgery or impersona&on requiring immediate criminal ac&on. The prompt ﬁling of the civil suit is undoubtedly relevant; the absence of such contemporaneous ac&on is also a circumstance, which the Court is en&tled to weigh. Neither circumstance is conclusive by itself. 85. The Court has thus not approached the ma#er by asking whether the defendants have removed every suspicion arising from the plain&ﬀ's evidence. That would impose a standard higher than that required in a civil proceeding. The proper ques&on is whether, on the en&re evidence, SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) the plain&ﬀ has established his asser&on of complete non-execu&on, or whether the circumstances relied upon by the defendants make execu&on of the GPA the more probable explana&on. 86. On such cumula&ve assessment, the Court ﬁnds that the defendants' version, with following circumstances, carries greater probability. The admi#ed payment of ₹3,50,000/- establishes genuine ﬁnancial dealings; the plain&ﬀ's failure to disclose that material fact in the plaint and the absence of a sa&sfactory explana&on regarding its reten&on aﬀect the credibility of his subsequent explana&on; the presence of several genuine signatures of Dev Bhushan on the GPA materially weakens the theory of complete fabrica&on; the registra&on of the GPA and the evidence surrounding its a#esta&on provide contemporaneous support; and the custody of the original &tle deed, Ex.D12, is a par&cularly signiﬁcant circumstance, which the plain&ﬀ has not sa&sfactorily explained. These circumstances reinforce one another. 87. Against this cumula&ve body of evidence, stand the telegrams and no&ces issued by Dev Bhushan, his prompt ins&tu&on of the suit, his consistent denial of execu&on and the opinion concerning Q6/D1. These circumstances create genuine doubt and cannot be discarded. But the ques&on is not whether they create doubt in the abstract; the ques&on is whether they outweigh the cumula&ve probabili&es arising from the evidence suppor&ng execu&on. In the considered view of this Court, they do not. 88. The Court accordingly holds, on the preponderance of probabili&es, that Dev Bhushan executed the GPA dated 05.07.1990 in favour of defendant No.1, which was thereaBer registered on 26.07.1990. This SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) conclusion does not mean that every circumstance surrounding the document stands sa&sfactorily explained or that the possibility of altera&on of a par&cular por&on, including Q6/D1, has been conclusively eliminated. The Court is only recording that such circumstance, viewed in the context of the en&re evidence, is insuﬃcient to establish the much broader allega&on that Dev Bhushan never executed the GPA at all. 89. It is also necessary to clarify that the Court reaches this conclusion independently, and not merely because the First Appellate Court reached the same result. Certain observa&ons made by the First Appellate Court concerning the conduct of Dev Bhushan, fraud, conspiracy or the standard applicable to an allega&on of fraud cannot be endorsed in their en&rety. The present conclusion rests upon the evidence as appreciated on the correct civil standard. 90. The error, therefore, in the approach of the First Appellate Court regarding the standard of proof does not necessarily vi&ate its ul&mate ﬁnding. Once the evidence is reassessed on the correct standard of preponderance of probabili&es, the same ul&mate conclusion follows, though for reasons which are more circumspect and, in some respects, materially diﬀerent from those assigned by the First Appellate Court. 91. The ﬁnding of the First Appellate Court that the GPA was genuinely executed by Dev Bhushan is consequently not perverse. Even aBer excluding the observa&ons, which are not necessary for sustaining that ﬁnding, the material evidence, considered cumula&vely, is capable of reasonably suppor&ng the conclusion reached. This Court is, therefore, not persuaded that the ﬁnding is one, which no reasonable Court, properly apprecia&ng the evidence, could have arrived at. 92. The ul&mate ﬁnding concerning execu&on of the GPA is accordingly aﬃrmed. The consequence is that defendant No.1 cannot be said to have acted without authority when he executed the ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990 pursuant to the GPA. The challenge to those transac&ons must, therefore, be examined on that foo&ng. Page 25 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) Eﬀect of GPA on ﬁve sale deeds: 93. Once the GPA is held to have been validly executed, defendant No.1 possessed the authority conferred upon him thereunder. The ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990 executed by him pursuant to the said authority, therefore, cannot be invalidated on the ground that they were executed without the authority of Dev Bhushan Gupta. 94. The subsequent transac&ons executed by defendants No.2 to 4 in favour of defendants No.6 and 7 consequently derive their &tle from a chain, which originated in the GPA and the sale deeds dated 28.07.1990. 95. The later registered sale deed dated 13.05.2004 executed by Dev Bhushan in favour of Kaptan Singh cannot confer upon Kaptan Singh a &tle superior to the &tle, which had already passed through the earlier transac&ons. Consequently, the subsequent purchasers claiming through Kaptan Singh cannot obtain a be#er &tle than that possessed by their transferor. 96. The compe&ng chains of &tle must therefore be determined on the foo&ng that the GPA and the transac&ons of 28.07.1990 are valid. Plea of bonaﬁde purchase by defendants N: 6 & 7: 97. Defendants No.6 and 7 had also pleaded that they were bona ﬁde purchasers for valuable considera&on aBer examining the &tle documents. Since the founda&onal GPA and sale deeds of 28.07.1990 have been upheld, their &tle does not require the protec&ve umbrella of Sec&on 41 of the Transfer of Property Act for its founda&on. 98. Nevertheless, the plea deserves considera&on because it was speciﬁcally raised and was also considered by the Courts below. 99. Sec&on 41 protects a transferee from an ostensible owner, where the real owner has consented, expressly or impliedly, to the ostensible ownership; the transferee has taken reasonable care to ascertain the transferor's authority; and the transferee has acted in good faith. Page 26 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 100. The present case, however, stands on a diﬀerent foo&ng. Defendants No.6 and 7 were not dealing with a person, who merely appeared to be owner because of possession. Their immediate transferors held registered sale deeds executed through a registered GPA and there was an apparent documentary chain of &tle. The original &tle documents were also stated to have travelled through the transac&on chain. The purchasers accordingly had documentary material which, on its face, traced the &tle from Dev Bhushan through the GPA and defendants No.2 to 4 to themselves. 101. Since the founda&onal transac&ons are now upheld, it is unnecessary to rest their &tle upon Sec&on 41. Their &tle follows from the chain of conveyances itself. Pendente lite purchase: 102. There is, however, a dis&nct legal consequence arising from the date of their purchases. Defendants No.6 and 7 purchased the property in March 1995, whereas the present suit had already been ins&tuted on 03.08.1990. They were, therefore, transferees pendente lite and their transac&ons fall within Sec&on 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 103. The doctrine of lis pendens does not rest upon actual no&ce. Its object is to prevent the subject ma#er of li&ga&on from being dealt with in a manner, which may prejudice the eﬃcacy of the eventual adjudica&on. 104. In Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors (P) Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 397, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained that a transferee pendente lite is a representa&ve-in-interest of the transferor and remains bound by the proceedings. The Court further recognised that such a transferee may, in an appropriate case, be impleaded so that he may protect his interest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also reiterated that Sec&on 52 does not render a pendente lite transfer void, and that the transfer remains subject to the result of the li&ga&on and the transferee takes the same legal posi&on as ul&mately determined in respect of his transferor. Page 27 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 105. Consequently, the absence of actual no&ce of the telegrams or objec&ons raised by Dev Bhushan cannot take defendants No.6 and 7 outside the opera&on of Sec&on 52. Their purchases are accordingly subject to the result of the present li&ga&on. 106. Since the founda&onal GPA and sale deeds of 28.07.1990 have now been upheld, their subsequent transac&ons remain eﬀec&ve, subject to the doctrine of lis pendens and the other orders governing the property. Earlier li ga on concerning the property: 107. Another conten&on raised by the plain&ﬀ concerns certain earlier proceedings ins&tuted by defendants No.6 and 7 in rela&on to the property and the subsequent transac&ons through which plain&ﬀ No.1 had conveyed por&ons of the suit property to Kaptan Singh and others. The plain&ﬀ seeks to rely upon the dismissal of those proceedings and contends that the same operates as res judicata against defendants No.6 and 7. The record shows that while one of the earlier suits was dismissed on merits under Order XVII Rule 3 CPC, another was dismissed for default. 108. The plea of res judicata cannot be determined merely by no&cing that the earlier and present proceedings relate to the same property. The applicability of Sec&on 11 CPC depends upon the iden&ty of the ma#er directly and substan&ally in issue, the par&es or persons claiming under them, the competence of the earlier Court and, importantly, whether the par&cular issue now sought to be raised was heard and ﬁnally decided in the earlier proceedings. 109. The material relied upon in the present proceedings does not establish that the earlier proceedings ﬁnally and conclusively determined the very ques&on which arises in these appeals, namely, whether Dev Bhushan executed the GPA dated 05.07.1990 in favour of defendant No.1 and whether the transac&ons founded upon that GPA were valid. The dismissal of an earlier proceeding cannot operate as res judicata in respect of an issue which was neither directly and substan&ally in issue nor ﬁnally adjudicated therein. Page 28 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) The proceeding dismissed for default, in any event, does not furnish a basis for such a plea in the absence of an adjudica&on on merits. 110. The earlier li&ga&on may nevertheless form part of the factual background and may have such eviden&ary relevance as is otherwise permissible in law, par&cularly with regard to the history of the dispute and the conduct of the par&es. It does not, however, displace the independent adjudica&on required in the present proceedings on the speciﬁc issue of execu&on and validity of the GPA. The plea of res judicata is, accordingly, rejected. Impleadment of subsequent transferees: 111. Numerous applica&ons have been ﬁled by persons claiming through one or the other chain of &tle. Some invoke Order I Rule 10 CPC, while others rely upon Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. [Details of such applicants are given in a Chart, which is annexed with this judgment as Annexure ‘A’ and will form part of this judgment.] 112. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thomson Press (supra) has recognised that a transferee pendente lite, being a representa&ve-in-interest of the transferor, may be impleaded, where his interest in the subject ma#er is substan&al and where his presence is necessary to eﬀec&vely adjudicate the controversy. 113. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently clariﬁed the rela&onship between the two provisions in H. Anjanappa and others v. A. Prabhakar and others, 2025 INSC 121. It has held that the scope of Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC is similar and that the principles applicable to Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, for bringing a purchaser pendente lite on record, are applicable while considering impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The Court further emphasised that the ques&on of impleadment is to be determined judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Page 29 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 114. The above principle assumes par&cular signiﬁcance in the present case. Numerous transac&ons have taken place during the pendency of the li&ga&on, as a result whereof several persons have acquired substan&al interests in the very property which is the subject ma#er of these proceedings. Their interests may be directly aﬀected by the adjudica&on in the present appeals. Their presence before the Court is, therefore, considered appropriate to enable them to protect such interests, par&cularly in view of the subsequent transac&ons and the conduct of some of the original par&es. The fact that they are impleaded, however, does not alter the nature or extent of the substan&ve rights claimed by them. 115. The individual applica&ons for impleadment have accordingly been examined with reference to the nature of the transac&on relied upon by each applicant, the person from whom the applicant claims and the stage at which the relevant transac&on took place. In view of the conclusions recorded hereinabove, the applicants seeking impleadment are en&tled to be brought on record for the limited purpose of protec&ng their respec&ve interests in the pending li&ga&on. 116. It must, however, be made clear that impleadment is only a procedural measure intended to facilitate eﬀec&ve adjudica&on and to enable an aﬀected person to protect his or her interest. It does not amount to an adjudica&on or recogni&on of any independent &tle in favour of the applicant. The validity, extent and enforceability of the interest claimed by each applicant shall con&nue to depend upon the &tle of the person from whom such interest is derived and the law applicable to the transac&on through which that interest is claimed. 117. Consequently, no transferee can acquire a &tle be#er than that possessed by his or her transferor. A person claiming through Dev Bhushan or Kaptan Singh cannot acquire a be#er &tle than that available in that chain; likewise, a person claiming through Sat Narayan Bansal or any other transferor cannot acquire a &tle superior to that possessed by such SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) transferor. Impleadment of a transferee, therefore, shall neither enlarge nor improve the substan&ve rights ﬂowing from the respec&ve chain of &tle. 118. Further, every transfer eﬀected during the pendency of the suit or the appeals shall remain subject to Sec&on 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as applicable, and to the orders passed by this Court from &me to &me. The transferees pendente lite shall accordingly remain bound by the result of the present li&ga&on. Their impleadment shall neither validate a transac&on which is otherwise invalid nor confer upon them any independent equity or priority merely by reason of their having been brought on record. Individual Applica ons for Impleadment: 119. The individual applica&ons have been examined in the light of above legal discussion. Since the applicants claim through diﬀerent chains of &tle and rely upon transac&ons executed at diﬀerent stages of the li&ga&on, their respec&ve claims are dealt with separately, not for adjudica&ng any independent &tle in their favour, but for determining whether they have a suﬃcient interest in the subject ma#er to warrant their presence in the proceedings. A. Applicants claiming through Dev Bhushan Gupta/Kaptan Singh 120. Prabhat Kumar: CM Nos. 2839-C of 2021, 2827-C of 2021 and 2833-C of 2021 have been ﬁled by Prabhat Kumar. He claims on the basis of a sale deed dated 23.07.2004 concerning 8 kanals and a subsequent transfer deed dated 07.01.2005 concerning 6 kanals 8 marlas executed by B.S. Kapoor, who claims through Kaptan Singh. His asserted interest thus traces back to the chain origina&ng from Dev Bhushan Gupta. Since the &tle in that chain is directly aﬀected by the adjudica&on made in the present proceedings, the applicant has a direct and substan&al interest in the subject ma#er. The applica&ons are accordingly liable to be allowed. 121. Jaswant Singh: CM No.5129-C of 2022 has been ﬁled by Jaswant Singh. He claims through Kaptan Singh and subsequent vendees under sale deeds dated 11.03.2005 and 14.03.2005 concerning an aggregate area of 32 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) kanals 5 marlas. His asserted interest similarly arises from the chain origina&ng from Dev Bhushan Gupta and is liable to be aﬀected by the adjudica&on in these appeals. The applica&on is accordingly liable to be allowed. 122. Omkar Singh: CM Nos.10761-C, 10762-C, 10763-C and 10764-C of 2026 have been ﬁled by Omkar Singh under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and Sec&on 151 CPC. His claim is founded upon sale deed dated 29.11.2012 concerning 13 kanals, executed by plain&ﬀ Nos.2 to 4, who themselves claim through Kaptan Singh. The stated considera&on is ₹89,37,500/-. His interest is, therefore, directly connected with the chain of &tle, which is the subject ma#er of adjudica&on. The applica&ons are accordingly liable to be allowed. 123. Jan Bhagat: CM Nos.2316-C of 2026 and 1910-C of 2026 have been ﬁled by Ja&n Bhagat under Order I Rule 10 CPC. He claims under sale deed dated 11.12.2018 concerning 2 kanals 19 marlas 6 sarsai executed by Parvesh and Roshni, who claim through Kaptan Singh. His asserted interest is consequently deriva&ve of the chain origina&ng from Dev Bhushan Gupta and may be directly aﬀected by the outcome of the present proceedings. The applica&ons are accordingly liable to be allowed. B. Applicants claiming through Sat Narayan Bansal/Karishma Floricultures 124.1 Bimla Jain and Anil Jain: CM Nos.2875-C of 2020, 2876-C of 2020, 2880-C of 2020 and 2881-C of 2020 have been ﬁled by Bimla Jain and Anil Jain under Order I Rule 10 read with Order XXII Rule 10 CPC. They rely upon an agreement to sell dated 06.01.2009 stated to have been executed with Sat Narayan Bansal for a considera&on of ₹3.20 crore in respect of 104 kanals 4 marlas. It is further pleaded by them that pursuant to a subsequent compromise between the applicants and Sat Narayan Bansal in a civil suit ins&tuted by them, a decree dated 14.09.2019 came to be passed in their favour. 124.2 Their claim, therefore, is not founded merely upon an agreement to sell but also upon the rights claimed under the aforesaid SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) decree. They consequently have an iden&ﬁable and substan&al interest in the subject ma#er of the present proceedings. They have also ins&tuted COCP No.1945 of 2025, alleging wilful viola&on by Sat Narayan Bansal and Karishma Floricultures of the order dated 04.12.2019 by which status quo in respect of the suit property was directed to be maintained, par&cularly in rela&on to the subsequent sale transac&ons executed in favour of Sunil Saini in 2024. 124.3 In above facts and circumstances, their presence before the Court is directly connected with the protec&on of the interests asserted by them in the property and with the proceedings arising from the alleged viola&on of the Court's order. The applica&ons are accordingly allowed. Bimla Jain and Anil Jain are impleaded as par&es. It is, however, clariﬁed that their impleadment does not amount to an independent adjudica&on of the nature or extent of the rights ﬂowing from the decree dated 14.09.2019, which shall remain subject to the terms and legal eﬀect of that decree and the ﬁndings and direc&ons contained in this judgment. 125. Kamla: CM No.396-C of 2020 has been ﬁled under Order I Rule 10 CPC by Kamla, widow of Balbir, on the basis of sale deed dated 27.06.2012 concerning 6 kanals 2 marlas, stated to have been purchased from Inderjit Singh. Since the applicant asserts an interest derived through a transac&on forming part of the subsequent chain of dealings with the suit property, her presence is appropriate for protec&ng the interest so claimed. The applica&on is accordingly liable to be allowed. C. Subsequent purchasers during pendency of the appeals 126. Sunil Saini: CM Nos.11597-C of 2025 and 11602-C of 2025 have been ﬁled by Sunil Saini under Order I Rule 10 CPC. He claims under two sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 executed by Sat Narayan Bansal concerning 63 kanals 19 marlas and 32 kanals 5 marlas respec&vely, for stated considera&on aggrega&ng to ₹14 crore. These transac&ons were eﬀected during pendency of the present appeals and aBer the order dated 04.12.2019 direc&ng maintenance of status quo. Sunil Saini nevertheless has an iden&ﬁable and substan&al claimed interest in the subject ma#er. His applica&ons are SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) accordingly liable to be allowed, subject to the ﬁndings and direc&ons recorded herein. His impleadment shall not, however, be construed as valida&on of the transac&ons or as conferring any equity arising from a transac&on allegedly entered into in viola&on of the order of this Court. 127. Rajinder Sharma: CM No.10490-C of 2026 has been ﬁled by Rajinder Sharma under Order I Rule 10 CPC. He claims under sale deed dated 05.11.2024 executed by Sunil Saini concerning 32 kanals 5 marlas for stated considera&on of ₹25 crore. His claim is deriva&ve of the interest asserted by Sunil Saini and is likewise liable to be aﬀected by the adjudica&on in the present proceedings. The applica&on is accordingly liable to be allowed, subject to the ﬁndings and direc&ons recorded herein. Conclusion on impleadment: 128. For the foregoing reasons, the applicants referred to in the preceding paragraphs have established an iden&ﬁable interest in the subject ma#er of the li&ga&on suﬃcient to warrant their presence on record. Their impleadment is necessary to enable them to protect the respec&ve interests claimed by them and also to ensure that the adjudica&on in these proceedings operates eﬀec&vely upon all persons whose claimed interests are directly connected with the property in dispute. 129. Accordingly, CM Nos. 2839-C of 2021, 2875-C of 2020, 10762-C of 2026, 2880-C of 2020, 2316-C of 2026, 2827-C of 2021, 2876-C of 2020, 10764-C of 2026, 2828-C of 2021, 5129-C of 2022, 2881-C of 2021, 396-C of 2020, 10763-C of 2026, 1910-C of 2026, 11597-C of 2025, 11602-C of 2025 and 10490-C of 2026, seeking impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC and/or Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, are allowed. The respec&ve applicants shall stand impleaded as par&es to these proceedings, subject to the limita&ons and observa&ons recorded hereinabove. Applica ons for withdrawal and recording of compromises: 130. The Court now turns to the applica&ons moved by plain&ﬀ No.1- Dev Bhushan Gupta, and plain&ﬀ No.5-Suraj Pal seeking withdrawal of their respec&ve appeals on the basis of subsequent compromises. This aspect SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) requires separate considera&on because, during the pendency of the appeals, substan&al interests in the suit property have devolved upon persons, who have approached this Court seeking impleadment and protec&on of their interests; and their applica&ons for impleadment has been allowed as per above discussion. 131. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants have relied upon Anurag Mi:al v. Shaily Mishra Mi:al, (2018) 9 SCC 691 and Thammanna v. K. Veera Reddy, (1980) 4 SCC 62, to contend that an appellant has an uncondi&onal right to withdraw his appeal under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC. 132. The general proposi&on that an appellant may seek withdrawal of an appeal cannot be disputed. In Anurag Mi:al (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the eﬀect of an applica&on for withdrawal of an appeal and recognised the right of the appellant to withdraw the appeal. 133. The ques&on before this Court, however, is not whether an appellant ordinarily possesses such a right. The ques&on is whether, in the peculiar circumstances of the present li&ga&on, such right can be exercised in a manner, which would eﬀec&vely terminate the adjudicatory process aBer substan&al interests have devolved upon third par&es, par&cularly when those persons have approached the Court, and the original par&es themselves have subsequently altered their posi&on by entering into arrangements, which may adversely aﬀect the interests of those claiming through them. 134. The dis&nc&on is important. A transferee pendente lite is ordinarily bound by the result of the li&ga&on. But that principle does not mean that, once such a transferee approaches the Court and seeks to protect a substan&al interest, which has devolved upon him, the Court must shut its eyes to the circumstances in which the original party seeks to bring the li&ga&on to an end. SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 135. In Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors (P) Ltd.’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised that a transferee pendente lite having a substan&al interest in the subject ma#er may be impleaded under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and heard. The Court speciﬁcally no&ced that where the transferor has ceased to have an interest in the property, there may be a possibility that he may not properly defend the li&ga&on and may even collude with the opposite party. The purpose of impleadment in such circumstances is to enable the transferee to protect his interest in the pending li&ga&on. 136. The above principle has great signiﬁcance in the present case. Plain&ﬀ No.1-Dev Bhushan Gupta has, during the course of the li&ga&on, parted with his interest in the suit property. He has thereaBer entered into a compromise with Sat Narayan Bansal, whose claim of &tle is directly opposed to the case, which Dev Bhushan had originally set up in the suit. He has now sought withdrawal of his appeals on the basis of such subsequent arrangement. 137. The Court is not required, for deciding the withdrawal applica&ons, to record a posi&ve ﬁnding that the compromise between Dev Bhushan Gupta and Sat Narayan Bansal is the result of collusion. Such a ﬁnding would require a separate eviden&ary founda&on. The circumstances, however, certainly give rise to a legi&mate apprehension that the original par&es may no longer have the same interest in prosecu&ng or defending the li&ga&on as they had, when the proceedings commenced, and that persons, who have subsequently acquired substan&al interests through them, may consequently be leB without an eﬀec&ve opportunity to protect those interests. 138. This concern is not merely theore&cal. The record discloses mul&ple subsequent transac&ons through both compe&ng chains of &tle. The original plain&ﬀ has substan&ally parted with his interest, whereas the persons claiming through him assert that their rights would be seriously SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) prejudiced, if the appeals were simply permi#ed to be withdrawn pursuant to a private arrangement between the original par&es. 139. The Court is conscious of the decision in Anurag Mi:al (supra). It would not be appropriate to circumvent that authority by merely labelling every subsequent purchaser as a person, whose presence defeats the right of withdrawal. The ques&on has to be examined on the par&cular facts and in the context of the rights, which have intervened during the pendency of the proceedings. 140. In this regard, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. Rathinavel CheKar and another v. V. Sivaraman and others, (1999) 4 SCC 89, though arising in a somewhat diﬀerent factual seNng, is instruc&ve. There, aBer a decree had been passed in favour of the plain&ﬀ, the property was transferred to third par&es, who were impleaded in the pending appeal. When the original plain&ﬀ subsequently sought withdrawal of the suit on the basis of a compromise with the contes&ng defendant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to permit withdrawal, which would destroy or prejudice rights that had accrued to the transferees. The Court emphasised that once rights had vested in persons, who had been brought on record, the proceedings could not be brought to an end in a manner, which destroyed those rights without strong jus&ﬁca&on. 141. In another case Petakamse:y Ramaswamy Naidu and others v. Kandrupu Kondadu and others, 2005 (3) ALD 853 : 2005 (4) ALT 313, the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered an applica&on by an appellant under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC seeking withdrawal of the appeal, alongside an applica&on by persons claiming through subsequent transac&ons seeking impleadment. The Court, aBer considering the law rela&ng to transferees pendente lite and withdrawal, declined to permit withdrawal, where doing so would prejudice the interests claimed by the persons seeking to come on record. Signiﬁcantly, the Court also no&ced the allega&on of fraud and collusion between the original par&es and held that the appeal could not be permi#ed to be withdrawn in such circumstances. Page 37 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 142. The said decision is not being treated as laying down an inﬂexible rule that every transferee pendente lite can prevent withdrawal of an appeal. Its relevance lies in the principle that the Court, while considering an applica&on for withdrawal, cannot remain oblivious to the substan&al interests, which have devolved upon persons, who have been brought before it and to the possibility that withdrawal may operate to their prejudice. 143. The present case presents an unusual combina&on of circumstances. The li&ga&on concerns valuable immovable property; the original plain&ﬀ has parted with his interest; mul&ple transferees have acquired interests through the compe&ng chains; some of those transferees have approached this Court for impleadment; and the original plain&ﬀ has subsequently entered into a compromise with the very party, whose &tle is opposed to the case originally pleaded by him. In these circumstances, permiNng withdrawal as a ma#er of course, would have the prac&cal eﬀect of leaving the persons, who have acquired substan&al interests during the li&ga&on to pursue their remedies elsewhere, notwithstanding that their interests have been brought before this Court in the pending appeals. 144. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the judicial process is intended to resolve disputes eﬀec&vely and not to permit its termina&on in a manner which creates further rounds of li&ga&on. If the original par&es, aBer having altered their respec&ve interests, are permi#ed to terminate the proceedings by a private arrangement without considering the interests of those, who have subsequently acquired substan&al stakes and approached the Court, the result may be mul&plicity of proceedings rather than ﬁnality. 145. This Court is, therefore, not refusing withdrawal merely because it considers the subsequent compromises undesirable. The Court is required to balance the appellant's right to seek withdrawal against the legi&mate right of persons, who have acquired substan&al interests in the subject ma#er and have approached the Court for protec&on of those interests. The la#er considera&on assumes par&cular importance, where the circumstances SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) give rise to a legi&mate apprehension that the original par&es may no longer adequately protect the interests of their respec&ve transferees. 146. More importantly, the controversy concerning the GPA has been fully adjudicated in the present judgment. The Court has found that the GPA was not proved to be a wholly forged and unauthorised document and that the ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990 cannot be annulled on that ground. 147. In these circumstances, permiNng withdrawal of the appeals simpliciter would serve no useful purpose and may create avoidable uncertainty concerning the rights of the numerous subsequent transferees. The be#er course is to decide the appeals on merits. 148. In the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, the applica&ons seeking withdrawal of the appeals cannot be permi#ed to terminate the adjudicatory process. The appeals are accordingly being decided on merits. The compromise documents placed on record may be taken into considera&on for the limited purpose of determining the inter se rights of the par&es thereto, but shall not be permi#ed to prejudice the rights of the impleaded applicants or to alter the adjudica&on of &tle made in the present judgment. Subsequent Transac ons during pendency of the Appeals: 149. Having dealt with the applica&ons for withdrawal and compromise, the Court now proceeds to consider the eﬀect of the subsequent transac&ons brought on record during pendency of the present appeals. This aspect requires considera&on separately from the substan&ve controversy regarding the validity of the GPA and also separately from the ques&on, whether any such transac&on cons&tutes viola&on of an order of this Court. 150. As no&ced hereinbefore, during pendency of the appeals, this Court, vide order dated 04.12.2019, directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the suit property. The said order con&nued to operate and was neither vacated nor modiﬁed so as to permit aliena&on of the property. Page 39 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 151. Notwithstanding the subsistence of the said order, Sat Narayan Bansal executed two registered sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 in favour of Sunil Saini concerning 63 kanals 19 marlas, and 32 kanals 5 marlas respec&vely, for an aggregate stated considera&on of ₹14 crore. Sunil Saini thereaBer executed a sale deed dated 05.11.2024 in favour of Rajinder Sharma concerning 32 kanals 5 marlas for a stated considera&on of ₹25 crore. The said transac&ons have been brought on record through the respec&ve applica&ons for impleadment. 152. Two dis&nct ques&ons consequently arise. The ﬁrst is as to the substan&ve legal eﬀect of these subsequent transac&ons upon the rights in the property. The second is whether the execu&on of the sale deeds dated 30.08.2024, notwithstanding the order dated 04.12.2019, cons&tutes wilful disobedience of the said order. These ques&ons cannot be commingled. 153. The prac&cal eﬀect of the subsequent transac&ons has to be determined in the light of the ﬁnding already recorded by this Court regarding the founda&onal transac&ons of 1990. This Court has held that the GPA dated 05.07.1990 was executed by Dev Bhushan Gupta in favour of defendant No.1-Devender Kumar Vashisht and that the ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990 executed pursuant thereto were within the authority conferred by the said GPA. 154. Once the aforesaid ﬁnding is recorded, the &tle ﬂowing from the ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990 cons&tutes the legally sustainable chain of &tle. The subsequent sale deed dated 13.05.2004 executed by Dev Bhushan Gupta in favour of Kaptan Singh could not convey a &tle which, on the ﬁndings recorded herein, had already stood dealt with through the earlier authorised transac&ons. 155. Consequently, Kaptan Singh could not acquire any valid &tle under the sale deed dated 13.05.2004 to the extent it purported to deal with property, which had already been validly conveyed through the transac&ons of 28.07.1990. He could not, in turn, transmit any be#er &tle to persons claiming through him, than what he himself had. Page 40 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 156. The posi&on of the persons claiming through Dev Bhushan Gupta or Kaptan Singh is, therefore, clear. They cannot claim &tle to the suit property on the strength of that subsequent chain, as their respec&ve transferors themselves had no subsis&ng &tle, which could lawfully be conveyed to them. Their impleadment in the present proceedings does not alter that substan&ve posi&on. 157. On the other hand, the chain of &tle ﬂowing from the ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990 is upheld by this judgment. Consequently, persons claiming through Sat Narayan Bansal or Karishma Floricultures, to the extent their respec&ve transfers are traceable to and covered by the said valid chain of &tle, derive &tle through a legally sustainable source. Their &tle cannot be impeached merely on the ground that the original plain&ﬀ subsequently executed the sale deed dated 13.05.2004 in favour of Kaptan Singh. 158. This dis&nc&on is being recorded expressly so that there remains no ambiguity regarding the compe&ng chains of &tle. The persons claiming through Dev Bhushan Gupta/Kaptan Singh do not acquire &tle through that chain to the property already covered by the valid 1990 transac&ons; whereas the persons claiming through Sat Narayan Bansal/Karishma Floricultures derive their &tle through the chain, which this Court has upheld. 159. The above conclusion is, however, subject to the extent of the property actually covered by the respec&ve conveyances and to the validity of the individual transac&ons by which subsequent purchasers claim. The mere fact that a person traces his claim to the upheld chain does not dispense with proof or validity of his own conveyance, where such issue independently arises. Equally, no subsequent transac&on can enlarge the extent of &tle beyond that possessed by the transferor. 160. As regards transac&ons eﬀected during pendency of the li&ga&on, the addi&onal consequence of Sec&on 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 shall apply wherever a#racted. Such pendente lite transac&ons do not acquire any superiority over the &tle of the transferor and remain subject to the result of the pending li&ga&on. Page 41 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 161. Accordingly, the subsequent transferees shall stand governed by the following se#led posi&on emerging from this judgment: the chain origina&ng from the authorised sale deeds dated 28.07.1990 is the valid chain of &tle; the subsequent chain origina&ng from the sale deed dated 13.05.2004 in favour of Kaptan Singh cannot confer &tle to property already covered by the earlier valid conveyances; and every subsequent transferee can claim only such right, &tle and interest as his transferor was legally competent to convey, subject, where applicable, to Sec&on 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and the orders passed by this Court. Eﬀect of the decree dated 14.09.2019 upon the subsequent transac ons: 162. Before proceeding to the contempt pe&&ons, a speciﬁc conten&on raised by Ld. Senior Advocate for applicants Bimla Jain and Anil Jain requires considera&on. As no&ced while dealing with their impleadment, the applicants rely upon an agreement to sell dated 06.01.2009 entered into with Sat Narayan Bansal in respect of 104 kanals 4 marlas, followed by a compromise between the par&es and a decree dated 14.09.2019 passed in terms thereof. Their claim, therefore, is not founded merely upon an agreement to sell but also upon rights secured under a decree of a competent Court. 163. The compromise, the terms whereof have been placed before this Court in the impleadment applica&on, records substan&al payments made by Bimla Jain and Anil Jain towards the agreed sale considera&on. It further provides for execu&on and registra&on of the sale deed in their favour aBer the pending li&ga&on concerning the property, is ﬁnally decided. Pointedly, it also contains a s&pula&on that Sat Narayan Bansal and his legal representa&ves would not sell the suit property to any person other than the plainﬀs (of that case – Bimla Jain & Anil Jain) or their nominee and that, in the event of such sale to a third party, the same would not bind the plain&ﬀs. Page 42 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) The compromise further provides for refund of the amounts received, with interest, in the eventuality contemplated therein. 164. The suit was thereaBer decreed in terms of the compromise on 14.09.2019. The compromise, therefore, cannot be treated merely as a private arrangement having no legal consequence. Its terms, having been incorporated in the decree, became binding upon the par&es to that proceeding. Sat Narayan Bansal was consequently under a subsis&ng obliga&on to act in accordance with the terms of the decree. 165. The Court is, however, conscious of the dis&nc&on between a decree, which secures or recognises contractual rights and a decree which itself operates as a conveyance of &tle. The compromise contemplated execu&on of a sale deed in favour of Bimla Jain and Anil Jain upon fulﬁlment of the condi&ons s&pulated therein. The decree cannot, therefore, be treated, merely by reason of its having been passed in terms of the compromise, as a conveyance transferring ownership to the applicants. Its legal eﬀect must be determined from the terms of the decree itself. What is material for present purposes is that the decree created enforceable rights in favour of the applicants and corresponding obliga&ons upon Sat Narain Bansal. 166. The subsequent sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 executed by Sat Narayan Bansal in favour of Sunil Saini must, therefore, be examined not merely as ordinary subsequent conveyances but in the backdrop of the subsis&ng decree dated 14.09.2019. Sat Narayan Bansal could not, by a subsequent unilateral transac&on, defeat or render nugatory rights, which had already accrued to Bimla Jain and Anil Jain under the decree. 167. The express s&pula&on contained in the compromise assumes par&cular signiﬁcance. Sat Narayan Bansal had undertaken not to sell the property to a third party except in favour of Bimla Jain, Anil Jain or their nominee. The subsequent sale deeds in favour of Sunil Saini were, therefore, transac&ons, which were directly inconsistent with an obliga&on already incorporated in the decree. Page 43 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 168. The conten&on of Ld. Counsel for Bimla Jain and Anil Jain that the sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 are wholly void in every respect, however, requires some qualiﬁca&on. The Court is not called upon in these proceedings to pronounce upon the validity of those instruments as against every person in the world. The appropriate declara&on is with reference to the rights of the decree-holders. The sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 in favour of Sunil shall not be binding upon Bimla Jain and Anil Jain and shall not operate to defeat, ex&nguish, dilute or otherwise prejudice any right enforceable by them under the decree dated 14.09.2019. 169. Sunil Saini, being a subsequent transferee from Sat Narayan Bansal, cannot acquire a be#er right than that which Sat Narayan Bansal was legally competent to convey. The subsequent sale deeds cannot, therefore, be relied upon by Sunil Saini to defeat or circumvent the rights secured to Bimla Jain and Anil Jain under the decree. The same principle necessarily applies to any person subsequently claiming through Sunil Saini. 170. This conclusion is not inconsistent with Sec&on 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The doctrine of lis pendens ordinarily does not render a transfer made during pendency of li&ga&on void ab ini&o; rather, the transferee takes the property subject to the rights ul&mately determined in the li&ga&on. In the present case, however, there is the addi&onal circumstance of an exis&ng decree, which speciﬁcally regulated Sat Narayan Bansal's right to alienate the property. The subsequent transac&ons cannot be permi#ed to defeat rights already secured under that decree. 171. It is, accordingly, declared that the sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 executed by Sat Narayan Bansal in favour of Sunil Saini shall not bind Bimla Jain and Anil Jain and shall not aﬀect, defeat or prejudice their rights under the decree dated 14.09.2019. This declara&on is conﬁned to the rights of the said applicants under that decree and shall not be understood as conferring upon them any right beyond what is lawfully secured by the decree. Contempt Proceedings – (COCP No.1945 of 2025 and COCP No.265 of 2025): SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 172. The Court now proceeds to consider COCP No.1945 of 2025 and COCP No.265 of 2025. Both pe&&ons arise mainly from the subsequent transac&ons dated 30.08.2024 and allege viola&on of the order dated 04.12.2019, whereby this Court had directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the suit property. The two pe&&ons are being considered together on the common ques&on of viola&on of the said order, while the liability of each alleged contemnor shall be examined separately. 173. COCP No.1945 of 2025 has been ins&tuted by Bimla Jain and Anil Jain against Sat Narayan Bansal and Karishma Floricultures. Their grievance is that, notwithstanding the subsis&ng order dated 04.12.2019 and the rights claimed under the decree dated 14.09.2019, transac&ons were entered into on 30.08.2024, whereby substan&al por&ons of the property were dealt with in favour of Sunil Saini, including the surrender of the leasehold interest held by Karishma Floricultures. 174. COCP No.265 of 2025 has been ins&tuted by Prabhat Kumar and Jaswant Singh against Sat Narayan Bansal, Sunil Saini and the Sub-Registrar, Sohna. The allega&on relevant for the present adjudica&on is also viola&on of the order dated 04.12.2019 on account of the sale transac&ons executed in favour of Sunil Saini on 30.08.2024. Though reference has been made to the subsequent order of High Court dated 29.07.2021 concerning construc&on, no independent viola&on of that order is alleged for adjudica&on in the present contempt pe&&on. The present contempt controversy is conﬁned to the order dated 04.12.2019. Principles governing contempt: 175. Sec&on 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 deﬁnes civil contempt as wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direc&on, order, writ or other process of a Court. The expression "wilful disobedience" postulates a conscious and deliberate act of disobedience. Mere inadvertence, accidental omission or a bona ﬁde inability to comply would not ordinarily a#ract the jurisdic&on. Page 45 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 176. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Niaz Mohammad and others v. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 6 SCC 332, has explained that the disobedience must be wilful before it can cons&tute as a civil contempt. The jurisdic&on is undoubtedly serious, but its exercise is equally necessary to preserve the authority of judicial orders. The Court is, therefore, required to determine as to whether the alleged contemnor had knowledge of the order and consciously acted in disregard thereof. 177. At the same &me, a party cannot jus&fy viola&on of a subsis&ng order by subsequently asser&ng that the substan&ve right, which he sought to exercise was ul&mately found to exist. An interim or interlocutory order remains binding un&l it is varied, modiﬁed or vacated. The eventual result of the substan&ve proceedings does not retrospec&vely suspend the obliga&on to obey such order. Case of Sat Narayan Bansal 178. The case of Sat Narayan Bansal stands on a dis&nct foo&ng. He was himself a party to this li&ga&on before this court, in which the order dated 04.12.2019 was passed. He was represented in the proceedings and con&nued to par&cipate in the li&ga&on thereaBer. There is no material before the Court to suggest that the said order was unknown to him. 179. The order directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the very property concerning which Sat Narayan Bansal was asser&ng his rights before this Court. The restraint was, therefore, directly connected with the subject ma#er of the li&ga&on and was not an order concerning some collateral or unrelated ma#er. 180. Notwithstanding the subsistence of the said order, Sat Narayan Bansal executed two registered sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 in favour of Sunil Saini. One sale deed concerned 63 kanals 19 marlas, and the other 32 kanals 5 marlas, for an aggregate stated considera&on of ₹14 crore. These transac&ons concerned substan&al por&ons of the very property, which was the subject ma#er of the pending appeals. Page 46 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 181. The execu&on of two registered sale deeds for such substan&al areas and considera&on cannot reasonably be characterised as an accidental or inadvertent act. Sat Narayan Bansal was a principal party to the li&ga&on, was aware of the order direc&ng maintenance of status quo and nevertheless himself executed the conveyances. 182. If Sat Narayan Bansal entertained any doubt concerning the scope of the order or believed that he was en&tled to deal with any part of the property notwithstanding the restraint, the proper course was to approach this Court for clariﬁca&on or modiﬁca&on before undertaking the transac&ons. No such permission or clariﬁca&on was sought. 183. The circumstances are further signiﬁcant because, as already no&ced, Sat Narayan Bansal was also bound by the decree dated 14.09.2019 in favour of Bimla Jain and Anil Jain, which contained an express s&pula&on against aliena&on of the property to third par&es. The Court is not recording a separate ﬁnding of contempt for viola&on of that decree in these proceedings; nevertheless, the existence of that decree is relevant to the assessment of the conduct of Sat Narayan Bansal and establishes that he was fully conscious that his dealings with the property were subject to binding judicial obliga&ons. 184. This Court has ul&mately found in the present judgment that the &tle ﬂowing from the 1990 transac&ons is legally sustainable. That ﬁnding though does not furnish a defence to the contempt allega&on. The ques&on whether Sat Narayan Bansal possessed substan&ve &tle and the ques&on whether he obeyed the order dated 04.12.2019 are dis&nct. His &tle, even if valid, did not authorise him to disregard an order of this Court, which was binding upon him. 185. The subsequent execu&on of the sale deeds was consequently a posi&ve act undertaken in the teeth of the subsis&ng restraint. The Court is sa&sﬁed that Sat Narayan Bansal had knowledge of the order dated 04.12.2019 and consciously acted contrary to it. Page 47 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 186. The ingredients of wilful disobedience are, therefore, established. So, Sat Narayan Bansal is held guilty of civil contempt for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 04.12.2019. Case of Karishma Floricultures 187. The posi&on of Karishma Floricultures requires separate considera&on. Karishma Floricultures is a concern and not a natural person. The material placed before the Court shows that it had a leasehold interest in the property and that such leasehold interest was surrendered in favour of Sunil Saini by a deed dated 30.08.2024. 188. The surrender assumes implica&on because it was an aﬃrma&ve transac&on concerning an exis&ng interest in the very property which was subject to the order of status quo. It was also contemporaneous with the two sale deeds executed by Sat Narayan Bansal in favour of Sunil Saini and formed part of the same overall dealing with the property. 189. Karishma Floricultures was represented by Sat Narayan Bansal. The Court does not hold the concern guilty merely because of that representa&on. The ques&on is whether the transac&on undertaken on behalf of the concern, in the circumstances established on record, amounted to conscious and deliberate disregard of the subsis&ng order. 190. The surrender deed was executed on 30.08.2024, the very date on which Sat Narayan Bansal executed the sale deeds in favour of Sunil Saini. The transac&on was not an accidental consequence of some unrelated event. It was a posi&ve dealing with the leasehold interest in the very property which was subject to the order of this Court. 191. In these circumstances, the Court is sa&sﬁed that the surrender of the leasehold interest by Karishma Flouriculture, ac&ng through its authorised representa&ve, was a conscious and deliberate act undertaken notwithstanding the subsis&ng order dated 04.12.2019 and cons&tuted disobedience of the status quo directed by this Court. Page 48 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 192. Karishma Floricultures is, accordingly, held guilty of wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 04.12.2019 through the act undertaken on its behalf in surrendering its leasehold interest in favour of Sunil Saini. Case of Sunil Saini 193. The allega&on against Sunil Saini stands on a diﬀerent foo&ng. He is the transferee under the sale deeds dated 30.08.2024. In COCP No.265 of 2025, the principal allega&on against him is that he intended to further alienate the property notwithstanding the order of this Court. 194. Mere inten&on or apprehension of a future aliena&on cannot, by itself, cons&tute completed civil contempt. The Court must be sa&sﬁed that the alleged contemnor has actually undertaken an act prohibited by the order or has otherwise consciously acted in a manner amoun&ng to its wilful viola&on. 195. The fact that Sunil Saini accepted the sale deeds executed in his favour does not establish that he himself commi#ed contempt of the order dated 04.12.2019. His substan&ve rights under those transac&ons and the ques&on whether those transac&ons can bind the decree-holders or other persons claiming rights in the property are separate ma#ers, which have been dealt with elsewhere in this judgment. 196. No suﬃcient material has been brought on record to establish that Sunil Saini, aBer acquiring the property, actually proceeded to eﬀect a further aliena&on or undertook any other speciﬁc act in viola&on of the order dated 04.12.2019. An apprehension that he may do so in future cannot subs&tute proof of a completed wilful viola&on. 197. As such, the Court ﬁnds no suﬃcient basis to hold Sunil Saini guilty of contempt. Case of Sub-Registrar, Sohna 198. The allega&on against the Sub-Registrar, Sohna, is s&ll diﬀerent. The grievance of the applicants is that, aBer the sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) had been registered in favour of Sunil Saini, the Sub-Registrar was requested to cancel the said sale deeds but did not do so. 199. The order dated 04.12.2019 directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the suit property. No material has been shown to establish that the said order imposed upon the Sub-Registrar a posi&ve obliga&on to cancel a registered sale deed aBer its execu&on and registra&on. Nor is there any subsequent order speciﬁcally direc&ng him to cancel the instruments. 200. The failure of the Sub-Registrar to accede to a request for cancella&on of a registered conveyance cannot, by itself, amount to wilful disobedience of the order dated 04.12.2019. The ques&on whether the sale deeds were legally liable to be cancelled is dis&nct from the ques&on whether the registering authority commi#ed contempt by not cancelling them. 201. A ﬁnding of contempt must rest upon viola&on of a speciﬁc and binding direc&on of the Court. In the absence of material establishing such direc&on and its conscious viola&on by the Sub-Registrar, no ﬁnding of civil contempt can be recorded against him. 202. The proceedings against the Sub-Registrar, Sohna, are accordingly liable to be dismissed. Eﬀect of the contemptuous transac ons: 203. Before proceeding to the ﬁnal orders in the contempt pe&&ons, it is necessary to clarify the rela&onship between the ﬁnding of contempt and the substan&ve eﬀect of the transac&ons dated 30.08.2024. The two ques&ons are dis&nct. A transfer pendente lite does not ordinarily become void ab ini&o merely by reason of Sec&on 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The transferee takes the property subject to the result of the li&ga&on. 204. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors (P) Ltd.’s case (supra) and T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342 has explained the eﬀect of lis pendens in these SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) terms. The subsequent transferee remains bound by the adjudica&on and cannot acquire a &tle superior to that of his transferor. 205. At the same &me, the present case contains an addi&onal feature in as much as the transac&ons dated 30.08.2024 were entered into in deliberate viola&on of a speciﬁc order of this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, 2023 INSC 805, has recognised that where transac&ons are entered into in deliberate disobedience of a subsis&ng order or undertaking, the contempt jurisdic&on may require appropriate direc&ons so that the contemnor does not obtain an advantage from his own contumacious act. 206. In the present case, however, having regard to the fact that the substan&ve &tle controversy has already been adjudicated and the subsequent transferees have been brought before this Court, it is unnecessary to pronounce a general declara&on that every transac&on ﬂowing from the sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 is void for all purposes. 207. What is necessary to clarify, and is hereby declared, is that the sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 executed by Sat Narayan Bansal in favour of Sunil Saini, and every transac&on ﬂowing from them, shall remain subject to the ﬁndings recorded in this judgment; the rights of Bimla Jain and Anil Jain under the decree dated 14.09.2019; the doctrine of lis pendens embodied in Sec&on 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the order dated 04.12.2019. 208. In par&cular, no right arising from the said transac&ons shall be asserted so as to defeat, dilute, circumvent or prejudice the rights of Bimla Jain and Anil Jain under the decree dated 14.09.2019. Likewise, Sunil Saini cannot convey to any subsequent transferee a &tle superior to that which he himself acquired from Sat Narayan Bansal. 209. The sale deed dated 05.11.2024 executed by Sunil Saini in favour of Rajinder Sharma shall consequently stand on no be#er foo&ng. Rajinder Sharma can claim only such right, &tle and interest as Sunil Saini was legally SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) competent to convey and shall remain bound by the ﬁndings and direc&ons contained in this judgment. Conclusion in the contempt pe ons: 210. The Court has considered the conduct of each alleged contemnor separately. Sat Narayan Bansal was a party to the proceedings, had knowledge of the order dated 04.12.2019 and nevertheless himself executed substan&al registered conveyances concerning the subject property in favour of Sunil Saini. Karishma Floricultures, through its authorised representa&on, simultaneously surrendered its leasehold interest in favour of the same transferee. 211. The Court is sa&sﬁed that the conduct of Sat Narayan Bansal and Karishma Floricultures cons&tuted conscious and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 04.12.2019. 212. The case against Sunil Saini is diﬀerent. No completed act of further aliena&on or other speciﬁc viola&on of the order has been established against him. Similarly, no speciﬁc direc&on of this Court requiring the Sub-Registrar, Sohna, to cancel the registered sale deeds has been shown. The material is, therefore, insuﬃcient to record a ﬁnding of contempt against either of them. 213. Accordingly, Sat Narayan Bansal and Karishma Floricultures are held guilty of wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 04.12.2019. Sunil Saini and the Sub-Registrar, Sohna are not held guilty of contempt. Ques on of sentence: 214. Having recorded a ﬁnding of guilt against Sat Narayan Bansal and Karishma Floricultures, the Court is now required to consider the appropriate consequence. The ques&on of sentence is to be addressed separately aBer hearing the contemnors speciﬁcally on that aspect. The Court, therefore, considers it appropriate not to impose sentence at this stage. Page 52 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 215. The ﬁnding of guilt recorded herein shall, however, remain opera&ve. The ma#er shall be listed separately for hearing Sat Narayan Bansal and Karishma Floricultures on the ques&on of sentence, aBer aﬀording them an opportunity to address the Court on that aspect. Conclusions and opera ve direc ons: 216. In view of the foregoing discussion and ﬁndings, the following conclusions and direc&ons shall govern the disposal of the appeals and the connected proceedings: (i) The General Power of A#orney dated 05.07.1990, registered on 26.07.1990, and the ﬁve sale deeds dated 28.07.1990 executed pursuant thereto are held valid, subject to the ﬁndings recorded herein regarding the extent of the property covered by the respec&ve conveyances. (ii) The subsequent chain origina&ng from the sale deed dated 13.05.2004 executed by Dev Bhushan Gupta in favour of Kaptan Singh cannot confer any &tle in respect of the property already covered by the valid transac&ons of 28.07.1990. Persons claiming through Dev Bhushan Gupta/Kaptan Singh cannot, therefore, acquire &tle to such property through that subsequent chain. (iii) Persons claiming through Sat Narain Bansal/Karishma Flouriculture, to the extent their respec&ve transac&ons are traceable to the valid chain origina&ng from the transac&ons of 28.07.1990, derive their rights through that chain, subject to the validity and extent of their individual transac&ons and the other ﬁndings recorded herein. (iv) The impleadment of any subsequent transferee does not, by itself, amount to an independent declara&on or recogni&on of &tle in his or her favour. Every transferee shall remain subject to the &tle of the transferor through whom the claim is made and, wherever applicable, to Sec&on 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (v) The sale deeds dated 30.08.2024 executed by Sat Narain Bansal in favour of Sunil Saini shall not bind Bimla Jain and Anil Jain and shall not SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) aﬀect, defeat, ex&nguish, dilute or prejudice any right enforceable by them under the decree dated 14.09.2019. The sale deed dated 05.11.2024 executed by Sunil Saini in favour of Rajinder Sharma shall likewise remain subject to the aforesaid rights and to the ﬁndings and direc&ons contained in this judgment. (vi) No subsequent transac&on shall confer upon any transferee any right or equity contrary to the ﬁndings and direc&ons contained in this judgment, the decree dated 14.09.2019, the order dated 04.12.2019 or Sec&on 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (vii) Sat Narain Bansal and Karishma Flouriculture are held guilty of civil contempt for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 04.12.2019. No ﬁnding of contempt is recorded against Sunil Saini or the Sub- Registrar, Sohna. (viii) The ques&on of sentence in respect of Sat Narain Bansal and Karishma Flouriculture shall be considered separately aBer hearing them on sentence. 217. Consequently, all the four Regular Second Appeals stand dismissed. The two appeals preferred by plain&ﬀ No.1-Dev Bhushan Gupta and the two appeals preferred by plain&ﬀ No.5-Suraj Pal are accordingly dismissed. The judgments and decrees under challenge shall stand aﬃrmed, subject to the clariﬁca&ons, declara&ons and direc&ons contained in this judgment. 218. The Registry shall prepare and place on record an amended cause &tle in each of the four appeals in conformity with the orders of impleadment passed in the present proceedings. The persons impleaded claiming through the Dev Bhushan Gupta/Kaptan Singh chain shall be assigned appropriate serial numbers in the appellants' array, whereas the persons impleaded claiming through the Sat Narain Bansal chain shall be assigned appropriate serial numbers in the respondents' array. The amended cause &tle shall be made consistent across all four appeals. Page 54 of 63 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 219. The aforesaid re-arrangement of the party array is consequen&al to the orders of impleadment and shall not, merely by reason of the placement of any person in the appellants' or respondents' array, be construed as an independent declara&on or recogni&on of &tle. The substan&ve rights of all impleaded persons shall remain governed by the ﬁndings, declara&ons and direc&ons contained in this judgment and by the respec&ve chain of &tle through which they claim. 220. All pending miscellaneous applica&ons, except those speciﬁcally dealt with by separate direc&ons in this judgment, shall stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs, except as speciﬁcally directed herein. 221. In view of the ﬁndings of guilt recorded in COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 against Sat Narayan Bansal and Karishma Floricultures Limited, both these contempt pe&&ons be separated and be listed on 17.09.2026 for hearing on quantum of sentence. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case ﬁles. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 02.09.2026 Sarita Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? Yes Uploaded on.: 03.09.2026 SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) Annexure ‘A’ Sale Deed dt. 13.05.2004 Dev Bhushan (Plain&ﬀ) sold 104-4M to Kaptan Singh for ₹13 Lacs Sale Deed dt. 08.11.2004 Kaptan Singh sold 8K-0M to Smt. Kiran Bala Sale Deed dt. 08.11.2004 Kaptan Singh sold 8K-0M to Munish Kumar CM N: Provisio n Applicants / Vendees Basis Vendor Land Area RSA No. 5326 of 2019 ‘Suraj Pal (plain ﬀ N: 5) vs Krishna Flouriculture & Others (remaining plain ﬀs & defendants) CM N: 2839 C- 2021 Under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC Prabhat Kumar [Anuj Dewan Adv.] Sale Deed dt. 23.07.2004 [8K for ₹16.5 Lacs] & Transfer Deed dt. 07.01.2005 [6K-08M for ₹2.5 Lacs from B.S.Kapoor, vendee of Kaptan Singh vide sale deed dt.14.09.20 04 Kaptan Singh, vendee of Plain&ﬀ N: 1 – Dev Bhushan 8K + 6K 8M = 14K—8M CM N: 2875 C- 2020 Under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Order 22 Rule 10 CPC Bimla Jain Anil Jain [Lokesh Sinhal Adv.] ATS dt.06.01.20 09 [₹3.2 Crore] Sat Narayan Bansal 104K-4M CM N: 10762 C- 2026 Under Order I Rule 10 CPC + O.22 R.10 CPC read Omkar Singh [Rakesh Dhiman Adv] Sale Deed dated 29.11.2012 [₹89,37,500 /-] Plain&ﬀs N: 2 to 4, vendees of Kaptan Singh, vendee of Dev Bhushan 13 Kanal SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) with Sec&on 151 CPC CM N: 3167 C- 2023 Under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Sec&on 151 CPC Sat Narayan Bansal & Krishma Flouricultu re (Defendan ts N: 6 & 7) [Pankaj Gupta Adv.] To take on record Se#lement Deed/ MoU dt. 6.12.2021 & disposal of RSA N: 5326/ 2019 (For considera&o n of ₹1 Crore) Between Suraj Pal (Pl. N: 5 – appellant and applicants-Def N: 6 & 7) – Earlier purchased by Krishma (Def. N: 7) vide sale deed dt. 28.07.1990 – relinquished rights in favour of Suraj Pal – Pl. N: 5 w.r.t 18K- 14M CM N: 11411 -C of 2023 Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC Sat Narayan Bansal & Krishma Flouricultu re To stay further aliena&on CM N: 11412 -C of 2023 Under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC Sat Narayan Bansal & Krishma Flouricultu re To ini&ate ac&on against Dev Bhushan, Kaptan & Others, as despite status quo order dated 04.12.2019 of HC, various aliena&ons have been made. Breach of order dated 29.07.2021 Breach of Aﬃdavit dated 24.09.2021 CM N: 1291 C- 2025 Under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC Appellant – Suraj Pal (plainﬀ N: 5) [G.S.Sullar Adv.] For withdrawal of Appeal based on seDlement agreement dt. 03.02.2025 with Krishma Flouriculture RSA No. 5337 of 2019 ‘Suraj Pal (plain ﬀ N: 5) vs Sat Narayan Bansal & Others (remaining plain ﬀs & defendants) CM N: 2833 C- 2021 Under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC Prabhat Kumar [Anuj Dewan Adv.] Sale Deed dt. 23.07.2004 [8K for ₹16.5 Lacs] & Transfer Kaptan Singh, vendee of Plain&ﬀ N: 1 – Dev Bhushan 8K + 6K 8M = 14K—8M SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) Deed dt. 07.01.2005 [6K-08M for ₹2.5 Lacs from B.S.Kapoor, vendee of Kaptan Singh vide sale deed dt.14.09.20 04 CM N: 2880 C- 2020 Under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Order 22 Rule 10 CPC Bimla Jain Anil Jain [Lokesh Sinhal Adv.] ATS dt.06.01.20 09 [₹3.2 Crore] Sat Narayan Bansal 104K-4M CM N: 10761 C- 2026 Under Order I Rule 10 CPC + O.22 R.10 CPC read with Sec&on 151 CPC Omkar Singh [Rakesh Dhiman Adv] Sale Deed dated 29.11.2012 [₹89,37,500 /-] Plain&ﬀs N: 2 to 4, vendees of Kaptan Singh, vendee of Dev Bhushan 13 Kanal CM N: 2316 C- 2026 Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC Ja&n Bhagat [Shreenath Khemka, Adv.] Sale Deed dt. 11.12.2018 [₹73,80,000 /-] Parvesh & Smt. Roshni, vendees from Kaptan Singh, vendee of Plain&ﬀ N: 1 – Dev Bhushan 2K-19M-6 Sarsai CM N: 3186 C- 2023 Under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC Sat Narayan Bansal & Krishma Flouricultu re (Defendan ts N: 6 & 7) [Pankaj Gupta To take on record Se#lement Deed/ MoU dt. 6.12.2021 & disposal of RSA (For considera&o Between Suraj Pal (Pl. N: 5 – appellant and applicants-Def N: 6 & 7) – Earlier purchased by Krishma (Def. N: 7) vide sale deed dt. 28.07.1990 – w.r.t 18K- 14M SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) Adv.] n of ₹1 Crore) relinquished rights in favour of Suraj Pal – Pl. N: 5 CM N: 1301 C- 2025 Under Sec&on 151 CPC Appellant – Suraj Pal (plainﬀ N: 5) [G.S.Sullar Adv.] For withdrawal of Appeal based on seDlement agreement dt. 03.02.2025 with Krishma Flouriculture RSA No. 5338 of 2019 ‘Dev Bhushan Gupta (plain ﬀ N: 1) vs Krishna Flouriculture & Others (remaining plain ﬀs & defendants) CM N: 2827 C- 2021 Under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC Prabhat Kumar [Anuj Dewan Adv.] Sale Deed dt. 23.07.2004 [8K for ₹16.5 Lacs] & Transfer Deed dt. 07.01.2005 [6K-08M for ₹2.5 Lacs from B.S.Kapoor, vendee of Kaptan Singh vide sale deed dt.14.09.20 04 Kaptan Singh, vendee of Plain&ﬀ N: 1 – Dev Bhushan 8K + 6K 8M = 14K—8M CM N: 2876 C- 2020 Under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Order 22 Rule 10 CPC Bimla Jain Anil Jain [Lokesh Sinhal Adv.] ATS dt.06.01.20 09 [₹3.2 Crore] Sat Narayan Bansal 104K-4M CM N: 10764 C- 2026 & CM N: 10446 C- 2021 Under Order I Rule 10 CPC + O.22 R.10 CPC read with Sec&on Omkar Singh [Rakesh Dhiman Adv] Sale Deed dated 29.11.2012 [₹89,37,500 /-] Plain&ﬀs N: 2 to 4, vendees of Kaptan Singh, vendee of Dev Bhushan 13 Kanal SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 151 CPC CM N: 3941- C of 2024 Under Sec&on 151 CPC Appellant – Dev Bhushan (plainﬀ N: 1) For withdrawal of Appeal based on compromise dt. 04.04.2024 with Kaptan Singh CM N: 11602 C- 2025 Under Order I Rule 10 CPC Sunil Saini [Aman Sharma Adv.] Two Sale Deeds dt. 30.08.2024 [₹9.3 Crore + ₹4.7 Crore = 14 Crore] Sat Narayan Bansal 63K-19M + 32K-5M CM N: 12397 -C of 2024 Under Sec&on 151 CPC Sat Narayan Bansal [Abhilaksh Grover, Adv.] To place on record Compromise Deed dt. 07.12.2024 between plain&ﬀ – Appellant Dev Bhushan & Sat Narayan Bansal, whereby Dev Bhushan has relinquished all his rights in favour of Sat Narayan Bansal RSA No. 5336 of 2019 ‘Dev Bhushan Gupta (plain ﬀ N: 1) vs Sat Narayan Bansal & Others (remaining plain ﬀs & defendants) CM N: 2828 C- 2021 Under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC Prabhat Kumar [Anuj Dewan Adv.] Sale Deed dt. 23.07.2004 [8K for ₹16.5 Lacs] & Transfer Deed dt. 07.01.2005 [6K-08M for ₹2.5 Lacs from B.S.Kapoor, vendee of Kaptan Singh vide sale deed dt.14.09.20 04 Kaptan Singh, vendee of Plain&ﬀ N: 1 – Dev Bhushan 8K + 6K 8M = 14K—8M CM N: 5129 C- 2022 Under Order I Rule 10 CPC + O.22 R.10 CPC + Sec&on 151 CPC Jaswant Singh s/o Durga Prashad [Chetan Slathia Adv.] Sale Deed dt.11.03.20 05 [16K-5M] + Two sale deeds dt. 14.03.2005 [8K + 8K] Kaptan Singh, vendee of Dev Bhushan + Kiran Bala & Munish Kumar, vendees of Kaptan Singh 32K-5M SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) [Total – ₹ 4,03,000/-] CM N: 2881 C- 2021 Under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Order 22 Rule 10 CPC Bimla Jain Anil Jain [Lokesh Sinhal Adv.] ATS dt.06.01.20 09 [₹3.2 Crore] Sat Narayan Bansal 104K-4M CM N: 396 C- 2020 Under Order I Rule 10 CPC Kamla w/o Balbir [Suvir Sidhu Adv.] Sale Deed dated 27.06.2012 [₹41,94,000 /-] Inderjit Singh 6K-2M CM N: 10763 C- 2026 Under Order I Rule 10 CPC + O.22 R.10 CPC read with Sec&on 151 CPC Omkar Singh [Rakesh Dhiman Adv] Sale Deed dated 29.11.2012 [₹89,37,500 /-] Plain&ﬀs N: 2 to 4, vendees of Kaptan Singh, vendee of Dev Bhushan 13 Kanal CM N: 1910 C- 2026 Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC Ja&n Bhagat [Shreenath Khemka, Adv.] Sale Deed dt. 11.12.2018 [₹73,80,000 /-] Parvesh & Smt. Roshni, vendees from Kaptan Singh, vendee of Plain&ﬀ N: 1 – Dev Bhushan 2K-19M-6 Sarsai CM N: 11426 -C of 2023 Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC Sat Narayan Bansal & Krishma Flouricultu re To stay further aliena&on CM N: 11427 -C of 2023 Under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC Sat Narayan Bansal & Krishma Flouriculture To ini&ate ac&on against Dev Bhushan, Kaptan & Others, as despite status quo order dated 04.12.2019 of HC, various aliena&ons have been made CM N: Under Appellant For SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA Nos.5326, 5336 to 5338 of 2019 (O&M) 2026:PHHC:124476 COCP Nos.265 and 1945 of 2025 (O&M) 3968 C- 2024 Sec&on 151 CPC – Dev Bhushan (plainﬀ N: 1) [Vaibhav Bhargav Adv.] withdrawal of Appeal based on compromise dt. 04.04.2024 with Kaptan Singh CM N: 11597 C- 2025 Under Order I Rule 10 CPC Sunil Saini [Aman Sharma Adv.] Two Sale Deeds dt. 30.08.2024 [₹9.3 Crore + ₹4.7 Crore = 14 Crore] Sat Narayan Bansal 63K-19M + 32K-5M CM N: 10490 C- 2026 Under Order I Rule 10 CPC Rajinder Sharma [Kamaljeet Dahiya, Adv.] Sale Deed dt. 05.11.2024 [₹25 Crore] Sunil Saini, vendee of Sat Narayan Bansal 32K-05M CM N: 12413 C- 2024 Under Sec&on 151 CPC Appellant – Dev Bhushan (plainﬀ N: 1) [Abhilaksh Grover, Adv.] To place on record compromise dated 07.12.2024 COCP N: 238 of 2020 in RSA N: 5338/2019 – ‘Sat Narayan vs Dev Bhushan & Others’ – dismissed as withdrawn on 10.01.2023 aBer undertaking Dev Bhushan & Suraj Pal COCP N: 1945 of 2025 ‘Bimla Jain vs. Sat Narayan Bansal & Krishma Floriculture’ For viola&ng Order dated 04.12.2019 Due to selling of property to Sunil Saini vide sale deed dated 30.08.2024 & cancella&on of lease deed dt. 30.08.2024 COCP N: 265 of 2025 in RSA N: 5336/2019 ‘Prabhat & Jaswant vs. Sat Narayan Bansal, Sunil Saini & Suresh, Sub-Registrar’ For viola&ng Order dated 04.12.2019, whereby status quo qua aliena&on and possession was stayed Due to selling of property to Sunil Saini vide sale deed dated 30.08.2024 & cancella&on of lease deed dt. 30.08.2024 (DEEPAK GUPTA) 02.09.2026 JUDGE Sarita SARITA RANI 2026.09.03 18:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

DEV BHUSHAN GUPTA v. KRISHMA FLORICULTURES LIMITED AND OTHERS

Judgment text