The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against refusal of interim injunction in a specific performance suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case based on an alleged oral agreement to sell property.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants agreed to sell land in Burari for ₹1 crore and accepted part payments. The defendants denied this, stating the transactions related to a scrap deal and that the amounts were reversed, with complaints lodged upon noticing suspicious credits.
Upholding the trial court’s order, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri reiterated that oral agreements for sale of immovable property require a high standard of proof. The Court noted absence of a written agreement, lack of certainty of essential terms, and inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s reliance on WhatsApp messages, which referred to only one of the two khasra numbers.
The Court also flagged suppression of material facts, including prior reversal of payments, observing that a party approaching the Court with unclean hands is not entitled to discretionary relief. It further found no evidence of financial readiness and noted unexplained delays and inconsistencies in payments.
Holding that no prima facie case was made out, the Court dismissed the appeal, clarifying that its observations are only prima facie.
Appearances:
For Appellant: Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gurmukh Singh Arora, Ms. Ridhi Bajaj, Ms. Sarah Haque, Mr. Sparsh Aggarwal, Mr. Kenet Paul, and Mr. Siddharth Arora, Advocates.
