The Delhi High Court has dismissed three connected Regular First Appeals filed by Krishan Gopal Aggarwal, Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, upholding a trial court judgment that denied their plea for specific performance of property agreements executed in 1995. The Court held that the appellants had failed to establish their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations, a key requirement for obtaining such relief.
Background of the Case
The dispute concerns an industrial property at Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. Dalip Singh had executed separate Agreements to Sell (ATS), along with related documents, in favour of the three Aggarwal brothers in September 1995 for portions of the property.
The parties later became embroiled in multiple civil proceedings over the agreements, unpaid dues, restoration of the lease, and performance of contractual obligations. Although they entered into a compromise in April 2004, disagreements continued over who had first failed to comply with the agreed terms.
The trial court eventually dismissed the brothers' counterclaims seeking specific performance of the Agreements to Sell and the compromise. They challenged that decision before the High Court.
Court's Observations
Justice Mini Pushkarna examined whether the appellants had fulfilled the legal requirements for obtaining specific performance under the unamended Specific Relief Act, 1963, which applied to the dispute because the transactions took place before the 2018 amendment.
The Court noted that under the Agreements to Sell, the purchasers were required to continue paying instalments until a specified date. However, evidence showed that the appellants stopped making payments in January 1997, even though the seller still had time under the agreement to clear the outstanding statutory dues.
Referring to the evidence, the Court observed that one of the appellants admitted during cross-examination that no legal notice had been issued informing the respondent that the instalments had been stopped.
The bench observed,
“The appellants stopped the payment of instalments, despite the stipulation in the ATS that the respondent had time till 31st March, 1998, to make good the arrears.”
The Court further held that this conduct amounted to breach of an essential term of the contract and demonstrated a lack of continuous readiness and willingness to perform their obligations.
Findings on the Compromise
The appellants argued that the 2004 compromise shifted the sequence of obligations and required the respondent to first clear outstanding dues and restore the lease before they were obliged to pay the remaining sale consideration.
While examining these submissions, the High Court found certain errors in portions of the trial court's reasoning, particularly regarding the treatment of certain Mutual Agreements. The Court held that merely admitting signatures on those documents did not amount to proof of their contents because they had not been duly proved in evidence.
The bench observed,
“Merely acknowledging signatures on a document does not amount to proof of the contents of the document.”
However, the Court concluded that these errors did not affect the final outcome because the appellants had independently failed to satisfy the legal requirements necessary for a decree of specific performance.
Court's Decision
Dismissing all three appeals, the Delhi High Court held that the trial court had correctly refused the relief of specific performance and permanent injunction.
The Court concluded that the appellants had breached essential terms of the Agreements to Sell, failed to comply with the compromise in the manner required, and had not demonstrated continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations.
Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed.
Case Details
Case Title: Krishan Gopal Aggarwal v. Dalip Singh (along with connected matters Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal v. Dalip Singh & Vijay Kumar Aggarwal v. Dalip Singh)
Case Number: RFA 253/2016, RFA 254/2016 & RFA 255/2016
Judge: Justice Mini Pushkarna
Decision Date: 15 July 2026
