The Delhi High Court has removed six defendants (relatives of the seller and two property brokers) from a Rs 6.93 crore property refund suit, and said that the suit itself looks “vexatious” at first sight, because the buyer appears to have known about the mortgage and to have been connected with the company that finally bought the shop.
A person who has no contract with the plaintiff, who received no money and owed no legal duty to him, such as a witness to an agreement or a broker, is neither a necessary nor a proper party in a suit for refund. A bare allegation of “fraud” without the specific particulars required by Order VI Rule 4 CPC, such as who made which representation, when and how, does not create a cause of action. A buyer who does not inspect the seller’s original title deeds cannot later claim to have been defrauded about an encumbrance that ordinary diligence would have revealed, because of the doctrine of caveat emptor and the exception to Section 19 of the Contract Act.
Anil Kumar Agrawal, a Patna businessman, said that he paid Rs 6.93 crore in July 2018 for a Connaught Place shop owned by Nasira Begum and signed an agreement to sell on 1 August 2018. He said that in March 2019 he discovered that HDFC Bank had a mortgage on it and that he was cheated by the owner, her relatives and the brokers who introduced him. The suit, filed in March 2022, asked for a refund with 12% interest from all of them. Defendant No. 1 said that the shop was later sold, on the buyer’s own instructions, to M/s Exclusive Stores Pvt. Ltd. under a 2019 agreement that continued the 2018 deal, after the mortgage was cleared with about Rs 5.94 crore. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the plaintiff himself admitted a business relationship with that company and its director, and that records showed substantial money flowing between his family’s companies and that company, including about Rs 5.25 crore around the time of the redemption. The Judge found it significant that the plaint is silent on the sale and that the plaintiff sought no cancellation of the 2021 sale deed. He also found that nothing in writing for 2019 to 2021 showed any protest. Because the original title deeds were with the bank, a buyer exercising due diligence would have noticed the mortgage, and so the “fraud” argument failed. The court held that the relatives, who were only witnesses or had no dealings with the plaintiff, and the brokers, who received no money, were not necessary or proper parties, and that fraud was only vaguely pleaded and not backed by the particulars that Order VI Rule 4 CPC requires. It allowed their deletion with Rs 50,000 costs to each of the six, and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against the deletion of another broker. It also noted that the unregistered, unstamped 2018 agreement may have to be impounded, and asked the plaintiff to explain on 20 November 2026 why the suit should not be dismissed.
The court did not dismiss the suit. Its remarks that the plaint is “vexatious” and the plaintiff came with “unclean hands” are prima facie views, and the case got listed on 20 November 2026 for arguments on whether the suit should be dismissed and whether the 2018 agreement is to be impounded for being unstamped and unregistered.
Citation: Anil Kumar Agrawal v. Mrs. Nasira Begum alias Mrs. Nasra Begum & Ors., CS(COMM) 187/2022 (with connected applications and O.A. 77/2024), Delhi High Court (Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora), decided on 16.10.2026 | 2026:DHC:9302
Leave a Reply