A Canada Co-Owner's Two Attorneys Lodged Two Sale Deeds. The Delhi High Court Let the Buyer's Suit Run.

On 30 September 2026 the Delhi High Court dismissed two revision petitions by co-owners of D-24 Bhagwan Dass Nagar, New Delhi, who wanted a buyer's specific performance suits thrown out at the threshold. One of them, Bhupinder Singh, is described in the order as a resident of Canada. His power of attorney holder signed a sale deed with the buyer before the Sub-Registrar. Registration was then put on hold because a second attorney of his had lodged a deed for the same share in favour of someone else.

The house and the agreements

The order covers C.R.P. 299/2026, Baljeet Kaur v. Ajit Pal Singh Bindra, and C.R.P. 300/2026, Bhupinder Singh v. Ajit Pal Singh Bindra & Anr. Justice Anish Dayal decided both in an oral judgment on 30 September 2026. The judgment runs to 11 pages and carries a digital signature dated 6 October 2026. The petitions challenged two orders of 13 August 2026 by the District Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts (paragraph 1).

The property is a 216 square yard freehold plot, D-24 Bhagwan Dass Nagar, owned by Rakha Singh under a conveyance deed of 23 January 1965. He died on 5 January 1991 leaving his wife, four sons and five daughters (paragraph 2). The buyer, Ajit Pal Singh Bindra, signed agreements to sell with the co-owners one by one to acquire the whole house. Clause 3 of Baljeet Kaur's agreement said the balance would be paid at registration, with vacant possession, "within two weeks after purchasing the share of all co-owners" (paragraph 3).

For Baljeet Kaur's share the price was Rs 22,22,222. The order records a part payment of Rs 2,00,000, further payments by cheque "totalling up to Rs.21,75,000", and another Rs 4,50,000 paid up to 18 January 2022 (paragraph 5). For Bhupinder Singh's share the price was Rs 25,00,000. The order records Rs 33,00,000 paid in all: Rs 26,37,360 into his account and Rs 6,62,640 deducted as TDS (paragraph 7).

The second attorney

Paragraph 8 records the buyer's case. It describes Bhupinder Singh as a person "who was a resident of Canada". His power of attorney holder, the second defendant, went with the buyer to register the sale deed. The buyer paid stamp duty of Rs 3,96,000 and a registration fee of Rs 66,000. After the signed deed went to the Sub-Registrar, the buyer learnt that Bhupinder Singh, through another attorney, S. Kuljeet Singh, had lodged a sale deed for his shares in favour of Sarabjeet Kaur. Registration of the buyer's deed was put on hold. In paragraph 23 the court records that the rival deed "had been moved for registration and ordered in a court case".

What the court held

The co-owners applied under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaints (paragraph 12). The court said a revision under Section 115 is limited to errors of jurisdiction and found none (paragraphs 15 to 17). It then dealt with each plea.

• On Clause 3: reading it as making the suit wait until the buyer had every other share was "an unreasonable and irrational reading of Clause 3" (paragraph 19). On the buyer's case full consideration had been paid, and "the natural consequence would be the execution of sale deed" (paragraph 22). The buyer cannot be expected to close with every family member "in a coordinated and synchronized manner" (paragraph 24).
• On the unregistered agreement: under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, an unregistered document about immovable property can be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance. The court relied on Ameer Minhaj v. Dierdre Elizabeth (Wright) Issar and R. Hemalatha v. Kashthuri (paragraph 25).
• On the missing declaration: the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act does not apply to a suit that seeks performance, not a declaration (paragraph 26). The buyer's counsel cited Manickam v. Vasantha, where the Supreme Court said possession is ancillary to specific performance under Section 22 (paragraph 21).
• On continuous duty: Section 14(b) does not bar the suit. The buyer seeks a sale deed for a share that "is already determined" and needs no supervised continuing duty (paragraphs 27 and 28).

Both petitions were dismissed (paragraph 29). The order does not decide the suits. The question of who gets Bhupinder Singh's share, the buyer or Sarabjeet Kaur, is not answered in it.

What it means for an NRI co-owner

The order never uses the word NRI. It records that Bhupinder Singh was a resident of Canada and acted through two attorneys.

On the order's facts, a co-owner abroad with two live powers of attorney ended up with two deeds for one share at the Sub-Registrar, and a suit over which one stands. Our guides on power of attorney misuse and on revoking a power of attorney from abroad cover how an owner abroad tracks and withdraws authority.

FAQ

What did the Delhi High Court decide on 30 September 2026? It dismissed revision petitions against orders refusing to reject two specific performance suits. The suits over undivided shares in D-24 Bhagwan Dass Nagar go on to trial.

Can a suit for specific performance rest on an unregistered agreement to sell? The court held it can, under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, following the Supreme Court in Ameer Minhaj and R. Hemalatha (paragraph 25).

Did the court decide which sale deed of the Canada co-owner's share is valid? No. It records the competing deed and the hold on registration (paragraphs 8 and 23). That question stays with the trial court.

Must a buyer of undivided shares close with every co-owner at once before suing one of them? No. The court called that reading of Clause 3 "unreasonable and irrational" and said the buyer cannot be expected to deal with every family member in a synchronised way (paragraphs 19 and 24).

Does a suit to enforce a sale of a share need a separate prayer for a declaration? No. The court held the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act does not apply to a suit that seeks performance, not a declaration (paragraph 26).

66 MG Road newsdesk

Sources

• Baljeet Kaur v. Ajit Pal Singh Bindra, C.R.P. 299/2026, CNR DLHC010473362026, and Bhupinder Singh v. Ajit Pal Singh Bindra & Anr., C.R.P. 300/2026, CNR DLHC010473382026, Delhi High Court, Anish Dayal J (oral), date of decision 30 September 2026, 11 pages, digital signature dated 6 October 2026. Full text read on 7 October 2026: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32333055/
• Gaps in the order that we have not filled: paragraph 2 dates the agreement to sell 22 October 2011, and paragraph 5 dates the first part payment 22 October 2021. Paragraph 3 gives Bhupinder Singh's share as 1/3rd, and the table in paragraph 4 lists "Bhupender Singh" at 1/9th. Paragraph 5's payments, and paragraph 7's Rs 33,00,000, exceed the stated prices; the order does not explain why, or how the TDS figure was worked out. Paragraph 27 names the same Delhi case as Prem Kumar Bansal and Prem Lata Bansal. The Delhi High Court's own copy was not pulled.