Mr. Shekher Dhawan, J.: - This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 11.02.2014 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Chandigarh was reversed in Civil Suit No.1 i.e. Civil Suit No.30 of 2006, titled as Smt. Veena Tuli Vs. Ram Snehi (Thekedar) and the appeal filed against Civil Suit No.2 i.e. Civil Suit No.502 of 2008, titled as Ram Snehi Vs. Smt. Veena Tuli was dismissed.

2. For convenience sake, hereinafter, reference to the parties is being made as per their status in the Civil Suit.

3. The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. In brief, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that two separate Civil Suits were filed by the parties. The first Civil Suit No.30 of 2006 titled as Smt. Veena Tuli Vs. Ram Snehi (Thekedar) was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.01.2005 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the house bearing khasra No.73/55 in New Darshani Bagh, Mani Majra to any other person except the plaintiff and for restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of plaintiff in two rooms set on first floor.

4. The second Civil Suit was filed by Ram Snehi against Smt. Veena Tuli vide Civil Suit No.502 of 2008 for seeking declaration to the effect that agreement of sale dated 28.01.2005 is wrong, null and void and has no validity in the eyes of law and consequently the earnest money paid by the defendant to the plaintiff stood forfeited in favour of the plaintiff and suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over the possession of two rooms set on first floor of house bearing khasra No.73/55, New Darshani Bagh, Mani Majra.

5. However, the main point involved in both the Civil Suits is regarding validity of agreement of sale deed dated 28.01.2005. Smt. Veena Tuli plaintiff in Civil Suit No.1 has come with the plea that the said agreement was duly executed and she is entitled to seek specific performance of the said agreement whereas Ram Snehi has come up with the plea that the said agreement is not a valid agreement.

6. The Court of first instance settled the following issues and the parties were put to trial:

1. Whether the defendant has executed an agreement to sell dated 28.1.2005, as alleged? OPP

2.If the above issue is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 28.1.2005, as alleged? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is having possession over the suit property as alleged? OPP

4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property in any manner, as alleged? OPP

5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into his possession, as alleged? OPP

6.Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

7.Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special cost? OPD

8.Relief.”

7. On the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence available on file, the Court of first instance decided issues No.1 and 2 and 4 in favour of Smt. Veena Tuli plaintiff in Civil Suit No.1. Issue No.3 was partly decided in favour of plaintiff upto the extent of two rooms set only whereas issue No.5 was decided that the plaintiff was not entitled for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession. Issues No.6 and 7 of Civil Suit No.1 were not pressed before the Court of first instance.

8. However, following issues were framed in Civil Suit No.2, titled as Ram Snehi Vs. Veena Tuli:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and mandatory injunction as prayed for and grounds taken in the plaint? OPP

2.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3.Whe