The plaintiff's failure to prove readiness and willingness, and the delay and laches in filing the suit for specific performance led to the substitution of the decree for possession with the decree to refund the earnest money.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The hearing of the case was held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.

2. By this judgment RSA No. 2846 (filed by defendant No. 1 and 2) and 3055 of 2013 (filed by defendant No. 3 and 4) arising from a common judgment passed by the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court shall be disposed of. The counsel representing the parties are ad idem that both these appeals can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment. The regular second appeals in the states of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh are regulated by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, and not by Section 100 CPC as held in Pankajakshi vs. Chandrika, (2016) 6 SCC 157.

3. While admitting RSA-2846-2013, on 04.07.2017, the Court noted that the following substantial question of law proposed by the learned counsel representing the appellant:

(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellants, who have been proved to be bona-fide purchasers for consideration were entitled to protection under Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act?

(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiff/respondent having received notice of cancellation of the alleged agreement in the year 2005 itself, the suit for specific performance having been filed in September, 2008 suffered from serious latches and inaction, and the same were sufficient to decline the discretionary relief of specific performance?

(iii) Whether the approach of the learned courts below in ignoring the inaction and lapse of the plaintiff/respondent in a suit for specific performance is not perverse?

(iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the alleged agreement and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff/respondent having not been proved, the approach of learned courts below in decreeing the suit for specific performance is not perverse?

(v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case in view of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and in view of the hardship to the appellants the suit for specific performance could be decreed?

FACTS:

4. Defendants No. 1 and 2 (the appellants in RFA No. 3055 of other connected appeal. 2013) on receipt of earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/- out of a total sale consideration of Rs.28,75,575/- from the plaintiff (Satish Kumar- respondent No. 1 herein) agreed to sell land measuring 32 Kanal 72 Marlas vide an Agreement to Sell dated 19.10.2005. The sale deed was to be executed and registered on or before 20.09.2006. Defendant No. 1 and 2 (the owners of the property) sent a notice dated 20.12.2005 intimating that agreement to sell has been cancelled as they are unable to deliver the possession while calling upon the plaintiff to take back the earnest money he paid. On 24.01.2006, the plaintiff-Satish Kumar replied to the notice while insisting on performance of the contract. Defendant No. 1 and 2, through sale deed dated 23.11.2005 transferred the property in favour of defendant No. 3- Smt. Kailasho Devi. On 13.01.2006, Defendant No. 1 and 2 once more sent a notice informing the plaintiff that the Agreement to Sell dated 1.9.10.2005 stands cancelled and he should come and receive the earnest money. On 24.01.2006, the plaintiff one more time replied in same terms. On 04.02.2006, once again the defendants No. 1-2 sent a notice reiterating that the agreement stands cancelled. On 15.02.2006, the plaintiff replied on the same terms. In the meantime, defendant No. 3 transferred 11 Kanal 13 Marla land out of the suit land vide a sale deed dated 08.02.2006 in favour of defendant No. 4 (Maya Devi). Thereafter defendant No. 3 filed a civil suit for grant of decree of permanent injunction in which the plaintiff-Satish Kumar was added as a defendant. The suit was contested by Satish Kumar. On 20.09.2006, the plaintiff did not visit the office of the Sub-Registrar. On 17.09.2008, the plaintiff filed a suit while asserting that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of c