JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. 

The instant appeal has been instituted by the appellant/defendant No.3 (Pardeep Yadav) against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2025, passed by the Court of District Judge, Jind, dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2018, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Safidon, vide which the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for specific performance was decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The plaintiffs (Surender Singh and Krishan) instituted a suit for specific performance of registered agreement to sell dated 19.05.2014, with respect to land measuring 5 kanals (fully described in the plaint), situated in the revenue estate of Village Mallar, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’). It was also prayed that sale deed No.1039 dated 23.06.2014 and the subsequent sale deed No.1436 dated 04.08.2014, with regard to the suit property, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and thereafter by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3, and the consequential mutation, were null and void, and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. Consequential relief restraining the defendants from causing any interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property was also sought.

4. The case set up was that initially, an agreement to sell dated 08.11.2013 was executed by defendant No.1, who was the owner in possession of land measuring 21 kanals 14 marlas, including the suit property, in favour of plaintiff No.1 and one Shyam Sunder, vide which he agreed to sell the suit property for a total sale consideration of Rs.49,50,000/-. A sum of Rs.33,25,000/- was received as earnest money. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 01.05.2014 on receipt of the balance sale consideration. The said agreement was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Safido on 08.11.2013. The time for execution of the sale deed was extended vide writing dated 30.04.2014 from 01.05.2014 to 20.05.2014. Additional earnest money of Rs.8,25,000/- was received on 11.02.2014, and a receipt to that effect was executed.

4.1 However, defendant No.1 approached plaintiff No.1 and Shyam Sunder stating that he was not willing to sell 16 kanals 14 marlas out of the total land measuring 21 kanals 14 marlas and that he was willing to sell only 5 kanals of land, which was the suit property. Accordingly, he returned the earnest money received received pursuant to agreement to sell dated 08.11.2013 to plaintiff No.1 and Shyam Sunder.

4.2 Accordingly, a registered agreement to sell dated 19.05.2014 was executed, whereby the suit land was agreed to be sold for a total sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.18,00,000/- were received as earnest money and the sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 18.11.2014 after receipt of the balance sale consideration. Actual and physical possession of the suit property is stated to have been delivered at the time of execution and registration of the agreement to sell.

4.3 It was averred that as per terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 19.05.2014, the plaintiffs remained present in the office of Sub- Registrar, Safidon, on the target date, i.e. 18.11.2014, along with the balance sale consideration and expenses for execution of the sale deed, but defendant No.1 did not appear. The plaintiffs got their presence recorded through an affidavit dated 18.11.2014 in the office of Sub Registrar, Safidon.

4.4 It was averred that in the last week of June, 2014, defendant No.2, at the instance of defendant No.1, made an attempt to forcibly occupy the suit property and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs. However, the said attempt was foiled. At this stage, it was disclosed that defendant No.1 had alienated the suit property in favour of defendant No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 23.06.2014,