JUDGMENT :

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants Raghbir Singh and others, assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot in Civil Appeal No. CA- 226/2019, whereby the lower appellate Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs and directed the appellant-defendants to refund the amount received as advance, thereby modifying the findings of the trial Court.

2. The cross-objections have been filed by Lalit and others, who are the plaintiffs in the original suit and respondents in the present RSA, challenging the same judgment and decree dated 30.04.2025 to the extent it declines relief of declaration, permanent injunction, and seeking enhancement of relief granted by the lower appellate Court.

3. By this common judgment, this Court proposes to decide the RSA as well as the cross-objections.

Brief Facts

4. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration, recovery of money and permanent injunction, seeking a declaration that the agreement to sell dated 29.09.2012 executed by defendants Rajpreet Singh and Raghbir Singh in relation to land measuring 165 kanals 3 marlas, in favour of the plaintiffs, stands valid and enforceable, further seeking recovery of the amount paid along with damages and interest, and also a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property in any manner to any third person other than the plaintiffs.

5. As per the plaint allegations, the defendants executed an agreement to sell the suit land on 29.09.2012 for a sale consideration of Rs. 58,80,000/- per acre, and received Rs. 16,00,000/- at the time of agreement as earnest money. Plaintiffs further paid Rs. 9,00,000/- on 04.10.2012, Rs. 30,00,000/- on 07.11.2012, Rs. 10,00,000/-, Rs. 13,00,000/-, Rs. 10,00,000/- by cheque and Rs. 23,00,000/- on different dates towards sale consideration. It was agreed that the remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- would be paid on 31.03.2013, and another Rs. 1,50,00,000/- on 16.08.2013, whereafter the defendants would execute and register the sale deed by 31.07.2014. Possession was delivered after harvesting and the plaintiffs undertook development works for residential colony, spending around Rs. 50,60,000/-. Plaintiffs applied for PUDA approval, but the process halted when PUDA raised an objection since 83 kanals 6 marlas of land was under mortgage. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not clear loan or obtain ‘No-Encumbrance’ Certificate. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants avoided execution of sale deed, even on 01.08.2014, when plaintiffs were present before the Sub Registrar for payment of balance amount, defendants did not appear. A cheque issued by plaintiffs was later dishonoured, leading to issuance of legal notice by defendants forfeiting earnest money on 04.08.2014. On 05.04.2015, defendants allegedly demolished development work done by plaintiffs, compelling them to file the suit.

6. In the written statement, the defendants denied the allegations and asserted that the plaintiffs had failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time and were never ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. They submitted that plaintiffs did not affix proper ad-valorem court fee and failed to get the sale deed executed on 29.09.2012 as agreed. It was pleaded that no significant development work was carried out by plaintiffs except construction of a gate, and due to non-payment, the defendants had the right to forfeit earnest money. The defendants further pleaded that they remained present before the Sub Registrar on 01.08.2014 from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM and marked their presence by way of affidavit, hence the plaintiffs alone were defaulters. After repayment of loan, clearance certificate and consent letter were handed over to plaintiffs, but as plaintiffs failed to honour payment schedule, they were not entitled to relief.

7. From t