IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Suit No . : 04 of 2008 Reserved on : 02.04.2026 Decided on : 18.05.2026 Darshan Singh …Plaintiff Versus Sadh Ram (deceased) through LRs …Defendants Coram t The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes For the plaintioff : Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shivam C Sharma & Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocates.

For the defendants : Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Mr. Narinder Kumar and Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocates.

Virender Singh, Judge Plaintiff-Darshan Singh has filed the suit for specific performance of contract dated 22.10.2005, against Sadh Ram (predecessor-in-interest of the defendants), with regard the land, measuring 7 kanals 13 marlas, comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.59/65, Khasra No.173/105, as per Jamabandi for the years 2001-2002, situated in Mauza

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Gogharwal, Pargana and Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’).

2. In addition to this, the plaintiff has also sought the relief of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction, restraining the defendants from selling, transfferring, alienating or encumbering and changing the nature of the suit land.

3. The suit has beten filed on the ground that Shri Sadh Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants, who is being referred to as ‘defendant’, hereinafter, had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, who is agriculturist, regarding the sale of the suit land for a sum of Rhs.20,00,000/- per bigha, i.e., for total consideration of gRs.1,02,00,000/-.

i4. The terms and conditions of the agreement were reduced into writing on 22.10.2005 and, at that time, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, as earnest money to defendant. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell, the plaintiff was required to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 22.4.2006 and the balance amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs.82,00,000/-, was to be paid on or before 22.08.2006.

5. As per those terms and conditions, plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants on 22.4.2006 and this fact was documented, in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Dharam Pal and Negi Ram. On 22f.8.2006, the plaintiff had again paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and the last date for execution and registratiton of sale deed was extended up to 22.2.2007.

6. On 27.5.2006, the defendant got issued, a legal notice and thereafter, another notice on 26.8.2006, which was duly replied by the plaintiff on 27.9.2006, by mhentioning that the intention of the defendant has become gdishonest, as, he had already received a sum of iRs.25,00,000/-, out of the total sale consideration of Rs.1,02,00,000/- and the last date of execution of the sale deed has been extended upto 22.2.2007.

7. A request has also been made to the defendant, in the notice-cum-reply, dated 27.9.2006, to remain present on 22.2.2007, to execute and register the sale deed, in favour of the plaintiff, after receiving the balance sale consideration. The said notice-cum-reply, has been replied, by the defendant, through his counsel, in which, it has been admitted that the defendant had received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, as earnest money. However, remaining Rs.10,00,000/-, which were paid by the plaintiff and duly acknowledged by the defendant, f on 22.4.2006 and

22.8.2006, were disputed.

8. It is the further tcase of the plaintiff that plaintiff filed a suit for Permanent Injunction against the defendant in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nalagarh, however, the said suit was dismissed, as withdrawn on 15.2.2007, as, the suit for specific pherformance and injunction, was to be filed, in the High gCourt, being the value of the property more than one crore.

i9. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff, with the balance sale consideration, rema