IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.05.2025 Charanjit Singh …Appellant Versus Mohinder Singh & Anr.

…Respondents CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ayush Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Based upon agreement to sell dated 09.06.2004, plaintiff Charanjit Singh (appellant herein) filed a suit seeking specific performance against defendant Mohinder Singh (respondent herein). The trial Court declined the relief for specific performance but decreed the suit for refund of earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest vide judgment dated 10.12.2013. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 23.10.2018, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court.

2. Against the aforesaid concurrent findings of facts, the present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

3. As the paper-book reveals that execution of the agreement to sell dated 09.06.2004 is not in dispute, whereby defendant No.1 Mohinder Singh had agreed to sell 12 kanals 14 marlas of land @ Rs.2,25,000/- per bigha to the plaintiff after receiving the earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/-.

JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 10:48 The target date for execution of the sale-deed was fixed to be 15.10.2004 on which date the balance sale consideration was to be paid.

4. According to plaintiff, he appeared on 15.10.2004 before Sub- Registrar and wanted to get an affidavit attested to mark his presence, but defendant requested him not to do so, assuring that he will execute the sale-deed after some days. However, defendant did not execute the sale deed even thereafter which compelled the plaintiff to send a legal notice dated 15.11.2004 asking the defendant to execute the sale deed, but in vain. After filing of the suit, plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 had already sold the property to defendant No.2.

5. Defendant No.1 disputed the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. He claimed that he was present in the office of Sub Registrar on 18.10.2004 as 15.10.2004 i.e. target date was non-working day in the office of Sub Registrar and there were holidays on 16.10.2004 and 17.10.2004. However, the plaintiff did not turn up. Defendant got his presence marked by way of an affidavit. Defendant admits that he received a legal notice from the plaintiff but submits that he sent the reply dated 24.11.2004 to the plaintiff through his counsel stating the true facts, but the plaintiff concealed the said reply from the Court. It is further pointed out that despite more than two and a half years, the plaintiff did not come forward for getting the sale-deed executed which in itself shows that he was not ready to perform his part of the contract.

Prayer was according made for dismissal of the suit.

JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 10:48

6. Both the Courts below found that readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff was lacking for getting the sale-deed executed in terms of the agreement and as such suit and then consequent appeal were dismissed.

7. Assailing the concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the suit was filed within limitation; that Courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence on record and still further proper issues were not framed which caused prejudice to the case of the plaintiff-appellant.

8. After hearing learned counsel for appellant at considerable length and going through the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the contentions.

9. As has been observed by the First Appellate Court, based upon evidence of record, that plaintiff claimed that he had appeared in the office of Sub Registrar, Ahmedgarh on 15.10.2004 for getting the sale-deed executed and further claimed that he had purchased stamp paper for getting an affidavit attested to mark his presence but defendant asked him not to do so assuring that he will get the sale deed executed. However, perusal of the stamp paper p