IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

RSA-3584-2015 (O&M) Reserved on:-15.09.2025 Date of Decision : 17.09.2025 Jeet Singh @ Jit Singh (since deceased) through LRs ....Appellants VERSUS Rattan Kumar and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Aakash Singla and Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocates for the appellant.

Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate with Mr. Kanish Jindal and Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocates for contesting respondent No.1.

Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated 12.09.2025 -.-

MANDEEP PANNU,J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2015 dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court, vide which the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.06.2004 was decreed.

Brief facts

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent Rattan Kumar filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.06.2004 and in the alternative for recovery of ₹6,50,000/-. It is the case of the plaintiff that TRIPTI SAINI defendant No.1 is the owner to the extent of half share out of land measuring 99 kanals 17 marlas situated at village Takipur as per Jamabandi for the year 2002– 2003. On 15.06.2004, defendant No.1 entered into an agreement of sale of the land measuring 16 kanals 18 marlas, being half share out of land bearing Khewat No.56, Khasra No.125, Khasra No.2/12 as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, situated at village Takipur, Tehsil and District Sangrur, with the plaintiff at the rate of ₹1,70,000/- per killa. He received a sum of ₹3,25,000/- in cash as earnest money and executed an agreement to sell dated 15.06.2004, agreeing to execute the sale deed on or before 15.06.2006. The agreement was executed between the parties at Longowal and was witnessed. Defendant No.1 affixed his thumb impression on the agreement. All the terms and conditions were reduced into writing. The possession of the land was delivered at the time of execution of the agreement. It was agreed that in case defendant No.1 failed to get the sale deed executed and registered up to 15.06.2006, the plaintiff could get the sale deed executed through the agency of the Court, and in case the plaintiff failed to do so, the earnest money would stand forfeited. Defendant No.1 also agreed to get the land redeemed from defendant No.2 prior to execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff asserted that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. On 15.06.2006, after informing defendant No.1, the plaintiff went to the office of the Joint Sub Registrar, Longowal, with the balance sale consideration and expenses for stamp duty and registration, and remained present there for the whole day. Defendant No.1 did not turn up. The plaintiff got his presence marked and also obtained an attested affidavit from the Executive Magistrate to that effect. He reiterated his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract but as defendant No.1 TRIPTI SAINI failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated requests, the plaintiff was compelled to file the present suit.

3. Upon notice, defendant No.1 appeared and filed his written statement. It was denied that he executed any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. It was denied that he ever received ₹3,25,000/- as earnest money on 15.06.2004 or executed any agreement in favour of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the disputed agreement is not genuine and is the result of fraud and fabrication. The plaintiff, in connivance with the witnesses, has prepared the same which is not binding upon the defendant. The defendant asserted that he never put his thumb impression on the alleged agreement. He explained that he used to visit the shop of the plaintiff