IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.11.2025 Balwinder Kaur ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Gurpreet Singh ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. J.K.Singla, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate with Ms. Komal Klana, Advocate for the respondent.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein, for specific performance of Agreement dated 01.05.2006, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint are that vide agreement to Sell dated 1.5.2006, the defendant had agreed to sell the suit land measuring 12K to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,57,500/- of which defendant had received Rs.2,20,000/- as earnest money at the time of execution of Agreement. Balance sale consideration was to be paid by the plaintiff at the time of execution of Sale Deed which was to be got registered on or before 30.11.2006. It was averred that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Accordingly, plaintiff had remained present before the office of Sub Registrar Sunam on 30.11.2006 alongwith balance sale consideration. However, the defendant did not turn up to execute the Sale Deed and had threatened to alienate the same. With these pleadings, present suit was filed on 14.02.2009.

3. Vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2011, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam had decreed the suit of the plaintiff “with costs and a decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 01.05.2006 directing the defendant to execute sale deed with all rights of ownership, title and free from all encumbrances with regard to agriculture land measuring 12 Kanal comprising mustil and Killa No.38//13(8-0), 18 min (4-0) situated at village Bir Kalan, Tehsil Sunam District Sangrur and to get the same registered in favour of the plaintiff for the consideration of RS.7,57,500/- after adjusting the amount of RS.2.20,000/- already received by the defendant from the plaintiff as part payment at the time of agreement dated 01.05.2006 and after receiving the balance sale price Rs.5,37,500/- from the plaintiff. The defendants are directed to get the sale deed of the disputed property executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff in terms of agreement for sale dated 01.05.2006 with in three months thereafter, failing which, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour through the agency of the court.”

4. The appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2013. Hence, the present Second Appeal by the defendant.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the learned Courts below were in a patent error in granting decree of specific performance to the respondent as they failed to appreciate that it was the clear stance of the appellant in the written statement filed by him before the learned Trial Court that the alleged Agreement to Sell dated 01.05.2006 is false, forged and fabricated and the same was never executed by the defendant.

6. It is submitted that the correctness of the above is proved from the fact that plaintiff has taken various discrepant pleas from time to time. By way of example, it is pointed out that plaintiff in his plaint has nowhere made mention of any previous Agreement dated 01.07.2005 allegedly executed between the plaintiff and the defendant. Plaintiff has not even disclosed this fact in his examination-in-chief. However, in his cross-examination, the plaintiff has suddenly come up with the alleged previous Agreement dated 01.07.2005 Mark A in which he claimed to have received amount of Rs.2 lacs from the defendant. It is contended that the learned Courts below have acc