IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on 1^st of September, 2025 Pronounced on 28^th of November, 2025 Uploaded on 1^st of December, 2025 RSA No.5553 of 2016 (O&M)

Jaspreet Singh ....Appellant Versus Balwant Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with Ms. Priyanka Kansa, Advocate and Mr. Suneet Pal Aulakh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for the respondents. PANKAJ JAIN, J.

Plaintiff is in second appeal. For convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as by their original position before the Court of First Instance, i.e., the appellant as plaintiff and respondents as defendants.

2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell, dated 16.09.2005, and in the alternate, prayed for recovery of Rs.60,00,000/- along with interest @ 18%

per annum.

2.1. As per plaintiff, defendants agreed to sell their land measuring

115 Kanals @ Rs.6,00,000/- per acre in his favour vide written agreement dated 16.09.2005. Defendant No.1 also agreed to sell another 5 Kanal 5 Marlas of land owned by his brother Gurjant Singh and assured that he would get power of attorney executed from the owner and shall honour his part. Rs.15,00,000/- were paid by the plaintiff to the defendants as earnest money. By way of present suit, plaintiff only seeks to enforce agreement to sell qua 115 Kanals of land owned by defendants and is not pressing relief qua 5 Kanal 5 Marlas of land owned by Gurjant Singh.

2.2. As per the agreement to sell, sale deed was to be executed on or before 10.02.2006. Plaintiff claims to have appeared before the Joint Sub Registrar, Dharamkot on the agreed date. However, he was advised that the sale deed is to be registered on the next working date. 11.02.2008 and 12.02.2006 were Saturday and Sunday. Plaintiff claims to have appeared before the Joint Sub Registrar thereafter, on 15.02.2006. After defendants failed to appear before the Joint Sub Registrar to execute the sale deed, plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of permanent injunction. The said suit was stated to be pending at the time of institution of the present suit on 21.03.2006. Plaintiff claimed by way of present suit that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part and continuous to do so, and is thus entitled for decree of specific performance.

3. Suit was contested by the defendants. Execution of agreement to sell is admitted. As per the defendants, they appeared before Joint Sub Registrar, Dharamkot on 10.02.2006. An application was moved for getting their presence marked but the same was returned with the remarks that the sale deed cannot be executed on 10.02.2006 and they were advised to come present on the next day fixed for registration i.e., 15.02.2006. Defendants claimed that they remained present in the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Dharamkot, on 15.02.2006 but the plaintiff failed to turn up. On the next day i.e., 16.02.2006, again they appeared before the Joint Sub Registrar, Dharamkot, but plaintiff failed to appear. Defendants thereafter served legal notice, dated 17.02.2006 upon the plaintiff. Accordingly, defendants claim that the plaintiff having approached the courts with the false plea, is not entitled to decree of specific performance.

4. Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by the Court of First Instance, framing following issues:

“1) Whether the defendants have entered into an agreement dated 16.09.2005 with the plaintiff? OPP

2) If issue no.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession by way of specific performance? OPP

3) If issue no. 2 is not proved, whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

4) Whether the plaintiff, in alternative, is entitled for relief of recovery including interest, as prayed for? OPP

5) Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

6) Wh