IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 23.12.2025

Sanjana Devi

...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Pahalad Singh & Others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate

Mr. Jatinder Kumar Kansal, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Mukesh Rao, Advocate

Mr. Shubham Aneja, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the defendant No.2 against the

concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 herein, for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 18.04.2005, has been decreed for specific

performance, by both the Courts below.

2. It was pleaded in the plaint that vide Agreement to Sell dated 18.04.2005 the defendant No.1/pro-forma respondent No.2 herein, had agreed to sell suit land measuring 112.5 square yards/approximately 3.5 marla to the plaintiff @ of Rs.1350/- per square yards i.e. for total sale

consideration of Rs.1,51,875/-. It was pleaded that of the said amount plaintiff had paid Rs.90,000/- as earnest money in cash. It was further stated that subsequently also, plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- on 21.09.2005 in cash to defendant no.1. Target date for execution of Sale Deed was set for 18.10.2005. However, defendant No.1 and her son Kamal Singh in collusion with defendant No.2/appellant herein, and defendant No.3/pro- forma respondent No.3 herein, to defeat the rights of the plaintiff executed two Sale Deeds: one dated 24.04.2006 in favour of defendant No.2; and another Sale Deed dated 25.04.2006 in favour of defendant No.3 regarding the property in dispute. It was averred that the said Sale Deeds are not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff in view of the prior Agreement to Sell dated 18.04.2005 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, a declaration was sought that the Sale Deeds dated 24.04.2006 and 25.04.2006, and the mutations on the basis of these Sale Deeds in favour of the defendants be declared null and void. Further, a decree of specific performance by way of possession of land was also prayed for on the basis of the Agreement of Sale dated 18.04.2005. With these pleadings, the suit was filed on 01.07.2006.

3. Upon notice, the defendant No.1 had appeared and filed written statement admitting the Agreement of Sale dated 18.04.2005, as also receipt of earnest money of Rs.90,000/- + Rs.25,000/-. Defendant No.1 also admitted in her written statement that she had executed Sale Deeds dated 24.04.2006 and 25.04.2006 in favour of the defendants No.2 and 3 respectively. However, it was denied that the said Sale Deeds were executed in connivance with the said defendants. It was pleaded that the said Sale Deeds were executed as plaintiff was not having balance sale consideration to register the Sale Deed. 4. Defendants No.2 and 3 had filed joint written statement denying the averments of the plaint. It was pleaded that defendants No.2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers of the suit land for valuable sale consideration and without notice vide Sale Deeds dated 24.04.2006 and 25.04.2006.

Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

5. The plaintiff filed replication, controverting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating those made in the plaint.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 13.08.2007: - “I. Whether the defendant no.1 agreed to sell 4 marla land, to the plaintiff @1350/- per sq yard on 18.4.2005? OPP II. Whether the defendant no. 1 received amount of Rs.90.000/-

as earnest money from the plaintiff? OPP III. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for such a performance of the agreement to sell dated 18.4.2005? OPP IV. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP V. Whether the sale deed dated 24.4.2006 and 25.4.2006 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants no.2 and 3 a