IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 23.12.2025

Arun Kumar Gautam ....Appellant

V/s

Rajbir Singh and another ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate and

Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate,

for the caveator-respondent No.1.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

Defendant is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated

03.11.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, dismissing his appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Dera Bassi, vide which the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 02.07.2020 was decreed as per

the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred

to as per their original status.

3. Plaintiffs (Rajbir Singh and Kirna Devi) instituted a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.07.2020, executed by the defendant (Arun Kumar Gautam) in favour of the plaintiffs for sale of House No.41A, situated at AKS Colony, Village Lohgarh, Sub-Tehsil Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar

(Mohali) (fully described in the plaint) (hereinafter referred to as “the suit property”). In the alternative, Rs.24 lakhs (double of earnest money) was claimed with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, mortgaging, gifting or transferring the suit property was also sought.

3.1 It was claimed that agreement to sell dated 02.07.2020 had been executed with regard to sale of the suit property. The total sale consideration was fixed as Rs.51,25,000/-. A sum of Rs. 12 lakhs was paid as earnest money. The date of execution and registration of sale deed was fixed as

21.09.2020.

3.2 It was claimed that on 21.09.2020, the plaintiffs remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Zirakpur from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. along with the balance sale consideration in the shape of two demand drafts and amount for the purpose of stamp papers, registration fee etc. Despite being present there for the whole day, the defendant did not turn up to get the sale deed executed. The plaintiffs got their presence marked before the Sub- Registrar, Zirakpur and affidavit dated 21.09.2020 was executed. However, the defendant did not turn up. The plaintiffs approached the defendant and requested him to get the sale deed executed but he refused. The plaintiffs came to know that the defendant was attempting to alienate the suit property. 3.3 It was also averred that the defendant had got an endorsement dated 21.09.2020 made in the record as regards attachment of the suit property by an order of a Court. It was claimed that the said entry had been got made by the defendant in connivance with some complainant.

3.4 It was averred that the plaintiffs had always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and were ready and willing to comply with the terms of the agreement but the defendant had failed to comply with the suit. Under the circumstances, the suit was instituted.

4. The suit was opposed by the defendant. In the written statement, certain preliminary objections as regards maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, the plaintiffs not having approached the Court with clean hands, etc. were raised.

4.1 On merits, the execution of the agreement to sell, the total sale consideration, payment of earnest money, the date for the execution of the sale deed were admitted. However, it was denied that the plaintiffs had remained present on 21.09.2020 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Zirakpur along with the balance sale consideration.

4.2 It was averred that in fact on 21.09.2020, the defendant had presented himself before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Zirakpur but on the said date, the plaintiffs, along with certain othe