IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.01.2026 Somwati ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Noor Jahan and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Manoj Sood, Advocate for the appellant.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby the suit filed by the appellant for specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2008 and possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. It was the pleaded case of the appellant that defendant had agreed to sell suit land measuring 4K to the appellant by way of Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2008 for total sale consideration of Rs.40 lacs. It was contended that plaintiff had made part payment of Rs.32 lacs i.e. by way of 3 cheques and Rs.1 lac by cash. Target date for execution of the Sale Deed was 27.11.2008. The appellant had issued legal notice dated 14.06.2012 and then another legal notice dated 02.07.2012 to the defendant/respondent but to no avail. As such, appellant had filed the present suit on 31.07.2012.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 09.03.2017. The Civil Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 06.03.2019. Hence, present second appeal by the plaintiff.

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Courts below were in error in non-suiting the appellant as they failed to appreciate that the appellant had duly demonstrated her readiness and willingness to perform the contract. It is submitted that at the time of executing the Agreement in question, the appellant had given cheques worth Rs.32 lacs to the respondent, but it was respondent who did not present the cheques. The appellant had demonstrated that she had balance amount of Rs.7 lacs in the account of her father. Thus, it was proven that the appellant was always ready and willing to perform the contract but it was the respondent who kept delaying the execution of Sale Deed on one ground or the other. It is submitted that the appellant had mistakenly relied upon the words of the respondent, which resulted in some delay in filing the suit. However, the same is not sufficient to deny specific performance.

5. It is accordingly prayed that the present Second Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below be set aside.

6. No other argument is raised by learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant.

7. There are concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below that the appellant was unable to prove Agreement to Sell dated 28.05.2008 Ex.PW1/1. It is admitted position that in the year 2008, defendant was not owner of the suit land; whereas in the Agreement, she is described as owner of the suit land. Further, there are numerous unexplained and unreconciled discrepancies in the Agreement in as much as the Agreement was allegedly executed by defendant No. 1 alongwith one Ibrahim for sale of 8K of land. During the course of hearing, on a Court query in this respect, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that Ibrahim has not signed the Agreement; and it was for this reason that the civil suit was filed only qua 4K of land which was in the ownership of defendant No.1. Notwithstanding the above contention of the appellant, admittedly the Agreement Ex.PW1/1 was executed in respect of 8K of land; whereas plaintiff is seeking specific performance only in respect of 4K of land. Admittedly, the agreement is between the plaintiff, defendant, and one Ibrahim. However, appellant is seeking t