IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.01.2026 Satish Bansal and another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Suresh ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Akash Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. J.L.Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs;

whereby suit filed by the appellants for possession by way of specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 02.09.2005 was although decreed by the learned Trial Court for specific performance; however the first appeal filed by the defendant/respondent was partly decreed by the learned First Appellate Court directing the defendant to return the earnest amount of Rs.5 lacs alongwith interest of 7%.

2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint are that the defendant was owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 24K. Vide Agreement to Sell dated 02.09.2005, defendant had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.21,15,000/-. Rs.5 lacs was received by the defendant as earnest money vide Receipt dated 02.09.2005. The target date for execution of Sale Deed was set for 02.02.2006. It was pleaded that 02.02.2006 being a Sunday, plaintiffs had duly reach office of Sub Registrar, Palwal alongwith balance sale consideration on 01.02.2006 as well as on 03.02.2006. However, on both the dates, defendant did not turn up. Rather on 03.02.2006, defendant denied to get the Sale Deed executed despite request of the plaintiffs. Hence, the present suit was filed on 27.07.2006

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal had decreed the suit of the appellants for specific performance vide judgment and decree dated 18.01.2012 in the following terms: -

“20. As a sequel to my above detailed discussion on the aforesaid issues, suit of the plaintiffs succeeds and same is hereby decreed with costs against the defendant. Defendant is directed to execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the suit land mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint in favour of plaintiffs on payment of balance sale consideration as per terms of agreement to sell dated 2.9.05 within a period of two months positively from passing of this judgement, failing which plaintiffs would be at liberty to get the sale deed executed through the process of Court. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”

4. The Civil Appeal filed by the defendant was partly allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Palwal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 04.09.2014 as follows: -

“45. As a follow-up of above discussion, the appeal in hand is partly allowed with no order as to cost. The defendant is directed to return the payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the plaintiffs along with interest of 7% from the date of filing of suit till its realisation. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Copy of this order along with copy of judgment be sent back to the court concerned. Appeal file be consigned to records after due compliance.”

5. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiffs.

6. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that learned First Appellate Court was in patent error in denying specific performance of Agreement to Sell to the appellants as there are concurrent findings of fact that the Agreement in question was duly proved by the appellants by examining the marginal witnesses as well as the Scribe. The plaintiffs had even proved their readiness and willingness to perform the contract. It is contended that in these circumstances, relief of specific performance could not have been denied to the appellants.

7. Learned counsel further submits that respondent/defendant in his written statement had denied the Agreement as a sham document and had taken a plea of fraud. However, defendant had miserably failed to prove the said cont