IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Baldev ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Niranjan Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

The date when the judgment is reserved: 30.01.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced: 10.02.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 11.02.2026 website:

Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full pronounced or whether the full judgment is judgment pronounced:

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parit Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Rajesh Bhateja, Advocate for respondents No. 14 to 16.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal whereby the suit filed by the appellant for specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 03.06.1979 although decreed by the learned Trial Court; has been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court by holding the Agreement dated 03.06.1979 to be fraudulent.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 03.06.1979; and in the alternative suit for recovery of Rs.30,000. It was the pleaded case in the plaint that Ram Singh was owner in possession of suit property comprising of 3 shops, as described in the plaint. Defendants No. 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of Ram Singh. Ram Singh had agreed to sell the suit property to the appellant vide Agreement to Sell dated 03.06.1979 for a total sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- of which earnest amount of Rs.25,000/- was received by Ram Singh in cash at the time of execution of Agreement on 03.06.1979. Target date for execution of Sale Deed was set for 18.02.1981 on receipt of remaining amount of Rs.5,000/-. It was further agreed that if the plaintiff would not get the Sale Deed registered, advance money will stand forfeited and if the vendor will not execute the Sale Deed, the plaintiff would get Rs.50,000/- as damages including Rs.25,000/- as earnest money. Appellant had further averred in the plaint that target date of 18.02.1981 was a Sunday. Hence the appellant duly appeared before the Sub Registrar on the very next date i.e. 19.02.1981 to execute the Sale Deed, however the defendant did not turn up. Notice was issued to the legal heirs of Ram Singh. On the contrary, defendants No. 1 to 5 vide Sale Deed dated 28.04.1981 had sold the suit property to defendants No. 14 to 16 with the consent of defendants No. 2 to 13. With these pleadings, present suit was filed on

25.07.1985.

3. Defendants No.1 to 13 filed written statement resisting the suit on the ground that Agreement in question was a forged Agreement which was never executed by Ram Singh. It was contended that the suit property is a joint property of Ram Singh and his brother Bhan Singh and both have equal shares of the suit property which is in their joint possession. It was alleged that the Agreement dated 03.06.1979 had been prepared by the plaintiff in connivance with his brother-in-law Parmod Bhushan, who was tenant in one of the 3 suit shops. It was denied that the said defendants had ever received any legal notice from the plaintiff.

Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:-

“1) Whether Ram Singh deceased executed agreement as alleged and received earnest amount for the extent of Rs.

25,000/-?0PP.

2) If issue No.1 is proved whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract ?OPP.

3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?

OPD.

4) Whether Ram Singh and Bhan Singh deceased were joint owners of the property in dispute? If so its effect?OPD.

5) If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the agreement in question is forged one?OPD.

6) Whether defendants no.1 4 to 16 are bonafide purchasers for consideration without notice of the property in dispute as alleged? If so its effect?OPD.

7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to spécific performance or for d