IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.02.2026 Ram Kishan ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Vedpal ...Respondent(s)

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

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Plaintiff is in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the District Courts; whereby suit filed by the appellant for possession by way of specific performance, has been dismissed by both the District Courts.

2. The pleaded case of the appellant in the plaint was that the defendant is owner in possession of land measuring 30K 2M. It was stated that there are total 9 Agreements to Sell executed between plaintiff and defendant, whereby defendant had agreed to sell 8K of land for total sale consideration of Rs.76 lacs. At time of execution of first Agreement dated 07.08.2013 Ex.P3, plaintiff had paid Rs.5 lacs which was received by the defendant as earnest money; and Receipt dated 07.08.2013 was executed in the presence of sons of the defendant.

3. Date of execution and registration of Sale Deed was fixed as 25.02.2014, which was extended several times and finally extended to 29.09.2017. In this regard, a fresh Agreement dated 29.06.2017 was executed in which defendant had acknowledged receipt of Rs.40 lacs from the plaintiff which amounts were paid by the appellant during the interregnum. Thereafter, plaintiff had even sent legal notice dated 05.10.2017 to the defendant, however to no avail. Hence, present suit for possession by way of specific performance was filed on 03.11.2017.

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2019. The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed with costs by the learned District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 17.05.2021.

Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that learned District Courts were in patent error in non- suiting the appellant as they have totally ignored the fact that defendant has admitted Agreement and has also admitted that he has received Rs.40 lacs by way of earnest money. It is contended that it is the respondent who has failed in his duty for registration of Sale Deed. The plaintiff had even called Panchayat in which defendant has admitted Agreement and has admitted that he was not present on target date before the Sub Registrar.

6. Learned counsel submits that learned District Courts have also ignored the fact that PW11 Dilbagh Singh has deposed that Agreement dated 29.06.2017 Ex.P20 and Receipt Ex.P21 bear his signatures as witness. Hari Kishan was the other witness. After the Agreement was scribed by the Deed Writer, it was produced before the Sub Registrar for registration. Photographs were taken at that time. PW11 has further deposed that his thumb impressions were obtained. On a query, as to how much money defendant has taken, PW11 had replied that defendant had taken Rs.40 lacs. Learned counsel contends that while passing the impugned judgments and decrees, the learned District Courts have ignored the documents Ex.P20 and Ex.P21; and evidence.

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

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

9. Perusal of the record of the case shows that in his written statement, defendant has admitted Agreement to Sell. However, the plaintiff has failed to prove payment of Rs.40 lacs as earnest money. On a Court query, learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the said amount was paid in cash. However, learned counsel is unable to disclose the source of such