IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (108 Date of Decision:-10.02.2026 Kulwant Kaur @ Kulwant Kaur Masuta … Appellant Versus Dhian Singh and Others ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Mitul Singh Rana, Advocate for the appellant.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

CM-8583-C-2025

1. The applicant/appellant has preferred an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking condonation of a delay of 21 days in filing the appeal.

2. In view of the grounds set forth in the application, the same is allowed, and the delay of 21 days in instituting the appeal is hereby condoned, subject to all just exceptions.

3. The application is accordingly disposed of.

CM-8584-C-2025

1. The applicant/appellant has moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking condonation of a delay of 68 days in re-filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, and the delay of 68 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned, subject to all just exceptions.

3. The application is accordingly disposed of.

Main Appeal

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as the “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellant–plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court was affirmed in toto. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2017 had partly decreed the suit filed by the appellant– plaintiff. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, which are asserted to be legally untenable and factually unsustainable, the appellant has instituted the present appeal.

2. The brief facts, as pleaded, are that defendant No.1, being the owner of the suit property, executed an agreement to sell dated 22.09.2010 in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of `80,000/-, pursuant to which possession was delivered and the entire sale consideration paid. Despite this, defendant No.3, claiming to be an attorney, illegally sold the property to defendant No.2, though the power of attorney stood cancelled. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform her part, but the defendants are unlawfully interfering with her possession, necessitating the present suit.

3. Upon notice, defendant No.1 filed a written statement admitting the agreement to sell dated 22.09.2010, delivery of possession to the plaintiff, and cancellation of the power of attorney in favour of Kartar Singh on 06.08.2010, alleging that subsequent sale deeds were fraudulently executed without authority. He expressed readiness and willingness to perform but was later proceeded ex-parte. Defendants No.2, 4, 5, and 6 contested the suit on maintainability and merits, claiming title through registered sale deeds, denying plaintiff’s possession and rights, and seeking dismissal of the suit.

4. Upon due consideration of the pleadings and the contentions of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues for determination:–

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to confirmation of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated

22.09.2010? OPP

2. Whether in the alternative, plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the earnest money? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of declaration as prayed for?OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit?

OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands?

OPD

8. Whether the present suit is under valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction?

9. Whether the present suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC?

OPD

10. Whether the present suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 11. Relief.

5. Both partie