IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (202) RSA-2976-1996 (O&M)

Reserved on: 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 23.01.2026 Uploaded on: 23.01.2026 Omkar (since deceased) through LRs and another. ......Appellants Versus Dharam Chand ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by: Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the respondent.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The appellants/plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.07.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari—which dismissed their appeal—as well as the judgment and decree dated 08.08.1992 of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Rewari, respectfully invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal (RSA). The appellants originally filed a suit for possession of agricultural land by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 19.06.1986. In the ₹

alternative, they prayed for the recovery of 20,000/- in earnest money, plus ₹

liquidated damages amounting to 10,000/-.

2. The sequence of events antecedent to, and culminating in, the present appeal is succinctly set out as follows:

“The plaintiffs’ case is that the defendant, Dharam Chand, is the owner in possession of a half-share of agricultural land totaling 53 kanals and 19 marlas, as described in paragraph 10 of the plaint. It is alleged that the defendant entered into an agreement to sell the suit land to the plaintiffs on 19.06.1986 for a total ₹ ₹

consideration of 30,000/-. An amount of 20,000/- was reportedly paid as earnest money at the time of execution, while ₹

the remaining balance of 10,000/- was to be paid upon the registration of the sale deed. The agreement stipulated that the defendant would register the land in favor of the plaintiffs on 10.06.1987 (one year after the agreement). Furthermore, it was agreed that should the defendant fail to execute the sale deed by the specified date, the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover the ₹ ₹

20,000/- earnest money along with 10,000/- in liquidated damages or can get the sale registered through Court.”

3. The defendant appeared and contested the suit on the grounds that he is not the exclusive owner in possession of the said half-share. Instead, he contends that he is a co-parcener in the suit property alongside his three sons, who have held birthrights in the land. He specifically denied entering into any agreement with the plaintiffs on 19.06.1986 or receiving any earnest money. The defendant has consistently refuted the execution of the alleged agreement and the subsequent claim for damages. He further pleaded that he is an illiterate person and that Lal Singh (Plaintiff No. 4) had requested him to act as a witness. He alleges that his thumb impressions were obtained on documents under this pretext and were subsequently used to forge the agreement to sell. Maintaining that the document was executed through fraud and misrepresentation, the defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. After a careful and exhaustive review of the pleadings, documents, and submissions of both parties, the Court framed issues for adjudication to enable a clear, accurate, and comprehensive determination of the respective claims and defences, which are as under:

1.Whether the defendant entered into an agreement to sell the land in dispute to the plaintiffs and received a sum of ₹20,000 on 19.6.86? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform the part of their contract? OPP

3. In case the contract is not capable being specifically performed to what relief the plaintiffs are entitled by way of damages ? OPP

4. Further the land in dispute is joint Hindu co-parcenary property in the hands of dharm chand , if so its effect ? OPP

5. Relief.

5. Both parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. Upon conclusion of the trial and after hearing learned counsel f