IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :-20.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement:-26.02.2026 Uploaded on:-26.02.2026 Dharam Pal … Appellant Versus Baldev Gir @ Daya Ram and Others ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate with Mr. Ajay S. Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Paramveer Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as the “RSA”) has been instituted by the appellant–plaintiff assailing the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2001 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent–defendants and consequently declined the principal relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell as sought by the appellant–

plaintiff, thereby modifying the judgment and decree dated 04.08.1997, passed by the learned trial Court to that extent.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that an agreement to sell dated 11.10.1985 was executed by defendant No.1 in his favour in respect of the suit land measuring 4 Kanals 16 Marlas for a total sale ₹

consideration of 6,000/-. At the time of execution of the agreement, a ₹

sum of 5,000/- was paid as earnest money, and the balance amount of ₹

1,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed.

2.1. It was further stipulated between the parties that since defendant No.1 had succeeded to the suit property upon the demise of his father, the sale deed would be executed and registered within one month from the date of sanction of the mutation of inheritance in favour of defendant No.1. However, defendant No.1 failed to inform the plaintiff about the sanction of the said mutation. Upon independently learning of the mutation having been sanctioned, the plaintiff approached defendant No.1 and called upon him to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement. Despite repeated requests, defendant No.1 not only declined to honour his contractual obligations but also threatened to alienate the suit property in favour of third parties.

2.2. The plaintiff has consistently averred that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and continues to remain so. It is alleged that defendant No.1, with mala fide intent, deliberately evaded execution of the sale deed, thereby compelling the plaintiff to institute the present suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell.

3. Upon service of summons, defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed a written statement, wherein he categorically denied the execution of any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. However, thereafter, defendant No.1 failed to contest the proceedings and was accordingly proceeded against ex parte.

3.1. During the pendency of the suit, the plaint was amended upon the plaintiff discovering that immediately upon the sanction of mutation in his favour, defendant No.1 had alienated the suit property in favour of defendants No.2 to 5. Consequently, defendants No.2 to 5 were impleaded as parties to the suit. It was specifically pleaded that the sale deed executed in their favour was illegal, null and void, and incapable of conferring any lawful right, title, or interest, particularly in view of the prior agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. It was further asserted that defendants No.2 to 5 had knowledge of the subsisting agreement and, therefore, could not claim protection as bona fide purchasers.

3.2. Defendants No.2 to 5 contested the suit by filing a joint written statement, raising preliminary objections inter alia regarding the maintainability of the suit.

3.3. On merits, the answering defendants denied that defendant No.1 had ever agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff and alleged that the purported agreement relied upon by the plaintiff was fabricate