IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 19.02.2026 Vijay Singh ... Appellant(s)

Versus Ron Khanna & Ors ... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the appellant.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 20.05.2019 passed by the First Appellate Court.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- appellant herein filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.02.1996. He also challenged the sale deed dated 02.07.2008 executed by the defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the defendant-respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-appellant that the predecessor of the defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 4 through his power of attorney Smt. Mohinder Kaur had entered into an agreement to sell dated 15.02.1996 and had agreed to sell property measuring 102 kanals 8 marlas i.e. 1/9^th share of the total land comprised in the land fully described in the plaint. The sale consideration was agreed as ₹15 lacs which was paid to Smt.

Mohinder Kaur in the presence of the attesting witnesses at the time of execution of the agreement. It was further agreed that in case Smt. Mohinder Kaur returned the total sale consideration of ₹15 lacs alongwith interest @ 18% per annum up to 03.08.2008 then the agreement to sell would become redundant and in case she fails, the plaintiff-appellant shall be entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour without paying any extra money. It was further averred that the plaintiff-appellant had a right to get the sale deed executed after 03.08.2008 through Smt. Mohinder Kaur or through Sh. Ranbir Singh. It was further averred that Smt. Mohinder Kaur died issue- less and her husband predeceased her. Ranbir Singh, predecessor of the defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 4, also died on 10.07.1999 and the defendant- respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the only the legal heirs. The defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 4 were aware of the agreement and they were duty bound to return the amount alongwith 18% interest up to 03.08.2008, but they failed to do so. The plaintiff-appellant had sent a legal notice and fixed the date for getting the sale deed executed as 24.03.2009. The legal notice was returned unclaimed. On 24.03.2009 the plaintiff-appellant is stated to have gone to the office of Sub-Registrar Dhanaula alongwith sufficient money for execution of the sale deed. Even his presence was also marked. It later came to the knowledge of the plaintiff-appellant that the defendant-respondent No.1 – Ron Khanna – through his power of attorney Sh. RS Khanna had executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant-respondent Nos.5 to 7 qua 101 kanals of the suit property. A declaration was also sought that the sale deed dated 02.07.2008 was illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff-appellant. Hence, the present suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 15.02.1996 and for declaration that the sale deed dated

02.07.2008 was null and void. In the alternative, a decree for recovery of the amount was also sought.

3. On notice the defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 4 did not appear and were proceeded against ex parte. The defendant-respondent Nos.5 to 7 appeared and filed their written statement raising various preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action and maintainability, estoppel etc. The agreement to sell dated 15.02.1996 was denied and they claimed themselves to be bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. It was further the stand taken that there was no entry in the revenue record qua the agreement to sell.

4. Replication was filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the def