IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:11.03.2026 Shamsher Singh and another ... Appellants Versus Harpal Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. S.S. Slar, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. G.S. Punia, Senior Advocate with Ms. Manleen Kaur, Advocate for the respondent.

*****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 13.12.1989 has been decreed, primarily on the grounds that the aforesaid agreement to sell relied upon by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated and that the land in dispute being joint property, it could not have been specifically enforced.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to by their original status before the learned trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit seeking possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 13.12.1989. In the alternative, the plaintiff claimed recovery of Rs.62,500/- as refund of earnest money along with damages. The plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property. The case set up by the plaintiff is that the defendants were owners in possession of the suit land and agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff @Rs.10,000/- per bigha vide agreement to sell dated 13.12.1989 in favour of the plaintiff. At the time of execution of the agreement, the defendants received a sum of Rs.43,500/- as earnest money from the plaintiff. The balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It was agreed between the parties that the sale deed would be executed on or before 15.12.1990. The plaintiff pleaded that 15.12.1990 &16.12.1990 were a gazette holiday and a Sunday respectively and thus, the office of the Sub Registrar remained closed on said dates. Therefore, the plaintiff appeared before the office of the Sub Registrar on 17.12.1990 along with the balance sale consideration for the execution and registration of the sale deed. The plaintiff remained present throughout the day and also swore an affidavit before the Sub Registrar evidencing his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. However, the defendants failed to appear before the Sub Registrar for execution of the sale deed. Subsequently, the plaintiff served a registered legal notice upon the defendants calling upon them to execute the sale deed. In reply, the defendants demanded inspection of the original agreement. The plaintiff showed them the original agreement as well, yet the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract. Left with no other option, the plaintiff instituted the present suit.

4. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement. They denied the execution of the agreement to sell dated 13.12.1989 and alleged that the same is forged, fabricated and the result of fraud and misrepresentation. It was pleaded that the defendants and their father had financial dealings with the plaintiff. According to the defendants, their father had taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.02.1987, and at that time a writing in the form of an agreement to sell was obtained merely as security for the loan. Similarly, it was alleged that on 14.12.1987, the defendants and their brother Paramjit Singh had taken a loan of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff again obtained a writing from them in the shape of an agreement to sell by way of security. The defendants contended that the alleged agreement dated 13.12.1989 was also obtained by the plaintiff by playing fraud and misrepresentation and that no sale transac