236 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 26.02.2026 Amandeep Singh through his GPA Sh. Jasbir Singh ....Appellant Versus Dilawar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tarranum Madan, Advocate and Mr. Swayam Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate and Mr. Nachhadar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Defendant No.2, who is subsequent purchaser, is in second appeal.

2. Plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.12.2000.

2.1. As per plaintiff, defendant No.1 Balbir Singh was the owner of the suit land measuring 8 Kanals as detailed out in the plaint. He vide written agreement to sell dated 21.12.2000 agreed to sell the land in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,50,000/- and received Rs.38,000/- as earnest money. Parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 15.05.2003. 15.05.2003 was holiday. Next working day fell on 19.05.2003. Plaintiff claims that he remained present in in the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Dharamkot along with balance sale consideration and requisite registration charges. Defendant No.1 failed to appear and did not execute the sale deed. Plaintiff instituted present suit on 10.05.2006 seeking decree of specific performance. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 sold suit land to defendants No.2 and 3 vide sale deed dated 09.08.2006. The plaintiff amended the plaint. He seeks possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 21.12.2000.

3. Suit was contested by the defendants. Defendants claimed that the agreement to sell was a result of forgery. Defendant had leased out land measuring 2 Acres 3 Kanals to the plaintiff for Rs.20,000/-. Plaintiff has misused blank stamp-papers for execution of agreement to sell.

4. In a separate written statement filed by defendant No.2, he pleaded that he along with his brother is a bona fide purchaser of the suit land vide sale deed dated 09.08.2006.

5. Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by the Court of the First Instance, framing following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession as owner by way of specific performance of contract dated 21.12.2000 regarding sale of land measuring 8 kanals? OP

2. Whether the plaintiff remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP

3. If issues No.1 and 2 are not proved, whether in the alternative plaintiff is entitled to recovery, as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction, as prayed for? OPP

5. Whether the suit is maintainable? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has not come with clean hands? OPD

7. Whether the alleged agreement is forged and fabricated? OPD.

8. Relief.”

6. After analysing evidence threadbare, Trial Court decided Issues No.1, 2, 3 and 7 collectively. Court of the First Instance found that the plaintiff successfully proved execution of agreement to sell dated 21.12.2000 in his favour by defendant Balbir Singh and proved his readiness & willingness. However, while deciding Issue No.7, the Court of the First Instance denied main relief of specific performance to the plaintiff and granted alternate relief, observing as under:

“19. In the present case, suit property consists of 8 Kanals 0 marla, which were alleged to be sold for a meager amount of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. Whereas, rates of the immovable properties are high rocketing. Moreso, suit property was already transferred to defendants No.2 and 3 (through during the pendency of the suit). In such circumstances (with due respect), judgments cited by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff are distinguishable and thus, are not applicable to the facts of the present case, as, if specific performance of agreement is enforced, defendants will be thrown out of their source of earning, which will certainly cause hardship to them. Consequently, the Court is of the view that