IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 14.01.2026 Jagjit Singh and another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Inderjit Singh and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. P.S.Saini, Advocate for the appellants.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Plaintiffs are in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Court below; whereby suit filed by the appellants for declaration and permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. The pleaded case of the appellants was that the plaintiffs are are owners of land measuring 36K-11M. Out of the said land, plaintiffs had sold land measuring 3K-5M to one Yashpal; and were therefore left with 33K-6M. It was alleged that defendant/respondent No.1 had approached the plaintiffs and agreed to purchase the abovesaid land. Accordingly, an Agreement to Sell dated 18.04.2008 was entered into between the parties, as per which, said land would be sold by the plaintiffs to defendant no.1 @ Rs.2600/-sq.yards. It was admitted in the plaint that out of total sale consideration, the defendant no.1 had paid a sum of Rs.70.00 lakhs to the plaintiffs as earnest money. It was also agreed between the parties that the sale deeds in respect of land measuring 4 Kanals; 8K-0M; and 12K shall be executed on 30.04.2008, 30.10.2008 and 20.03.2009 respectively; and an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs each shall be adjusted in sale deeds dated 30.10.2008 and 20.03.2009. The last date for execution and registration of sale deed was fixed upto 17.09.2009. Accordingly, defendant no.1 had got executed three sale deeds i.e. (a) sale deed dated 13.05.2008 qua 8K of land; (b) sale deed dated 07.11.2008 qua 4K of land;

and (c) sale deed dated 15.07.2009 qua 4K of land.

3. Thus, the plaintiffs were left as owners in possession of remaining land measuring 17K-6M which is the suit property. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract and it was defendant No.1 who had failed to perform his part of contract and failed to pay balance sale consideration. It was contended that defendant No.1 was not in a position to get the sale deed executed and as such, had got the time extended for registration of sale deed from 17.09.2009 to 20.01.2010. It was also alleged that the sale deeds had been tampered with i.e. in one sale deed area has been changed from 4K to 8K and amount paid to the plaintiffs was shown to be Rs.20 lakhs each against each sale deed. Thus, even financial fraud had been committed against the plaintiffs by the defendants and, therefore, the said sale deeds were liable to be set aside. Accordingly, present suit was filed on 14.08.2010 seeking declaration to the effect that the Agreement to Sell dated 18.4.2008 qua balance land measuring 17 Kanals

6 Marlas executed between the parties for total land measuring 33 Kanals 6 Marlas as described in the suit, be cancelled, rescinded, repudiated, terminated no more subsisting and executable on account of default of the defendant since 17.09.2009/20.01.2010 and earnest money stand forfeited. Further a declaration was sought to the effect that the sale deed dated 13.5.2008 bearing Vasika No.3208 in favour of defendant no.2, sale deed dated 7.11.2008 bearing Vasika No.16972 in favour of defendant no.2, sale deed dated 26.11.2008 in favour of defendant no.1, and sale deed dated 15.7.2009 Vasika No.217 in favour of defendant no.1 are illegal, void capricious, act of fraud, without consideration and do not confer any title on the defendants and are liable to be set aside; and for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, attorneys, associates etc. from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the above said land and further restraining them from entering into any kind of transaction whatsoever regarding above said land on the basis of the above said canceled agreement to sell dated 18.4.2008 illegally, forcibly,