IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH **********

Reserved on: 29.01.2025 Pronounced on: 04.02.2025 Major Sudhir Narula …. Appellant Versus Sharu Ram through its LRs and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh Kahlon, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Manuj Chadha, Advocate for the Respondents.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff of the case against judgment dated 21.09.1990 of the First Appellate Court of Learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram, upholding the judgment dated 24.11.1988 of the Trial Court, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff (appellant herein) seeking decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 11.02.1981 in respect of suit land situated in District Gurugram.

2. Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

3.1 Admittedly, an agreement to sell dated 11.02.1981 (Ex.P-6) was executed between plaintiff –Major Sudhir Narula (appellant herein) and defendant No.1 – Sharu Ram (respondent No.1 herein through his LRs), regarding sale of suit land for consideration of (cid:1)18,150/-. An amount of (cid:1)500/- was paid by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 as earnest money. Target date for execution/ registration of sale deed was agreed to be 31.07.1981, on which the remaining sale consideration was to be paid. Usual default clauses were also incorporated in the agreement to the effect that in case the proposed vendee fails to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour up to the target date, the earnest money paid by him shall stand forfeited; whereas, in case the vendor fails to execute and get the sale deed registered, then the vendee will have the right to get the sale deed executed through the process of the Court.

3.2 As per plaintiff, he approached the defendant - vendor several times to get the sale deed executed in his favour but was put off. He also met the defendant No.1 on 24.6.1981 for getting the sale deed executed and registered as the stipulated date of 31.07.1981 was approaching near but defendant No.1 Sharu Ram told the plaintiff that he was not keeping good health and further assured that the date of 31.07.1981 as mentioned in the agreement had no meaning whatsoever and that the time for execution of the sale deed shall be deemed to have been extended and that he (Sharu Ram) shall have no objection for getting the sale deed executed and registered at any time. Plaintiff submits that thereafter, he remained on active army duty and ultimately, approached the defendant No.1 on 26.07.1984 for getting the sale deed executed and registered but defendant No.1 offered to return the money of (cid:1)500/- informing that he had already given the suit land to his sons by way of some family settlement. Sons of defendant No.1 were impleaded as defendants No.2 to 6. The suit for specific performance was filed on 30.07.1984 i.e. the last date before expiry of the limitation period.

3.3 Defendants contested the suit admitting the execution of the agreement to sell and defendant No.1 having received (cid:1)500/- as earnest money but submitted that 31.07.1981 was the last date for execution and performance of agreement to sell but plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract, as he did not appear in the office of Sub- Registrar on that day, though defendant Sharu Ram was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and had appeared in the office of Sub-Registrar on 31.07.1981 for executing the sale deed and waited for the plaintiff whole of the day but he never turned up. Defendant No.1 further denied that last date for execution of the sale deed was ever extended as is claimed by the plaintiff and further submitted that amount of (cid:1)500/- paid as earnest money stood forfeited and so, there was no question of specific performance of the agreement. It was also su