IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.02.2025 Amarjit Kaur and another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Dalip Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

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

Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The defendants No. 3 and 4 are in second appeal before this Court against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein, for specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 21.07.1998 regarding the suit property, was partly decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 07.01.2010; and the appeal filed by the defendants No.3 and 4 before the learned District Judge, Mansa, was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15.04.2011. Hence, the present second appeal.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants are the ‘defendants No. 3 and 4’; and the respondent No. 1 is the ‘plaintiff’.

3. The brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that as per the Jamabandi for the year 2002-03, the minors/defendants No. 1 and 2 were the owners of the suit property measuring 24 Kanal as described in the plaint. On 21.07.1998, as the defendants No. 1 and 2 were the minors at that time, their parents i.e. defendants No. 3 and 4 entered into Agreement to Sell with the plaintiff to sell the suit property on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2. The agreement dated 21.07.1998 was executed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving Rs.3,15,000/- as earnest money in the presence of the witnesses out of the total sale price of Rs.3,30,000/-. The target date for registration of the sale deed upon payment of the remaining amount of Rs.15,000/- for execution and registration of the sale deed was set to be 28.12.1999. Possession was also transferred to the plaintiff. Thereafter, on the basis of mutual understanding, date of registration of sale deed was extended to 15.12.2005. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his contract as is evident from the fact that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.3,30,000/-, only Rs.15,000/- remained to be paid. However, the defendants No. 3 and 4 did not obtain the required permission to sell the property of the minors defendants No. 1 and 2 from the Guardian Court concerned. On 15.12.2005, the plaintiff remained in the office of Sub Registrar alongwith balance and other expenses, but the defendants No. 3 and 4 did not turn up. The plaintiff has got his presence duly marked. Hence, the present suit was filed.

4. Upon notice, defendants appeared, and 2 sets of written statements were filed to the above suit of the plaintiff. The defendants No. 1 and 2 denied the execution of agreement stating that defendants No. 3 and 4 were not having any right to sell the property. Defendants No. 3 and 4 filed a separate written statement alleging that Agreement to Sell dated 21.07.1998 was a forged and fabricated document; and that no earnest money had been received. The plaintiff filed replication denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterating the plaint.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed: -

1. Whether on 21.07.1998 on behalf of defendant nos. 1 and 2 defendant nos.3 and 4 executed Agreement to Sell land measuring 24 kanals of defendant nos. 1 and 2 and received a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- as earnest money? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP

3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement in question? OPP

4. If plaintiff is found not entitled to specific performance of the agreement, whether he is entitled to recover the earnest money along with interest? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to fi