IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-5273-2014 (O&M)

Reserved on:11.02.2025 Pronounced on: 27.02.2025 KISHAN CHAND AGGARWAL AND ANOTHER . . . .APPELLANTS Vs.

BAL KRISHAN AND OTHERS . . . . RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Aryaman Thakur, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate, and Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocate, for the respondents.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Plaintiffs of this case have approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal against the judgment dated 21.08.2014 of the First Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal against judgment & decree dated 05.10.2011 of the trial Court, whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs (appellants herein) for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.03.2005 was dismissed.

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

3.1 Being owners of 33 kanal 12 marla of the suit land, detailed in para No.1 of the plaint, defendants (respondents herein) agreed to sell the same to the plaintiffs vide agreement dated 16.03.2005 Ex.P1 at the rate of (cid:1)14,70,000/- per acre i.e. for total sale consideration of (cid:1)61,74,000/-. An amount of (cid:1)10 lakh was received by the defendants as earnest money vide a separate receipt Ex.P2. The sale deed was agreed to be executed on 18.07.2005 in favour of plaintiffs or their nominee on receipt of the balance sale consideration. Usual default clauses were also incorporated in the agreement.

3.2 As pleaded by the plaintiffs, they were always ready & willing and still ready & willing to perform their part of contract. They contacted the defendants and requested them several times to perform the contract in question and offered them necessary amount for purchase of stamp papers and incurring registration charges and told them that balance sale consideration of (cid:1)51,74,000/- was with them. Plaintiffs also requested defendants to come in the office of Sub Registrar, Palwal on 18.07.2005 i.e. the date stipulated for execution and registration of the sale deed. It was pleaded further that plaintiff No.2-Rakesh Gupta reached the office of Sub Registrar, Palwal on 18.07.2005 along with necessary amount for stamp papers and registration charges etc. and also with the balance consideration of (cid:1)51,74,000/-, but defendants did not turn up in the office of Sub Registrar. After waiting for the defendants for full office hours, Plaintiff No.2-Rakesh Gupta got his presence marked in the office of Sub Registrar, by getting an affidavit executed in this regard from Executing Magistrate. Plaintiffs later on also got served a legal notice dated 06.10.2005 Ex.P20 upon the defendants through their counsel, but defendants No.1 to 3 deliberately did not receive the same and made the false endorsement of incorrect address. With these averments, plaintiffs brought the present suit on 27.02.2006 seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell.

4.1 In their written statement, the defendants do not dispute the execution of the agreement to sell or the receipt of ₹10 lakh as earnest money. However, they challenge the plaintiffs’ readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract.

4.2 The defendants pleaded that as per the agreement, they were required to demolish the factory building on the suit land, which they did at an expenditure of ₹4 lakh. They further claimed that on

18.07.2005, they appeared at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hodal, to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs or their nominee and waited until office hours, but the plaintiffs or their representatives failed to appear. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs were unable to arrange the balance sale consideration of ₹51,74,000/- before the stipulated date, as they could not find a buyer for the suit land