IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 04.03.2025 Suksham Khurana ..... Appellant versus Jaspal Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vrishank Suri, Advocate and Mr. Ankit Singla, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. Defendant No.4 is in appeal.

2. Plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.08.2003, whereby defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit property in his favour for a sale consideration of Rs.7,08,000/- and agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of 60 days of the execution of the agreement to sell. Plaintiff further sought declaration to the effect that the document of title executed by defendant No.1 qua the suit land in favour of defendant No.2 to 4 is illegal, null and void and is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and defendants be restrained from alienating the suit property further on the strength of sale deed bearing No.9867 dated 30.11.2004.

3. As per the plaint, defendant No.1 was a GPA holder qua the suit property. She agreed to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff executing agreement to sell dated 20.08.2003 and received earnest money of Rs.55,000/-. Plaintiff pleaded that the requisite permission for transfer of the suit property was obtained by defendant No.1 from HUDA on 02.01.2004. Defendant No.1 however requested the plaintiff to wait for some more time for execution of the sale deed in his favour. The plaintiff acceded to her request. Later on, application dated 09.12.2004 was moved by the plaintiff, as he came to know that defendant No.1 wanted to alienate the suit property to some third person. Plaintiff claims that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff filed the present suit.

4. At the time of filing of the written statement, defendant No.1 disclosed that she had already sold the suit property to defendant No.2 to 4 vide registered sale deed No.9867 dated 30.11.2004. Defendant No.2 to 4 are none, but the daughters of defendant No.1.

5. Suit was contested by the defendants. Defendant No.1 admitted execution of the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and also admitted receipt of Rs.55,000/- as earnest money. Defendant No.1 however claimed that she was granted permission to sell the suit property to the plaintiff on 01.01.2004. Sale deed was to be executed within 60 days thereof. Plaintiff not being in possession of the requisite funds, was neither ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Being in the need of money, defendant No.1 was constrained to sell the suit property to her daughters vide sale deed dated

30.11.2004.

6. Defendant No.2 filed separate written statement. She pleaded being a bonafide purchaser. Defendant No.3 and 4 filed separate written statement, but pleaded on the lines of defendant No.2 raising plea of being bonafide purchasers.

7. While deciding issue No.1 to 4 and 6, Court of the first instance found that the execution of the agreement and receipt of earnest money being not in dispute and the conduct of the defendant in executing sale deed dated 30.11.2004 in favour of her own daughters shows that the defendant failed to perform her part of the contract despite the plaintiff being ready and willing. Trial Court thus, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

8. Two separate appeals were preferred by defendants. One by defendant No.1 through her LRs. The other was preferred by defendant No.2 to 4. Lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the Court of the first instance holding that as per the agreement to sell admittedly executed between parties, the sale deed was executed within 60 days. For execution of sale deed, Smt. Magu- defendan