IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 05.03.2025 Subhadhra Devi ...... Appellant versus Jai Pal Saini and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Pundir, Advocate and Mr. Jyoti Prasad, Advocate for the appellant.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. Defendant is in second appeal.

2. Plaintiff filed suit for specific performance qua residential property measuring 75 sq. meters situated in the urban estate, Kurukshetra. As per the plaintiff, defendant No.1 was allotted the suit property by defendant No.2. She agreed to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,90,000/-. Defendant No.1 received entire sale consideration from the plaintiff. All the documents related to the plot in question were handed over to the plaintiff. Owing to the condition barring further transfer, parties agreed to get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff on expiry of 10 years i.e. after 25.01.2012. As per the plaintiff, the remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- was to be paid directly to defendant No.2. Plaintiff visited defendant No.2 on 05.11.2007. Balance amount of Rs.15,300/- was deposited by plaintiff in the account of defendant No.1 under his signatures.

Defendant No.2 issued receipt of the said amount to the plaintiff, but in the name of defendant No.1. In terms of clause 12(ii) of the allotment letter dated 25.01.2002, 10 years lapsed on 25.01.2012. Despite repeated requests made to defendant No.1, she failed to transfer the property in question in favour of the plaintiff. As per the plaintiff, son of defendant No.1 is serving in Haryana Police and is posted at Ambala. Under the said influence, defendant No.1 filed an application at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Amabla alleging loss of the original documents and DDR was recorded. After it came to notice of the plaintiff, he was constrained to move application before defendant No.2 mentioning the entire facts. Both the parties were called by defendant No.2, wherein defendant No.1 admitted her signatures on agreement to sell.

3. Defendant No.1 filed written statement controverting averments made in the plaint. It was claimed that agreement to sell dated 29.05.2006 propounded by the plaintiff, was a false and fabricated document without any consideration. The same is result of fraud played by Kulwant Singh Jossan, who is a property dealer by profession. He resides in the neighbourhood of the answering defendant. As per the defendant, when she applied for allotment of the plot in dispute, Kulwant Singh Jossan on the pretext of helping her, got number of documents signed from her. Those blank papers have been misutilized for creating the agreement to sell. It was further claimed that the price of the house in question in the year 2006 was not less than 15,00,000/- and presently is not less than 30,00,000/-. Defendant No.1 never intended to sell the plot in question and thus, there was no question of executing agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff.

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

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of specific performance of agreement dated 29.5.2006 as prayed for?

OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from the Court? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

6. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD

7. Relief.”

5. Trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record threadbare came to the conclusion that all the original documents pertaining the property in question are in custody of the plaintiff. Attesting witnesses to the agreement t