IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

274 Date of decision : 12.03.2025 Smt. Phoolwati and others ..... Appellants versus Gurbachan and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. A.S. Tewatia, Advocate for the appellants.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. Defendants are in second appeal.

2. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking decree of specific performance with the consequential relief of permanent injunction.

3. As per the plaint, plaintiffs claimed that Krishan Pal-the original defendant was owner of the suit land. He offered to sell the same to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs agreed to purchase the same for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. An agreement to sell dated 29.05.2013 was executed between the parties. Plaintiffs claimed to have paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant on the date of execution of the agreement to sell. Plaintiffs further claims that the parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 15.06.2016, as there was loan on the suit land and it was agreed between the parties that defendant shall clear the loan on or before 15.06.2016. It is further claimed by the plaintiffs that the possession of the suit land was delivered to them at the time of execution of agreement to sell.

Plaintiffs claim that on appointed date i.e. 15.06.2016, plaintiffs appeared before Sub-Registrar Raipur Rani for execution of the sale deed. Defendant failed to turn up to perform his part of the contract. Defendant threatened to alienate the suit land and to dispossess the plaintiffs in the month of July, 2016 which resulted in the filing of the present suit on 15.07.2016.

4. Suit was contested by the defendant claiming that the agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff dated 29.05.2013 was a fictitious document. Defendant never agreed to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. Rather father of the plaintiffs Amarjit Singh agreed to sell 14 kanal 19 marlas of land to the defendant vide agreement dated 08.07.2004 for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. Defendant paid him an amount of Rs.3,95,000/- on 08.07.2004. Last date for execution of sale deed was agreed to be 05.07.2005. Amarjit Singh executed sale deed in favour of defendant on 24.11.2004 qua 07 kanal 19 marlas of land. Since, 05.07.2005 was not the registration day in office of Sub-Registrar, so the defendant remained present in the office of Sub- Registrar on 06.07.2005 for execution of the sale deed on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- as per the terms and agreement dated 08.07.2004. After father of the plaintiffs failed to turn up, defendant filed suit bearing No.970 of 2006 seeking specific performance of contract for remaining 07 kanal of land. Amarjit Singh was proceeded ex-parte. The suit was dismissed. Defendant preferred appeal before District Judge, Panchukula. The appeal was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 13.07.2008. In execution, sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant by Local Commissioner on 09.07.2008. Amarjit Singh filed an application for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 13.07.2008, which was dismissed by District Judge, Panchkula vide order dated 27.08.2015. There is a close relationship between the parties. Defendant agreed to sell suit land to the plaintiffs for a valuable sale consideration. However, plaintiffs failed to make payment of consideration at the time of execution of agreement to sell. Defendant denied of having delivered the possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, Court of the first instance framed following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance to the agreement to sell dated 29.05.2013?OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for permanent injunction, as prayed for?OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the true and material facts?OPD.

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?

OPD.