129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-983-2021(O&M)

Date of decision : 18.03.2025 Pargat Singh ...... Petitioner versus Darshan Kaur & anr. ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN ***

Present :- Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1.

***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1 Challenge is to order dated 02.04.2021 (Annexure P-6) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tarn Taran whereby application filed by defendant No.1 under Section 10 CPC seeking stay of the subsequent suit has been dismissed.

2 Petitioner-applicant filed suit seeking decree of possession by way of specific performance pleading agreement to sell dated 25.08.2020 executed in his favour by Surinder Kaur wife of Davinder Singh. In the said suit Darshan Kaur wife of Gajjan Singh was also impleaded as defendant No.2. In the plaint filed in the earlier suit, pleadings related to defendant No.2 read as under :-

“9. That in the last week of September 2020, the defendant No. 2 Darshan Kaur and her husband Gajjan Singh openly stated that they have purchased the suit land from Surinder Kaur, thereafter the plaintiff inquired the matter from office of Joint Sub Registrar Naushehhra Pannuan and from there the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 has executed the registered sale deed of the suit land on 23.09.2020 in favour of defendant No.2. The registered sale deed dated 23.09.2020 is executed by the defendant No. 1 in violation of the terms and conditions of agreement to sell dated 25.08.2020, the defendant No.1 with malafide intention sold the suit land to defendant No. 2 which is illegal, void document and does not pass any title in favour of defendant No.2. The defendant No 2 was having full knowledge regarding the agreement to sell dated 25.08.2020 in respect of the suit-land, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff, as both the plaintiff and defendant No.2 are co- villagers as such the sale deed dated 23.08 2020 is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble court. The above said execution of sale deed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.2 gave cause of action to file the present suit before the date of execution of the sale deed mentioned in the agreement to sell in question, Thus, the defendant No. 1 has miserably failed to perform his part of the contract and thus committed breach of the contract as he has not executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff till today as per the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell. Thus the plaintiff is legally entitled to a decree for Possession by way of Specific Performance in respect of the suit property on the basis of agreement to sell in question & the defendant is under legal obligation to perform his part of the contract and to do all the acts necessary to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit land and to execute & registered a transfer deed in his favour.

10. That in case the Hon'ble court comes to this conclusion that the plaintiff is not legally entitled to a decree for specific performance, then in the alternative the plaintiff brings a suit for Recovery of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rs. Forty lakhs only] [Rs.29,81,000/-Rs.05 Lakh+ Rs.15,19,000/- i.e. Rs 40,00,000/-] i.e. Rs. 29,81,000/- paid as earnest/advance sale consideration by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 at different occasions out of which Rs.5 Lakh have been returned by the defendant No.2 in the account of, the plaintiff and Rs.15,19,000/-as stipulated, damages alongwith interest including pendent-lite and] future interest at the rate of 18% PA till the date of actual realization of amount in full, although the damages are not adequate relief in suit for specific performance in respect of land cases.”

3 Instant suit has been filed subsequently by Darshan Kaur wife of Gajjan Singh i.e. respondent No.1 impleading the petitioner as defendant No.1 and respondent No.2 as proforma defendant No.2. In the present suit the plaintiff-respondent No.1