IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

205 Date of decision : 08.05.2025 Ashok Kumar and others ...... Appellants versus Bishan Dass and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. R.S. Minhas, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the respondents.

****

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. Defendants are in appeal.

2. Plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.05.1991 claimed to have been executed by defendant No.1-Dhian Singh in favour of the plaintiff, whereby he agreed to sell 7 kanal 11 marlas of land for total sale consideration of Rs.31,144/-. As per the plaintiff, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed on or before 05.07.1991. Plaintiff claims to have attended office of Sub Registrar Gurdaspur on 05.07.1991. However, the sale deed could not be executed as Dhian Singh-the vendor did not come present. Plaintiff thereafter claims to have served legal notice dated 03.03.1993 upon defendant No.1 asking him to come and execute sale deed in his favour in terms of agreement to sell dated 27.05.1991 within 15 days.

3. Suit was contested by the defendants denying execution of agreement to sell by defendant No.1. It was claimed by the defendants that the value of land is more than Rs.1,50,000/- per acre and no prudent person shall agree to sell the same @ Rs.30,000/- per acre. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether defendant No.1 agreed to sell the disputed land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.31144/- vide agreement dated 27.5.91 after receiving Rs.10000/- as advance money?OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of agreement of sale? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for recovery of Rs.20,000/- as alternative relief? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff being Govt, employee is not competent to purchase the property or enter into agreement to purchase the same before getting permission of the department? If so to what effect? OPD

6. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of defendant No.2? If so to what effect? OPD.

7. Relief.”

4. Trial Court decided issue No.1 to 5 in favour of the plaintiff. However while granting relief, ordered decree of recovery of Rs.10,000/- i.e. refund of earnest money alongwith an amount of Rs.10,000/- as damages apart from interest @ 12% per annum from the date of agreement till realization of decreetal amount.

5. Dissatisfied with the alternate relief, plaintiff filed appeal. The Lower Appellate Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff for main relief.

6. Mr. Manhas has assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below to submit that relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief. Trial Court having exercised discretion, Lower Appellate Court should not have interfered unless it is established that his discretion has been exercised perversely, arbitrarily or against judicial principles. Reliance is being placed K Prakash vs. B.R.

Sampath Kumar, reported as AIR 2015 SC 9.

7. Per contra, Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, counsel for the respondent submits that the Trial Court denied main relief to the plaintiff, arbitrarily, merely for the reason that the plaintiff at the time of entering into agreement to sell was employed in Police Department and no permission was sought by him before entering into agreement to sell. Both the Courts having concurrently found that the defendant executed agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was ready and willing throughout, Trial Court has rightly granted main relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff.

8. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

9. The execution of agreement to sell stands proved. As per the plaintiff, he appeared before t