IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

227 RSA-279-2013(O&M)

Date of decision: 27.08.2025 Mahabir & Others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Satbir ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Ms. Sukriti Gupta, Advocate Mr. Saarib Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate for the respondent.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment of reversal and decree dated 31.08.2012 passed by ld. District Judge, Gurgaon whereby the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit for specific performance by the ld. Trial court, has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the defendant was owner of suit land measuring 15 kanal 9 marla as per Jamabandi for the year 2000-01. Vide Agreement to Sell dated 25.02.2005, the defendant had agreed to sell the said land to the plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs.6,56,625/- of which Rs.60,000/- was received by the defendant as earnest money. Remaining amount was to be paid by the plaintiff at the time of execution of Sale Deed on or before 24.05.2005. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the defendant had become dishonest and failed to perform his part of the contract. Accordingly, plaintiff had served legal notice dated 29.04.2005, and again on 31.05.2005 and again on 15.06.2005 upon the defendant. The plaintiff had even come present in the office of Sub-Registrar on 24.05.2005 and on 15.06.2005 for execution of Sale Deed. The plaintiff had then discovered that defendant intends to dispose of the suit land to some other person and wants to play fraud. Hence, present suit was filed on 21.07.2005. 3. Upon notice, suit was resisted by the defendant by filing written statement inter alia denying the Agreement to Sell. It was alleged that the Agreement is false, frivolous and that the defendant had never executed the said alleged Agreement nor received any earnest money and same was a result of fraud. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff rejecting the averments made in the written statement and reiterating those made in the plaint.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 22.10.2009: -

“1. Whether the defendant executed an agreement dated 25.2.2005 in favour of the plaintiff to sell the suit land detailed in para No.1 of the plaint for total sale consideration of Rs.6,56, 625/- and received an amount of Rs. 60,000/- as earnest money?

OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of agreement dated 25.2.2005 and he is still ready and willing to do so? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.2.2005 with consequential relief of permanent injunction?

OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

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

6. Whether the plaintiff is stopped from filing the present suit by his own act, conduct, acquiescence, omission, admission and latches etc.? OPD

7. Relief”

6. Upon appraisal of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, ld. trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2010 had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. However, the ld. lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 31.08.2012, has allowed the appeal of the plaintiff by decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell (Ex.PW1/A) and directing the defendant to execute and get the Sale Deed registered in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of balance sale consideration within one month. Hence, 2^nd appeal by the defendant.

7. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the defendant that the learned trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by giving a categoric finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his readiness and willingness to