IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

RSA-1830-1999 (O&M) Reserved on:-27.08.2025 Date of Decision : 02.09.2025 Nihal Kaur and Others ....Appellants VERSUS Gurdev Singh and Others ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. F.S.Virk, Advocate for respondent no.1.

Respondents No.2 to 7 service dispensed with (proforma respondents)

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU,J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1988 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Sunam, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff Gurdev Singh for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 29.05.1986, as affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur on 26.08.1998, dismissing the defendant’s appeal.

Brief Facts

2. The plaintiff pleaded that defendants Gurchand Singh and Gurbax Singh, being owners in possession of agricultural land measuring 10 kanals 17 marlas, entered into an agreement to sell the said land to him on 29.05.1986 for a total consideration of ₹28,481.25/- (₹2100/- per killa). A sum of ₹10,000/- was paid as earnest money at the time of execution. The agreement, Ex.P1, was scribed by Kulwant Rai and attested by Sadha Ram and Harchand Singh. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 10.06.1986. The plaintiff claimed that he remained present on the appointed date in the office of the Sub Registrar, Lehra, along with the balance consideration of ₹25,000/- and the attesting witnesses, but defendants failed to appear. He prayed for a decree for possession by way of specific performance, or in the alternative, recovery of double earnest money.

3. The defendants contested the suit, denying execution of any agreement and asserting that Ex.P1 was a forged and fabricated document. They further claimed that the land was coparcenary/ancestral property, incapable of alienation without necessity, and that the sons of the defendants were necessary parties. Other objections of locus standi, valuation, under-stamping, and non-

joinder of parties were also raised.

4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating his stand.

5. From the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

1) Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 have executed an agreement dated 29.05.86 in favour of Gurdev Singh on receipt of Rs.10,000/- as earnest money? OPP

2) Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing and still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the specific performance of the contract dated 29.5.86 on in the alternative a decree for the recovery of Rs.20,000/-? OPP

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

5) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

6) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?

OPD

8. Whether there are material alteration in the agreement dated

29.05.86 and the same is forged and fabricated document? OPD

9. Relief.

6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined the following witnesses:-

i) PW1 Gurdev Singh (plaintiff) deposed that defendants executed agreement Ex.P1 after receiving ₹10,000 earnest money. Agreement was scribed by Kulwant Rai and attested by Sadha Ram and Harchand Singh. He reiterated his readiness and willingness, including presence before Sub Registrar with balance money.

ii) PW2 Sadha Ram (attesting witness) supported plaintiff’s version and confirmed thumb impressions of defendants on Ex.P1.

iii) PW3 Harchand Singh (attesting witness) corroborated the execution and receipt of consideration.

iv) PW4 Varinder Bhushan Bhatnagar (Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert) compared three thumb impressions on Ex.P1 (Q1, Q2, Q3) with specimen impressions S1 and S2 of defendant Gurchand Singh. He opined that Q1 and Q3 were identical with S1.