IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

225(2)

Reserved on: 03.09.2025 Pronounced on: 09.09.2025 RSA-1129-2013(O&M)

Smt. Raj Kaur ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Sukhwinder Singh ...Respondent(s)

***

RSA-1486-2013(O&M)

Sukhwinder Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Smt. Raj Kaur ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Argued by:- Ms. Ojaswini Gagneja, Advocate for the appellant (in RSA-1129-2013) and for the respondent (in RSA-1486-2013).

Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate for the appellant (in RSA-1486-2013) and for the respondent (in RSA-1129-2013).

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J. RSA-1129-2013 Present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the dismissal of his suit for specific performance, has been partly allowed and money decree has been granted;

and suit of plaintiff has been partly decreed for recovery of Rs.2,75,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment till date of actual realisation.

RSA-1486-2013 Present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2010; and against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff has been partly allowed and suit of plaintiff has been partly decreed for recovery of Rs.2,75,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment till date of actual realisation.

Both the above-said Second Appeals are being disposed of by this common order as they both arise out of common impugned judgment and decree dated 18.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, emanating from one suit; and as facts, issues and parties in both the appeals are the same. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RSA-1129-2013 titled as “Smt. Raj Kaur Vs. Sukhwinder Singh” filed by the defendant. The parties shall be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. Sukhwinder Singh as ‘plaintiff’ and Raj Kaur as ‘defendant’.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed suit seeking specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 07.10.2002 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit land measuring 26 kanal 19 marla for total sale consideration of Rs.4,51,625/-. It was pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff had executed the above-said Agreement dated 07.10.2002 and defendant had received Rs.2,75,000/- by way of earnest money in the presence of marginal witnesses at the time of execution of the Agreement. Target date was fixed for 07.05.2004. It is further pleaded that possession of the suit land was already with the plaintiff as he used to cultivate the land in dispute on payment of lease money to the defendant. However, on 07.10.2002, the defendant had executed the Agreement of Sale in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the suit land, the possession of the suit land was already with the plaintiff; and as such, the plaintiff filed the application for correction of khasra girdawari with regard to the suit land before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Mamdot, who after following the proper procedure of law, after verifying the possession of the suit land, corrected the entries, in the khasra girdawari in the name of plaintiff vide its order dated 15.09.2003. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform the Agreement. The plaintiff had even approached the defendant on 07.05.2004 to accompany him to the Tehsil Office for execution and registration of the Sale Deed on receipt of balance sale consideration and other expenses. The plaintiff had waited for the defendant at the Tehsil Offi