IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :10.09.2025 BALWANT RAI THROUGH LRS MANOJ KUMAR AND ORS ... APPELLANTS VERSUS RAMESH KUMAR AND ANR.

...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Suresh Kumar Aneja, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Present appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiffs whose suit was partly decreed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalalabad (West), against defendant no.1 alone vide judgment and decree dated 04.07.2013, and whose first appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fazilka vide judgment and decree dated 07.11.2014.

2. The case of the plaintiffs was that defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell 01 Marla, i.e., 1/5^th share of 05 Marlas, comprised in Rectangle No. 66, Killa No. 18/1/1(0-5) bearing M.C. Property No. 1822/674, situated at F.F. Road, Jalalabad, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur, vide agreement to sell dated 10.09.2002/09.09.2024. In the alternative, the plaintiffs had sought recovery of Rs.1,20,000, i.e., Rs. 80,000/- paid as earnest money and Rs. 40,000/- as damages.

3. It was asserted that as agreed between the parties, on 29.03.2025, the plaintiff, along with the balance sale consideration and requisite expenses, had remained present at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jalalabad, to get the sale-deed executed. However, defendant No. 1 had failed to appear. Subsequently, on 04.04.2025, the plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 1 had already sold the suit property to defendant No. 2 vide registered sale-deed bearing Wasika No. 2505 dated 07.11.2002. Mutation on the basis of the said sale-deed was also entered in the name of defendant No.2.

4. The Plaintiff, while seeking specific performance of agreement to sell in his favour also sought declaration that the sale-deed executed in favour of defendant No. 2, along with the consequential mutation, be declared null and void being against the rights of the plaintiff.

5. Defendant No. 1 duly admitted the execution of the agreement to sell dated 10.09.2002/09.09.2004 in favour of the plaintiff. He, however, asserted that his son was working with defendant No. 2 as a financer, therefore, amount of Rs. 50,000/- was lend to him by defendant No. 2 on the condition that defendant No. 1 would mortgage his immovable property as security towards borrowed amount. He, however, asserted that since his son was working with defendant No. 2, therefore, in collusion with his son and Deed Writer, defendant No. 2 got a sale- deed executed in his favour in place of the intended mortgage deed. It was asserted that sale-deed is forged and fabricated. Defendant No. 1 further asserted that the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 10.09.2002/09.09.2004 and claimed that plaintiff had occupied the suit property. He also stated that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and is willing to execute a registered sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff.

6. The suit was actively contested by defendant No. 2. Apart from raising preliminary objections, defendant No. 2 asserted that defendant No. 1 had executed an agreement dated 09.08.2002 to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 41,500/-, out of which Rs. 25,000/- was paid as earnest money to defendant No. 1 and as per agreement dated 09.08.2002, the sale-deed was executed on 07.11.2002.

7. It was further asserted by defendant No. 2 in his written statement that on 07.11.2002 itself, he had leased out the suit property in favour of defendant No. 1, and a separate rent note was duly executed in this regard. It was asserted that alleged agreement dated 10.09.2002/09.09.2004 in favour of plaintiff were the result of fraud and a conspiracy between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to wriggle out of sale-deed dated 07.11.2002. Both the agreements were stated to