IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.:22.09.2025 Sukhdev Singh …..Appellant Vs.

Shamsher Singh and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Mandeep Singh Kundu, Advocate for the appellant.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

CM-8038-C-2025:

This is an applica(cid:30)on under Sec(cid:30)on 151 CPC read with Sec(cid:30)on

5 of the Limita(cid:30)on Act to condone the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons men(cid:30)oned in the applica(cid:30)on duly supported by affidavit of Sukhdev Singh, delay of 18 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

Applica(cid:30)on stands disposed of accordingly.

CM-8037-C-2025:

This is an applica(cid:30)on for condona(cid:30)on of delay of 57 days in re-

filing the appeal.

For the reasons men(cid:30)oned in the applica(cid:30)on duly supported by affidavit of Sukhdev Singh, delay of 57 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

Applica(cid:30)on stands disposed of accordingly.

Main case.:

Plain(cid:30)ff has approached this Court against reversal, inasmuch as suit for specific performance for an agreement filed in July, 2016 was decreed by the trial Court on 16.11.2021 but accep(cid:30)ng the appeal of the defendant Shamsher Singh (respondent No.1 herein), the suit was dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 17.12.2024.

2. Plain(cid:30)ff sought specific performance regarding property in dispute on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 15.05.1984. It was further submi5ed that defendant No.1 had le7 the village prior to 1990 and never came back and that plain(cid:30)ff had sold the property to proforma defendant No.2 vide another agreement dated 21.06.2004.

3. Defendant No.1 contested the suit and denied the execu(cid:30)on of any agreement to sell and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Defendant No.2 admi5ed the claim of the plain(cid:30)ff.

5. A7er framing necessary issues and taking evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit but the first Appellate Court, on appeal of the defendant No.1 found that agreement to sell relied upon by the plain(cid:30)ffs was not proved. Besides said plain(cid:30)ff did not have the saleable rights in the suit property to sell in favour of defendant No.2. It was also observed that suit had been filed much beyond the period of limita(cid:30)on. Accordingly appeal was accepted and the suit was dismissed.

6. Assailing the aforesaid reversal, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that Appellate Court commi5ed error in disbelieving the credible evidence produced by the plain(cid:30)ff-appellant to prove the agreement to sell.

7. This Court does not find merit in the conten(cid:30)on. Admi5edly, defendant No.1 was allo5ed the suit property by virtue of a gi7 deed dated 18.02.1977 and as per the terms of allotment, he could not alienate it in any manner for 20 years. Assuming for the sake of arguments that agreement to sell dated 15.05.1984 relied by the plain(cid:30)ff is taken as proved, no sale deed could be executed in favour of the plain(cid:30)ff, based upon this agreement (cid:30)ll the expiry of 20 years from the date of allotment in favour of the defendant, which period expired in 1997. Plain(cid:30)ff claims to have sold the property to defendant No.2 by virtue of another agreement of 2004. It is despite the fact that (cid:30)tle was not conveyed to the plain(cid:30)ff based upon the agreement dated 15.05.1994 as agreement in itself does not create any right or (cid:30)tle in the immovable property.

8. Not only above, the suit has been filed in July, 2016. Learned counsel despite persistent queries from this Court, could not convince this Court as to how the suit was within limita(cid:30)on. There is no evidence on record to suggest that appellant-plain(cid:30)ff had served any legal no(cid:30)ce upon the defendant calling upon him to execute the sale deed within a period of 03 years from 1997, when the defendant had become competent to alienate the suit land.

9.