IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:24.09.2025 Pronounced on:09.10.2025 Baldev Singh and others ...Appellants Vs Dalbir Singh and others ...Respondents

2. COCP No.267 of 2020 Baldev Singh and another ...Petitioners Vs Harphool Singh Gill and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Muskan Sharma, Advocate for the appellants in RSA No.3987 of 2018.

Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, Advocate for petitioners in COCP No.267 of 2020. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tara Dutt, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4 in RSA No.3987 of 2018.

Mr. Aseem Kataria, Advocate for respondent No.29-PNB in RSA No.3987 of 2018.

Mr. Ravinder Singh Rawal, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1-State in COCP No.267 of 2020.

Mr. Navraj Singh Guron, Advocate for respondents No.6 to 8 & 13 in RSA No.3987 of 2018 for respondents No.2 to 4 in COCP No.267 of 2020.

-.-

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL J.

1. This order of mine shall dispose of regular second appeal bearing No.3987 of 2018 filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2018 passed by the learned 1^st Appellate Court whereby the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2015 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs has been set aside and while allowing the appeal of the respondents-plaintiffs, the suit was decreed; as well as the contempt petition bearing No.267 of 2020 filed by petitioners-defendants against respondents No.2 to 4 (respondents No.9 to 11 in the regular second appeal), who willfully and deliberately violated the order dated 25.07.2018 passed by this Court.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to in terms of their status before the learned trial Court.

3. In brief, the facts are that Nikka Singh and Kartar Kaur had entered into an agreement to sell dated 01.09.1968 with Pritam Singh qua suit property i.e. 311 Kanals 5 Marlas for a consideration of Rs.87.225/-, followed by sale deed dated 05.09.1968 and they were also put in possession of suit land in terms of the aforesaid agreement. They also made improvements in the suit land. Plaintiffs are successors of Nikka Singh and Kartar Kaur; whereas defendant No.1 is son of Pritam Singh. Pritam Singh along with one Inder Singh, predecessor-in interest of defendant No.2 in conspiracy with each other, brought into existence an ante-dated agreement to sell i.e. 08.04.1968, pertaining to suit property with one Battan Singh, who filed a suit for specific performance on 31.08.1968/03.10.1968 on the strength of alleged aforementioned agreement to sell. The parents of plaintiffs got themselves impleaded in the said case as defendant Nos.3 & 4 as subsequent vendees. Since defendants No.1 & 2 chose not to contest the suit, it resulted in passing of decree dated 17.01.1972, which culminated into sale deed 10.12.1974 and consequently parents of plaintiffs were dispossessed from suit land. It was further pleaded that in an earlier suit bearing No. 297 of 1944 decided on 23.03.1948 titled as S. Rajwant Singh & Bibi Karam Kaur Vs. Dalpat Singh etc., predecessors in interest of defendants No.3 to 23, a decree was passed for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs of the said suit namely Rajwant Singh and Karam Kaur were owners and entitled to possession of half share of suit land. Therefore, on the date of agreement in favour of Nikka Singh and Kartar Kaur as well as ante-dated agreement to sell in favour of Battan Singh, the right/title of suit land did not vest in Pritam Singh and Beant Singh. Furthermore, fraudulent nature of transaction forming basis of decree for specific performance titled as Battan Singh Vs. Pritam Singh is also reflective from the fact that Pritam Singh was represented by Sh. V.N. Gandhi, Advocate, who also represented Battan Singh. Thus, representation of a counsel in one suit on behalf of Pritam Singh and then to h