IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:23.09.2025 Pronounced on:09.10.2025 (cid:1) (cid:1)

V.K. Sharma ... Appellant Versus Poonam Sardana and others ... Respondents(cid:1)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. N. S. Boparai, Advocate Mr. Yogesh Bansal and Mr. Ankit Jangra, Advocates for respondent No.1.

Mr. Anand Chhiber, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Sahni, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Name of respondent No.4 deleted vide order dated 14.09.1999.

***

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.06.1997 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit for possession by way of specific performance filed by the appellant- plaintiff and the judgment dated 14.09.1998 passed by the learned 1^st Appellate Court vide which the appeal preferred by him against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, has been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the trial court.

3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that defendants No. 1 and 2, through defendant No. 3, agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 20.06.1984, whereupon the plaintiff paid ₹8,100/- as earnest money through cheque and the bargain was struck with the intervention of defendant No. 4, a property dealer. The plaintiff thereafter requested the defendants to accept the balance sale consideration and obtain the requisite no due certificate, indemnity bond and permission to transfer, leading to execution of the sale deed. However, defendant No. 3, demanded more money than the amount agreed. Upon the plaintiff’s refusal to the same, the defendants declined to perform their part of the contract, despite service of notice dated 26.07.1984 and a telegram dated 19.07.1984 wherein the plaintiff reiterated his readiness and willingness to complete the transaction. Hence the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.06.1984, or in the alternative execution of the sale deed through court, along with a claim of ₹4,000/- as damages for the mental and economic harassment suffered.

4. Upon issuance of summons, defendants No. 1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed their written statement on 12.11.1984, followed by an amended written statement on 07.04.1993, wherein they raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the plaintiff, estoppel and jurisdiction. It was pleaded that the plaintiff himself committed breach of the agreement to sell dated 20.06.1984, thereby forfeiting the earnest money and all rights under the contract; that time was the essence of the agreement and that the suit was filed with mala fide intent since the plaintiff lacked funds to purchase the plot. They further pointed out that despite the court granting the last opportunity on 24.05.1985 to get the sale deed executed by 24.07.1985, the plaintiff absented himself on 31.07.1985, resulting in dismissal of the suit in default, which was later restored on 15.10.1991 after an application for restoration. On merits, the execution of the agreement was admitted, but it was contended that the sale consideration was fixed at ₹81,000/- subject to variation on actual measurement, as the plot was a corner plot measuring over 10 marlas and that the defendants had obtained all requisite certificates and permissions and had even purchased stamp papers, but the plaintiff failed to decide whether the property should be registered in his own name or in his wife’s name. In fact, the plaintiff was not financially capable of completing the transaction. Receipt of any notice or telegram from the plaintiff or defendant No. 4 was specifically denied. It was also averred that during pendency of the proc