IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 30.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement :- 13.10.2025 Dalbara Singh @ Darbara Singh (Now deceased) through his Legal Representatives ...Appellant Versus Satbir Singh (Now deceased) through his Legal Representatives ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for respondents/caveators.

***

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J.

1. Appellant-plaintiffs filed this Regular Second Appeal against against the judgment and decrees dated 11.05.2018 and 22.04.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge and learned First Appellate Court.

2. Briefly stated, appellant plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.05.1972 on the grounds that defendants sold 1/10th share of 323 Kanal 17 Marla land to plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.80,000/- and received the entire sale consideration from the plaintiffs and others. Plaintiff was already in possession as tenant. The dispute was going on between defendants and State of Punjab so sale deed could not be executed and registered. Mutation of the land was sanctioned in favour of provincial government in the revenue record. The matter has been decided by this Court in RSA No. 2877 of 1996 which was dismissed by this Court on 23.09.2009 and mutation has been sanctioned in favour of defendant. The persons in whose favour document dated 15.05.1972 was executed by defendant has already purchased specific Khasra numbers of land measuring 260 kanal 3 marlas out of total land leaving behind 64 kanal 12 marlas equivalent to 1/5th share of the land detailed in the agreement and the same is required to be transferred by way of sale deed in favour of plaintiff as plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed executed from defendant qua his own share and shares of Kashmir Singh and Hakam Singh from whom he has purchased the rights. Defendant never informed the plaintiff about the final decision and sanctioning of the mutation in his name so a written notice was sent through Telegram on 13.08.2010 calling upon defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff but to no avail. Plaintiff appointed Bhupinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh his general attorneys vide power of attorney dated 13.08.2009. Attorneys contacted defendant to execute the sale deed but he refused. Plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, hence the suit.

3. Upon notice, defendant did not turn up and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.11.2010. Later on ex-parte proceedings were set aside and the case was fixed for filing of written statement. Defendant filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. File was taken up on 16.03.2011. Magh Singh attorney of the defendant and attorney of the plaintiff Bhupinder Singh made statements with regard to compromise between the parties and case was fixed for consideration. On 31.03.2012 another counsel appeared on behalf of defendants and moved application for ignoring the compromise dated 14.03.2011. The application was withdrawn later on and another application was moved. Defendant moved application for amendment of the written statement. Defendant was called in person to appear in the Court. Defendant appeared and made statement withdrawing his earlier statement on the ground that he could not understand the same. On 21.01.2014 appellant plaintiff filed application for passing the decree on the basis of compromise Ex.C1 and statement dated 16.03.2011. The application was disposed of vide order dated 24.07.2017 and the following issue was framed ;-

“1. Whether the compromise was legal and valid and with free will of the defendant or not?OPP

2. Relief.”

4. The parties were granted opportunities to lead evidence and thereafter the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit being barred by limitation.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree so passed appeal was preferred. The learned