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

Date of decision: 07.11.2025 Rattan Singh (since deceased)

Through his LRs . . . . Appellants Vs.

Rajinder Singh (since deceased)

Through his LRs and others . . . . Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA ****

Present: - Mr. Ashwani Kumar Antil, Advocate, for the appellants.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

CM-13908-C-2025 This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 93 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, supported by affidavit of one of the appellants-Harpreet Kaur, the same is allowed and the delay of 93 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

RSA-3795-2025 (O&M)

The defendants-appellants are in second appeal against reversal of the trial court’s decree. The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent Rajinder Singh for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23.07.2002, with consequential relief of injunction, was dismissed by the trial court on 27.05.2019. However, the first Appellate Court reversed those findings and decreed the suit on 05.05.2025.

2. One Gurmukh Singh was the owner of a kacha dwelling house measuring 112 sq. yards within the abadi deh of village Jandli, Ambala, besides agricultural land including khasra No. 91. After his death, the estate devolved equally upon his two sons — Rajinder Singh (plaintiff) and Kuldeep Singh. On the death of Kuldeep Singh, his share devolved upon his widow Smt. Kiran Bala and their three children (defendants - the present appellants).

3. The plaintiff’s case was that the defendants and their mother were in dire financial need and, therefore, agreed to sell their share to him for ₹ 56,000/- through a written agreement dated 23.07.2002. Vacant possession of the plot was delivered to the plaintiff and a partition wall demarcating the shares was constructed. Because of a temporary governmental ban on registration of sale deeds in that area, execution was postponed until the ban was lifted. After the death of Smt. Kiran Bala on 06.05.2013, her share stood mutated in favour of the appellants. Despite repeated requests, they refused to execute the sale deed, compelling the plaintiff to file the present suit.

4. The defendants were duly served but chose not to appear and were proceeded ex parte. The trial court, on perusal of the ex parte evidence, dismissed the suit holding that ownership of the property in the name of Gurmukh Singh was not established.

5. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The first Appellate Court issued notice, and the defendants appeared through counsel and contested the matter.

6. Upon re-appraisal of evidence, the appellate Court found that:

 The revenue record clearly reflected ownership of Gurmukh Singh and subsequent inheritance by Rajinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh.

 The agreement to sell was duly proved and executed by both sides.

 Plaintiff had been put in possession and had constructed a wall, which was later demolished by the defendants, resulting in a police complaint.

Consequently, the appellate Court decreed the suit for specific performance, holding that the trial court had erred in misreading evidence.

7. Assailing the above reversal, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the First Appellate Court mis-appreciated the evidence and wrongly reversed a well-reasoned trial court judgment.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and examined the record. The arguments are devoid of merit.

9. The appellate Court rightly relied upon the Jamabandi and mutation records produced by the plaintiff, proving ownership of Gurmukh Singh and subsequent inheritance by his two sons. Once title and succession stand evidenced by revenue entries, the trial court’s contrary finding was clearly erroneous.

10. The agreement to sell dated 23.07.2002 bears signatures of both parties. Its execution was supported by oral and documentary evidence and remained unrebutted, since the defend