IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1. RSA-411-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision :-11.11.2025 Suresh Devi … Appellant Versus Baljeet Singh and others ... Respondents

2 RSA-418-2025 (O&M)

Suresh Devi … Appellant Versus Baljeet Singh and others ... Respondents

3. RSA-421-2025 (O&M)

Suresh Devi … Appellant Versus Baljeet Singh and others ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Vijay Kumar Sheoran, Advocate For the appellant.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. This consolidated judgment is being delivered in exercise of the powers vested under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, for the purpose of adjudicating and finally disposing of the captioned Regular Second Appeals (here-in-after referred to as “RSAs”). All the aforesaid appeals emanate from common judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below and pertain to an identical set of transactions, involving concurrent questions of law and fact, warranting a unified determination through this composite pronouncement.

1.1. In light of the admitted commonality of the identity of parties across the connected appeals, and the consensus of learned counsel for both sides, this Court deems it expedient, in the interest of judicial economy, coherence, and consistency in adjudication, to dispose of all the appeals collectively through a single, composite judgment. Such a course, duly sanctioned under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, ensures uniformity in legal interpretation and precludes the possibility of conflicting or incongruous findings emanating from an identical factual and legal substratum.

2. At the instance and with the concurrence of the learned counsel for the appellant(s) in each of the connected appeals, the factual matrix, for the purposes of this composite adjudication, is being drawn and delineated from the pleadings, documentary evidence, and records duly placed on file in the respective RSAs, together with the corresponding written statements, replies, and annexed documents forming an integral part of the record.

2.2. This methodology has been consciously adopted with a view to ensuring that the factual matrix is presented in a manner that is both comprehensive and precise, thereby faithfully delineating the entire sequence of events and transactions. The facts, responses, and issues arising in each appeal shall be articulated and addressed distinctly, so as to maintain conceptual clarity and analytical precision in the examination of the respective matters.

RSA-411-2025 (O&M)

3. For the sake of clarity, precision, and procedural consistency, and to facilitate a more coherent appreciation of the record, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to by their original nomenclature as “plaintiffs” and “defendants,” corresponding to their respective status before the learned Trial Court. This reference framework is being adopted to obviate any ambiguity in the course of this discussion and to maintain uniformity throughout the adjudicatory narrative.

3.1. The essential and consolidated factual matrix, meticulously distilled from the pleadings, documentary evidence, and proceedings on record, and forming the foundation of the present appellate adjudication, is delineated hereinafter so as to furnish a comprehensive, coherent, and accurate contextual framework for the appreciation of the issues in controversy and the determination of the legal questions arising in the present appeal, which are set out as under:-

“The present matter arises out of a suit for specific performance, declaration, and possession instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants, seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.08.2011, and a declaration that sale deed No.421 dated 08.06.2012 and sale deed No.1727 dated 22.11.2012 are illegal, null, and void, along with a consequential relief of possession of the suit property.

The factual matrix, in brief, is that defendant No.1, being the owner in possession of land measuring 8 K