IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 11.11.2025 Pronounced on: 14.11.2025 DALIP KAUR AND OTHERS … APPELLANTS VERSUS SWINDERJIT SINGH(Since Deceased) Through LRs … RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- MR. R.S.Athwal, Advocate for the appellants Mr. A.S.Gill, Advocate for LRs of respondent ****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL,J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 5.5.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the judgment and decree dated 13.2.1995 rendered by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Nawanshahr, was set aside, and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 25.8.1990(Ex. P-4) was decreed.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff-respondent was that the defendants, being owners of 3 marlas of land forming part of Khewat No. 1414, Khatoni No. 1706, Khasra No. 5980/4626/(0-4) situated in Nawanshahr, entered into an ₹

agreement to sell dated 25.8.1990 for a total sale consideration of 1,40,000/-.

₹

A sum of 25,000/- was paid as earnest money at the time of execution of the ₹

agreement. It was further stipulated that another 25,000/- would be paid by October 1990, and the sale deed was to be executed by October 1991 on payment of the remaining sale consideration. The plaintiff averred that he ₹

remained ready and willing to pay the additional 25,000/- and went to the office of the Sub Registrar on 31.10.1990 to tender the said amount, but the defendants failed to turn up. He also issued notices thereafter and appeared again in the office of Sub Registrar on the stipulated date for execution of the sale deed, but the defendants avoided the transaction. According to the plaintiff, it was the defendants who defaulted, being influenced by the rising prices of property. The defendants, on the other hand, admitted the execution of the ₹

agreement and the receipt of 25,000/-, but pleaded that the plaintiff failed to ₹

pay the second instalment of 25,000/- by October 1990 as agreed. They relied upon notices dated 23.2.1991 and 26.3.1991 calling upon the plaintiff to make the payment within a week, failing which the agreement would stand cancelled. Since the plaintiff did not comply even thereafter, the defendants treated the contract as rescinded.

3. The learned Trial Court, after evaluating the pleadings, evidence and the terms of Ex. P-4, held that the plaintiff had failed to pay the second instalment ₹

of 25,000/- within the stipulated time(by October 1990). It was further held that the time was the essence of the contract so far as the payment of this amount was concerned, and consequently, the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit for specific ₹

performance but ordered refund of the earnest money of 25,000/- with interest. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff preferred an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar reversed the said findings. It was held that time was not of the essence, the plaintiff had been ready and willing and the defendants’ conduct in giving further time for payment amounted to waiver. The appellate court thus decreed the suit for specific performance of the agreement. Aggrieved by the reversal, the defendants have filed the present second appeal.

CONTENTION

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court as being contrary to law and evidence on record. It is contended that the agreement to sell dated 25.08.1990 (Ex. P4) clearly ₹

stipulated that the second instalment of 25,000/- was to be paid by October 1990, and the plaintiff having failed to do so, committed a fundamental breach. It is urged that the First Appellate Court erred in holding that time was not the essence of the contract, despite the specific terms of the agreement and the findings of the learned Trial Co