IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:28.10.2025 Pronounced on:02.12.2025 Imran Khan ...Appellant Versus Jamshed Ahmed (since deceased) through legal representative and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate and Ms. Ridhima Khindria, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijayveer Singh, Advocate for respondents.

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

Appellant-defendant is aggrieved by impugned judgment and decree dated 17.02.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, whereby suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 23.01.2010 preferred by respondents-plaintiffs was decreed and appellant- defendant was asked to execute sale deed within two months on receipt of balance sale consideration and by judgment and decree dated 06.02.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide which appeal preferred by appellant-defendant was also dismissed.

2. Respondents-plaintiffs in their suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 23.01.2010 had asserted that appellant- defendant being owner of agricultural land measuring 03 kanals 05 marlas, 1/5^th share out of total land measuring 31 kanals 05 marlas, fully described in plaint, situated in Revenue Estate of Village Madalpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad, offered to sell the said land as he wanted to settle in Kuwait and was in need of money. Upon which, parties entered into agreement dated 23.01.2010 and total sale consideration of Rs.1,65,00,000/- was agreed, out of which Rs.1,50,00,000/- was paid as earnest money. It was agreed that in case appellant-defendant fails to execute sale deed, respondents-plaintiffs shall be entitled to get it executed through process of law. Request was made to appellant-defendant to get sale deed executed. Respondent-plaintiff No.1 visited defendant in Kuwait in the month of April, 2011 and again requested to execute sale deed upon which appellant-defendant had assured that he will execute the same as and when he will visit India on the date already fixed in the agreement. On the last date fixed in the agreement, respondents-plaintiffs remained present at the Office of Sub-Registrar, Faridabad with balance consideration, however, appellant-defendant failed to come present. Respondents-plaintiffs accordingly got their presence marked. Thereafter also, respondents-plaintiffs made request to appellant-defendant to execute sale deed and again visited his village in April 2012, however, appellant-defendant kept on delaying the matter. Accordingly, a legal notice dated 25.04.2012 was issued and despite issuance of legal notice, no efforts were made by appellant-defendant to execute the sale deed.

Therefore, suit for specific performance was preferred.

3. Appellant-defendant had duly contested the suit by taking number of preliminary objections as regards to maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, estoppel, non-fixation of proper Court fee, mis-joinder of necessary parties. Appellant-defendant had denied execution of agreement in totality. He claimed that his signatures were obtained by respondents-plaintiffs on blank stamp papers having revenue tickets. It was asserted that appellant-defendant had applied for loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and in lieu of security, signatures on blank papers were obtained by respondents-plaintiffs from appellant-defendant. Agreement was stated to be forged and fabricated. Accordingly, dismissal of suit was prayed for.

4. Following issues were framed:-

i. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to seek possession of the land by way of specific performance of the contract/agreement to sell dated

23.01.2010?OPP ii. Whether plaintiffs are also entitled to seek relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further entering into agreement to sell, negotiating or alienating the suit property?OPP iii. Whether plaintiffs ha