IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Judgment reserved on:28.10.2025 Judgment pronounced on 02.12.2025 Rakesh Kumar ...Appellant Versus Surinder Kumar …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate, Mr. Akshay Laller, Advocate, Mr. Khushwant Saharan, Advocate and Ms. Nancy Antwal, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate for respondent.

PARMOD GOYAL, J.

1. Appellant-defendant is aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 08.12.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh vide which suit for specific performance of agreement dated 30.01.1990 filled by respondent-plaintiff was decreed and also by judgment and decree dated 15.02.2013 passed by District Judge Chandigarh, whereby first appeal preferred by appellant-defendant was dismissed.

2. The plaintiff-respondent in his suit for specific performance, sought specific performance of agreement dated 30.01.1990 executed in respect of residential cum diary site No.793 situated in Sub-Urban, Sector 2, Milk Colony, Dhanas, U.T., Chandigarh. Respondent-plaintiff had asserted that appellant-defendant was allotted one residential-cum-diary plot measuring 10 marlas in Milk Colony Dhanas on leasehold basis for a period of 30 years vide allotment letter dated 21.10.1987. Payment of initial amount was duly made by appellant-defendant to Estate Office, Chandigarh, however, possession was not delivered to him on account of illegal possession of some other person. Appellant-defendant wanted to sell the plot and, therefore, had entered into agreement dated 30.01.1990 for total consideration of Rs.40,000/- which was paid by respondent-plaintiff and received by appellant-defendant vide receipt dated 30.01.1990. Appellant-defendant accordingly executed general power of attorney in favour of nominee of respondent-plaintiff i.e. Smt. Promila Bala and a will was executed in favour of respondent-plaintiff. Affidavit admitting the sale of property was also executed. All the documents of title, in original, with symbolic possession were handed over. However, appellant-defendant had not disclosed the fact that possession of property was not delivered to him by Estate Officer on account of unauthorized possession of another person. This fact was disclosed only after execution of agreement to sell and receipt of money when respondent-plaintiff wanted to take physical possession. Therefore, only symbolic possession was delivered.

3. It is the case of respondent-plaintiff that appellant-defendant had promised to deliver the possession as and when he get the possession from Estate Officer. Accordingly, appellant-defendant had filed writ petition No.17533 of 1991 against Estate officer, which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 25.02.1992 directing respondents therein to deliver possession of suit property as per terms and conditions of allotment letter. That Mrs. Irshad Illahi was in illegal possession of suit property. The Estate Officer initiated proceedings against her for possession. However, suit proceedings continued and accordingly, appellant-defendant again filed Civil Writ Petition No.2758 of 2002 before this Court, however, during pendency of said writ petition, possession was delivered to appellant-defendant in the year 2002. It was the case of respondent-plaintiff that after receipt of possession, appellant- defendant became dishonest and instead of delivering physical possession started delaying the matter on one pretext or other. Legal notice dated 18.08.2002 was duly issued by respondent-plaintiff and appellant-defendant was called upon to execute the documents of sale viz. general power of attorney, will, affidavit and sale deed in favour of plaintiff-respondent. On 04.09.2002, legal notice was received back undelivered, however, A.D./U.P.C. notices were not received back though the address of appellant-defendant was