IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 03.12.2025 RSA No.2030 of 2017 (O&M)

Harjinder Singh (since deceased) through his LRs and another ....Appellants Versus Jaswant Singh and another .....Respondents RSA No.2031 of 2017 (O&M)

Darbara Singh ....Appellant Versus Jaswant Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate for the appellants in RSA-2030-2017.

Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Lavish, Advocate for the appellant in RSA-2031-2017.

Mr. H.S. Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.1.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)

CM No.15341-C of 2025 in RSA No.2030 of 2017 This is an application filed under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for impleading LRs of deceased/appellant No.1 Harjinder Singh and deceased/appellant No.2 Balwinder Singh, who are stated to have died during the pendency of the appeal on 20.02.2022 and

08.10.2020, respectively.

There is specific averment made in paras No.2 and 3 that deceased/appellant No.1 and appellant No.2 have no other surviving legal heirs except those mentioned in para No.2 and 3 of the application. Death certificates of the deceased/appellants have been placed on record as Annexures A-1 and A-2. Application is supported by affidavit.

In view of above, the instant application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Legal heirs of deceased/appellant No.1 Harjinder Singh and appellant No.2 Balwinder Singh, as detailed out in Paras No.2 and 3, respectively, are ordered to be impleaded. Amended memo of parties is taken on record.

RSA No.2030 of 2017 RSA No.2031 of 2017 These two appeals arise out of a suit for specific performance.

2. Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 31.10.2003.

2.1. As per plaintiff, defendant No.1 agreed to sell suit land measuring 16 Kanals for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- as detailed out in the headnote of the plaint, in his favour. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- to defendant No.1 as earnest money. Parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 30.10.2004. The agreed date i.e., 30.10.2004 happened to be Saturday. Office of Sub Registrar Dera Baba Nanak, was closed on 30.10.2004, 31.10.2004. 01.11.2004 was also declared as a holiday. Plaintiff claims that he remained present before Sub Registrar on 02.11.2004 and waited for defendant No.1 till 04:30 PM. Defendant No.1 failed to turn up. Plaintiff further claims that now defendants No.2 to 4 started claiming of having purchased the suit land from defendant No.1. Any such sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4, is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed that defendants No.2 to 4 are residents of the same village and had knowledge of the agreement to sell executed by defendant No.1 in his favour. Plaintiff claimed that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part and thus, sought decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated, 31.10.2003.

3. Suit was contested by defendants.

3.1. Defendant No.1 in his written statement denied execution of agreement to sell, dated 31.10.2003. He claimed the agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff, to be a forged and fabricated document. As per defendant No.1, he is an agriculturist who used to sell his produce through plaintiff, who is a commission agent. Plaintiff had been persisting hard upon the defendant to sell the suit land, but was offering a meagre price. Defendants No.2 to 4 have their land adjoining to the suit land. They were also willing to purchase the suit land and offered him a good price. He accordingly, sold 19 Kanals of land in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 for a sum of Rs.7,72,000/- and land measuring 6 Kanal 10 Marlas for a consideration of Rs.2,65,000/- vide Sale Deed dated 03.12.2004.

3.2. In their separate written statements, defendants No.