IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.12.2025 Usha Rani and others … Appellants Versus Sarbati Devi alias Manvo (since deceased) through LR and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate, for the appellants.

***

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

This is plaintiffs’ appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2025, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridkot, dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jaitu, vide which the suit for specific performance instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The plaintiffs (Usha Rani, Jatinder Kumar and Ashok Kumar) instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement/compromise dated 09.08.2011 stated to have been executed by the defendants (Sarbati Devi, Vidya and Shakuntla). The plaintiffs are the daughter-in-law and grandsons of Sukh Ram.

3.1 In terms of agreement/compromise dated 09.08.2011, the plaintiffs sought a direction to the defendants to get the sale deed executed with regard to residential house (fully described in the plaint), situated at Rager Basti, Kotkapura Road, Jaitu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’). Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs and from dispossessing them forcibly and from alienating the suit property was also sought.

3.2 It was averred that originally Sukh Ram was the owner in possession of the suit property. He, however, expired on 04.08.1997, after which the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property.

3.3 On 15.02.2003, father-in-law of plaintiffs No.1, grandfather of plaintiffs No.2 & 3, and defendants No.2 & 3 attempted to take forcible possession of the suit property. FIR No. 18 dated 15.02.2003 was registered against defendants No. 1 and 2 and other persons, who were accompanying them. Vide judgment dated 13.10.2009, defendant No.2 and certain other persons were convicted, whereas defendant No.1 and some other persons were acquitted. The convicted persons preferred Criminal Appeal No.149 dated 26.10.2009, whereas plaintiff No.1 preferred a revision petition against the acquittal of defendant No.1 and other persons as also against inadequacy of sentence of the convicted persons.

3.4 It was claimed that during the pendency of the criminal appeal and the revision petition, a compromise/agreement dated 09.08.2011 was executed between the plaintiffs, the defendants, and other persons, who were involved in the occurrence. As per the terms and conditions, the plaintiffs were required to withdraw the litigation initiated by them against the defendants and other persons. It was agreed that in case any quashing petition was preferred in the High Court for quashing of the FIR, the plaintiffs would suffer a statement in the High Court for quashing of the same. It was also agreed that the defendants would get a sale deed registered as regards the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs.

3.5 It is the case of the plaintiffs that in compliance of the said agreement, the revision petition was withdrawn by them. Vide judgment dated 30.09.2011, the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridkot, allowed the appeal, as the Court had been apprised about the compromise.

3.6 After the same, the defendants were requested a number of times by the plaintiffs to get the sale deed registered but to no avail. Under the circumstances, the suit was instituted.

4. The suit was opposed by the defendants. Defendants No.1 & 2 filed a joint written statement, wherein certain preliminary objections as regards locus standi, maintainability etc. were raised. The compromise/agreement dated 09.08.2011 was said to be a fraudulently prepared document, which had been