IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

RSA-3938-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 04.12.2025 Murari ....Appellant VERSUS Shyam Sunder ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Ms. Nidhi Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J.

CM-14496-C-2025 This is an application for condonation of delay of 04 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 04 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM-14497-C-2025 This is an application for seeking permission to treat the Court fees as fully paid.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

RSA-3938-2025 (O&M)

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant– defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.05.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hodal whereby the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.08.2015 was decreed. The appellant further challenges the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Palwal whereby the first appeal preferred by him was dismissed and the findings of the learned trial court were affirmed.

Brief Facts

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of a registered agreement to sell dated 12.08.2015 in respect of land measuring 06 kanals 05 marlas (two-ninth share) out of land comprised in various khewats and khatas in village Gorota, Tehsil Hodal, District Palwal. The plaintiff pleaded that on 12.08.2015, the defendant, being owner of the suit land, agreed to sell it to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of ₹15.62 lakhs and that the date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 18.05.2016. It was asserted that the plaintiff paid ₹15.50 lakhs as earnest money. As per the terms of the agreement, the defendant was required to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration and to get the suit land redeemed from existing mortgage before the date fixed. The plaintiff claimed that he later came to know that the land was mortgaged with PLDB, Hodal, and Syndicate Bank, and therefore the defendant was obliged to clear the loan amounts before the execution of the sale deed.

3. The plaintiff further pleaded that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and that he remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Ratia, on 18.05.2016 along with requisite expenses for stamp and registration, but the defendant did not appear. The plaintiff asserted that he had even marked his presence through an affidavit attested by the Executive Magistrate. Thereafter, the plaintiff served a legal notice upon the defendant on 26.05.2017 calling upon him to execute the sale deed, but the defendant failed to comply. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant became dishonest and was attempting to sell the land to some other person, which compelled him to file the present suit seeking specific performance.

4. The defendant, upon service of summons, filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding cause of action, locus standi and suppression of material facts. On merits, the defendant denied the agreement to sell as a genuine transaction and asserted that on 12.08.2015 he had taken a loan of ₹12 lakhs from the plaintiff at an interest of two percent per month. According to him, the signatures obtained over the alleged agreement were taken on blank papers only as security for the loan, and there was no intention to sell the suit land. The defendant pleaded that he had already repaid the entire loan with interest and that the plaintiff, by misusing the blank signed documents, initiated the present litigation only to harass him. He also pleaded that he never intended to sell his property which was