The court reaffirms that price increase isn't a valid reason to deny specific performance when readiness and willingness to execute contracts is established.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

1. Regular Second Appeal No. 1099 of 2019 (O&M)

Ujjagar Singh (Deceased) through his Legal Representatives and Others

... Appellant(s)

Versus

Surender Kumar and Others

... Respondent(s)

AND

2. Regular Second Appeal No. 4436 of 2018 (O&M)

Jagdeep Singh and Others

... Appellant(s)

Versus

Surender Kumar and Others

... Respondent(s)

RESERVED ON: 23.01.2024

PRONOUNCED ON: 29.01.2024

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Santosh Kumar Sharma, Advocate

for the appellants (In RSA-1099-2019 and RSA-4436-2018).

Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate

for the appellant No.9, 10 and 12 (In RSA-1099-2019)

and for the appellant No.6, 7 and 9 (In RSA-4436-2018).

Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate

with Ms. Priyanka Kansal, Advocate

for the respondents.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

CM-639-C-2024 In RSA-1099-2019

1.

As prayed for, the application is allowed.

RSA-1099-2019 And RSA-4436-2018

2.

With the consent of the learned senior counsel representing the

parties, two regular second appeals i.e. Regular Second Appeal No. 4436 of

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2024.02.02 10:27

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2024:PHHC:011645

Regular Second Appeal No. 1099 of 2019 (O&M) AND

2

Regular Second Appeal No. 4436 of 2018 (O&M)

2018 and Regular Second Appeal No. 1099 of 2019 shall stand disposed of

by a common order. Both the appeals are between the same parties, though

arising from two separate agreements to sell. The learned senior counsel

representing the appellants has only referred to the paper-book and the

requisitioned record of the Regular Second Appeal No. 1099 of 2019 which

is considered as a lead case.

3.

In both the appeals, the defendants assail the correctness of the

judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court which, in turn, has

modified the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In substance,

two separate suits filed by the plaintiffs for possession by way of specific

performance of the agreement to sell have been decreed by the First

Appellate Court, whereas the trial Court ordered refund of the amount after

finding that the plaintiffs have successfully proved the agreement to sell and

they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.

The trial Court held that the prices of the land have steeply increased,

therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the discretionary relief and the

finding of the trial Court has been reversed by the First Appellate Court

while confirming the finding of fact that the agreement to sell was not only

entered on receipt of the staggered payments at various stages and the

plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.

4.

From both the appeals filed, some of the appellants have

already withdrawn their appeal.

5.

The facts are being noticed from the Regular Second Appeal

No. 1099 of 2019 being the lead case. The defendant No.1 to 20 admit the

receipt of ₹ 50,00,000/- on 10.02.2006, from the plaintiffs No.12 to 15. The

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2024.02.02 10:27

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

2024:PHHC:011645

Regular Second Appeal No. 1099 of 2019 (O&M) AND

3

Regular Second Appeal No. 4436 of 2018 (O&M)

agreement to sell between the defendants No.1 to 20 in favour of the

plaintiff No.12 to 15 was executed on 07.03.2006 with respect to the land

measuring 1316 kanals and 7 marlas (164.54 acres) on receipt o