IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :01.04.2026 JOGENDER ... APPELLANT VERSUS DHARAMPAL ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful appellant-plaintiff, who is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal, whereby his suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract was dismissed. The appellant-plaintiff is further aggrieved by the dismissal of his first appeal vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palwal.

2. The appellant-plaintiff, in his suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract, alleged that the respondent-defendant, being the owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 7 kanals 8 marlas, duly described in the plaint, had initially agreed to sell the said land for a total ₹

consideration of 3,00,000/- vide agreement to sell dated 03.07.2007. The ₹

respondent-defendant had received the entire sale consideration of 3,00,000/- as full and final payment and had also handed over the possession of the suit land to the appellant-plaintiff. It was the case of the appellant-plaintiff that the respondent-defendant as per the terms of agreement to sell had agreed to execute the registered sale deed with respect of the suit land in the office of the Sub-Registrar, though no specific date was fixed for the same. Subsequently, the respondent-defendant became dishonest and refused to perform his part of the contract. The matter was thereafter renegotiated, and the appellant-plaintiff again agreed to purchase the land vide agreement dated 15.05.2013 for a total ₹ ₹

consideration of 15,00,000/-, out of which 14,00,000/- was paid as earnest money in the presence of witnesses. It was also agreed that possession would continue with the appellant-plaintiff and that, upon payment of the remaining ₹

1,00,000/-, the appellant-plaintiff would be entitled to get the sale deed executed in his favour as and when he so desired. No last date for execution of the sale deed was fixed under the agreement to sell dated 15.05.2013. He further alleged that prior to filing of the suit, the respondent-defendant had forcibly taken over possession of the suit land on 09.05.2015. Accordingly, the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit on 29.04.2016 seeking specific performance of the agreements dated 03.07.2007 and 15.05.2013.

3. On notice, the respondent-defendant raised number of preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit. On merits, due execution of the agreements and receipts, as pleaded by the appellant-plaintiff, was specifically denied. It was asserted that the respondent-defendant was in need ₹

of money and had borrowed a sum of 3,00,000/- from the appellant-plaintiff in the year 2007 at prevailing bank interest rates. To secure the said loan, the appellant-plaintiff allegedly obtained the signatures/thumb impressions of the respondent-defendant on certain blank papers and also took his photographs. It was further asserted that the respondent-defendant had already repaid the ₹

amount of 3,00,000/- and had thereafter received only a legal notice dated 03.07.2010, which was stated to be illegal. That the matter was reported to the police regarding the alleged forged agreement to sell dated 03.07.2007. Further, before the police as well as various panchayats, it was agreed that the ₹

respondent-defendant would pay a sum of 1,40,000/- to the appellant-plaintiff as interest on the loan amount taken in the year 2007. It was alleged that even at that stage, his signatures were obtained on blank papers in lieu of security ₹

for the said amount of 1,40,000/-. The respondent-defendant asserted that the present suit for specific performance had been filed with mala fide and dishonest intention, and