IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

219 RSA-3468-2014(O&M)

Date of decision: 07.04.2026 Deepak ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Dharambir & Others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Surender Lamba, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts whereby suit filed by the appellant for possession by way of specific performance was partly decreed by the learned trial Court for recovery of earnest amount; and Civil Appeal there-

against has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the present suit for possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 25.09.2006. And in the alternative prayer was made for refund of earnest amount of ₹3 lakhs. It was pleaded in the plaint that defendant No.1 is owner in possession of 1/12^th share in the agricultural land total measuring 102 kanal

122 marla. It was alleged that defendant No.1 had entered into Agreement to Sell dated 25.09.2006 for total sale consideration of Rs.7,50,000/-. It is further alleged that defendant No.1 received earnest amount of Rs.3 lakh at the time of execution of Agreement in the presence of witnesses and receipt was also issued by the defendant No.1. Target date for execution of Sale Deed was fixed for 20.03.2007. On 20.03.2007, the plaintiff had waited for defendant No.1 till 5 pm in the office of Sub-Registrar along with balance sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- but the defendant No.1 had failed to appear. On 27.03.2007, the plaintiff had approached the defendant No.1 who then disclosed that he had already executed Sale Deed with regard to suit property on 29.01.2007 in favour of defendants No.2 to 5. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the said Sale Deed was collusive and illegal. It was alleged that defendants No.2 to 5 had knowledge about the Agreement to Sell dated 25.09.2006 and all the facts appurtenant thereto. Therefore, defendants No.2 to 5 were not bona fide purchasers. It was stated that plaintiff is still ready and willing to perform the contract. Hence, present suit was filed on 18.04.2007.

3. Upon appraisal of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahadurgarh had partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 19.10.2012 as follows: -

“41. As a sequel of my findings on the forgoing issues, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be partly decreed. The same is hereby partly decreed, without any costs to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery of Rs.3 lacs from the defendant no.1 Dharambir, alongwith a compound interest @ 12% per annum, from 25.9.2006 till the same is realized. The defendant no.1 Dharambir is directed to make the abovesaid payment within three months of this order, failing which the plaintiff shall be at liberty to recover the abovesaid amount by filing of execution. Decree- sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.”

4. The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2014. Hence, present second appeal by the plaintiff.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned District Courts were in patent error in denying specific performance to the appellant as appellant had duly succeeded in proving the execution of the Agreement to Sell; as also his readiness and willingness to perform the contract. It is contended that in this situation, specific performance could not have been denied to the appellant.

6. It is submitted that the Agreement to Sell in favour of the appellant was executed on 25.09.2006; whereas the alleged Sale Deed was executed in favour of the respondents on 29.01.2007. Thus, as the Agreement in favour of the appellan