IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.04.2026 Manpreet Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Darshan Singh ...Respondent(s)

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

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Defendant No.3 is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein for possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 10.03.2005, has been decreed by both the District Courts.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a Suit for possession of the suit land total measuring 45K-8M as described in the plaint “……by way of specific performance of contract/agreement of sell 'dated 10-03-05 executed by the defendants no. 1 & 2 in favour of plaintiff with regard to the property mentioned at letter 'X' below on payment of Rs. 14,54,095/-, the balance amount of the sale consideration or any other sum found due and stamps, registration and other allied and incidental expenses through execution and registration of sale deed alongwith all rights therein, after clearing all charges and encumbrances, if any, over the suit property in question and for declaration to the effect that the sale deeds dated and registered on 12-01-06 vide Vasiqa no. 4448 & sale deed dated and registered on 12-01-06 vide Vasiqa no. 4449 alleged to have been executed by the defendants no. 1 & 2 in favour of defendant no. 3 are illegal, null and void and same are result of fraud, misrepresentation and collusion with each others with malafide intention just to defraud the plaintiff and same are without consideration and are liable to be set aside; AND for permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 3, his servants and agents from alienating the suit property by way of sale, mortgage, gift, exchange etc. illegally, forcibly or in any other manner.”

3. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that defendants No.1 and 2 are owners in possession of suit land as described in the plaint. Defendants No.1 and 2 had entered into an Agreement to sell dated 10.03.2005 with the plaintiff for sale of suit land measuring 45K-8M for total sale consideration of R.3,95,000/- per acre. Defendants No.1 and 2 had received earnest amount of Rs.25,000/- in the presence of attesting witnesses of the Agreement. The target date for registration of Sale Deed was fixed on or before 11.11.2005. It was contended that plaintiff had remained ready and willing to perform his part of contract; and had accordingly gone before the Sub Registrar on 11.11.2005 with balance sale consideration. However, defendants No.1 and 2 had failed to appear. Plaintiff got Affidavit attested from Sub Registrar to mark his presence. Plaintiff had later discovered that defendants No.1 and 2 had executed the impugned Sale Deed dated 12.01.2006 in favour of defendant No.3 to defraud the plaintiff. Hence, present suit was filed in the year 2013.

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib had decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated

02.07.2015 in the following manner: -

“19-In view of the findings of this court on the issues no. 1 to 10 (supra), the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.03.05 is hereby decreed to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 10.03.2005 and the sale deeds bearing Vasika no. 4448 and 4449 registered on 12.01.06 are hereby declared as illegal, null and void and are thus set aside as well as the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 3 from alienating the suit property is granted. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to the Judicial Record Room after due compliance.”

5. The Civil Appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No.3 was dismissed