IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision :07.04.2026 HARBANS SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND ANR ... APPELLANTS VERSUS JAGMOHAN SINGH AND ORS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Amrdeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the appellants.

****

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by appellants– defendants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.08.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar as well as judgment and decree dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the suit for specific performance by way of possession filed by the respondents–plaintiffs was decreed and the first appeal preferred by the appellants-defendants was dismissed.

2. It is the case of the respondents–plaintiffs that an agreement to sell dated 02.11.2004 was initially executed between the respondents–plaintiffs and the appellants–defendants for the sale of land measuring 18 Kanals 15 Marlas. Sale-deed was executed for 8 Kanals. For remaining 10 Kanals 5 Marlas land an ₹

amount of 5,00,000/- out of Rs. 11,79,687/- was received by appellants- defendants as earnest money. However, dispute arose between the parties, and the respondents–plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance before the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar. During the pendency of the said suit, the matter was compromised, and the parties had agreed to execute a fresh agreement dated 19.08.2009. As per the said agreement, the appellants–defendants agreed to transfer land measuring 64 Marlas in favour of ₹

respondents-plaintiffs in lieu of 5,00,000/- already received as earnest money under the earlier agreement. On the basis of this compromise, the civil suit was withdrawn on 26.09.2009 after recording statements of both the parties. It was asserted by respondents–plaintiffs that the appellants–defendants have now resiled from the agreement dated 19.08.2009, compelling them to file the suit for specific performance of the said agreement.

3. On the other hand, the appellants–defendants contested the suit by raising preliminary objections regarding its maintainability. It was admitted that an agreement to sell dated 02.11.2004 was executed for land measuring 18 ₹

Kanals 15 Marlas for a total sale consideration of 12,50,000/-, out of which ₹

5,00,000/- was received as earnest money and a sale deed for part of the land was executed. It was contended that the respondents–plaintiffs failed to pay the balance sale consideration for the remaining land. It was further pleaded that though a subsequent agreement for transfer of 64 Marlas was entered into, the respondents–plaintiffs again failed to perform their part of the contract by not paying the balance amount. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance? OPP

2. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD

3. Whether plaintiffs have concealed the true and material facts from the court? OPD

4. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands?

OPD

5. Whether plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present case by their wrongs and deeds? OPD

6. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder of the parties? OPD

7. Relief.

5. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the pleadings, admissions, and evidence led by the parties, have accepted the due execution of the agreement to sell dated 19.08.2009. The said agreement was duly proved on record by PW-2 Avtar Singh, the marginal witness. Evidence of PW-3-Gurpreet Singh, establishes that a compromise was effected between the parties in the earlier suit filed by the respondents–plaintiffs.

6. The learned Courts below have also taken into consideration the fact that the appellants–defendants themselves admitted the execution of the ₹

agreement dated 19.08.2009 and the receipt of 5,00,000/-