IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (246) RSA No. 3797 of 1998 (O&M)

Reserved on : 25.02.2026 Pronounced on : 09.03.2026 Uploaded on : 10.03.2026 Rehmatulla and others ...Appellants Versus Smt. Wahida and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Ishan Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate with Mr. Brijesh Kumar Jangra, Advocate and Mr. Ram Lal Yadav, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3.

Service of respondent No. 4 was dispensed with vide order dated 13.03.2024.

***

Amarinder Singh Grewal, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the legal heirs of the plaintiff-Ishak challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.08.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, whereby the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1993 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepur Jhirka was set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs for possession by way of Specific Performance of Contract, was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status, before the trial Court.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Ishak (since deceased) through his legal representatives Rehmattulla and Khussi, filed Civil Suit No. 718 dated 22.05.1989 for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14.12.1984 against respondents- defendants Noor Mohd. and others. It was pleaded that defendant No. 1- Noor Mohd. son of Goonga being owner of the agricultural land as detailed in para 1 of the plaint, entered into an agreement to sell dated 14.12.1984 in ₹

favour of the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of 30,000/-. At the time ₹

of execution of the agreement, an amount of 5,000/- was paid to defendant No. 1-Noor Mohd. as earnest money and a receipt was also executed. The ₹

balance consideration of 25,000/- was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed on or before 30.12.1985.

3.1 It was further pleaded that the suit land was mortgaged vide ₹

deed for an amount of 14,000/- in favour of the husbands of defendants No. 2 to 4 and one Deen Mohd., the real brother of husband of defendant No. 2. Subsequently, at the request of defendant No. 1, the plaintiff paid an ₹

additional amount of 15,000/- on 27.05.1985 out of the balance sale consideration, which was endorsed on the agreement and a separate receipt was also executed. Possession of the suit land was also allegedly delivered to the plaintiff in presence of the husband of defendant No. 2. The remaining ₹

amount of 10,000/- was to be paid to the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed on or before 30.12.1985.

3.2 According to the plaintiff, he later came to know that Samma, husband of defendant No. 2-Smt. Waheeda, falsely claiming to be the General Power of Attorney holder of defendant No. 1, executed a sale deed on 27.05.1985 in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4. It was asserted that Samma was not the lawful attorney of defendant No. 1 and that the sale deed dated 27.05.1985 executed in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4 was illegal, bogus and document of no value. The plaintiff further pleaded that he remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and even appeared before Sub Registrar, Punhana on 30.12.1985 with the balance sale consideration and expenses for registration and waited in the Tehsil Premises from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. but defendant No. 1-Noor Mohd. failed to appear. A legal notice dated 21.02.1986 was also issued to the defendants, but the same was refused. Thus, on the basis of these facts, plaintiff-Ishak (since deceased) through his legal representatives had filed the suit for Specific Performance of the agreement to sell dated 14.12.1984.

4. It may be noticed that plaintiff-Ishak died during the pendency of the suit, his legal representatives Rehmatulla and others were impleaded by the learned tr