SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 77895

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J
Hitesh Bhardwaj – Appellant
Versus
J.V. Builders Private Ltd. – Respondent
R.S.A. No.1243 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rakesh Nehra, Sahil Nehra, Vivek Dahiya
For the Respondents: Akshay Kumar Jindal, Yashvardhan Goyal, Bhavya Vats

Oral agreements for the sale of land are legally binding and enforceable. Specific performance may be granted provided there is clear evidence of the agreement, payment of consideration, and continuous readiness and willingness of the purchaser to perform their contractual obligations within the statutory period of limitation.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Essential elements of contract - Enforceability of oral agreements - Agreement for sale does not require a written contract for validity - The essential requirements for a valid agreement of sale are consensus on material terms, lawful consideration, and lawful object - An agreement signed by one party or an oral agreement is equally valid and enforceable under the law, provided it is supported by clear and convincing evidence. (Paras 15, 16, 17, 19)

(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Suit for specific performance - Limitation period - A suit for specific performance must be filed within three years from the date fixed for performance, or when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused - The act of filing a suit on the last day of the limitation period does not defeat the right to sue. (Paras 21, 22, 24)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Punjab Courts Act, 1918 - Section 41 - Second Appeal jurisdiction - A second appeal in the concerned High Court does not mandate the framing of a substantial question of law. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
Two parties entered into an oral agreement to sell landed property for a fixed consideration. Part of the consideration was paid via cheque, but the vendor subsequently failed to execute the sale deed, leading to a suit for specific performance. The trial court initially granted a money decree for the refund of the advance amount, but the appellate court modified the decree to grant specific performance of the contract, directing the payment of the balance consideration alongside an additional compensation to account for price escalation and the delay in litigation.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the oral agreement was proved by consistent and reliable witness testimony and documentary evidence of part-payment. It rejected the seller's plea of an exorbitant sale price and determined that the suit was filed within the limitation period. The appellate court was justified in awarding additional compensation to the legal heirs of the seller to balance the equities due to the significant delay in judicial proceedings.

Issues: Whether an oral agreement to sell is legally enforceable; whether the suit was barred by limitation; and whether the appellate court was justified in granting specific performance with additional compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that oral agreements to sell are binding and enforceable. The continuous readiness and willingness of the purchaser to perform their obligations, supported by the payment of a significant portion of the sale price, entitles the buyer to a decree for specific performance. Discretionary relief of specific performance is correctly exercised when the purchaser has performed their part and the vendor is attempting to resile from the contract for financial gain.

Result: Appeal dismissed; decree for specific performance confirmed.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding the formation of an oral agreement to sell, payment of consideration, and procedural history of the suit. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
2. contentions of the parties regarding the validity of the oral agreement, limitation period, and readiness/willingness. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

Present Regular Second Appeal (R.S.A.) has been preferred by defendant No.1 against impugned judgment & decree dated 22.12.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred as ‘First Appellate Court’), vide which judgment & decree dated 28.02.2023 of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh (hereinafter referred as ‘trial Court’), granting money decree of ` 15 Lakh along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of suit till its realization to plaintiff No.2/respondent No.2-Jagbir Singh were modified to the extent that defendant Nos.1 (b) & (c) (LRs of defendant No.1), namely, Hitesh Bhardwaj & Nitesh Bhardwaj, were directed to execute the Sale Deed of land, comprised in Khewat No.314, Khatoni No.337, Rect. & Killa Nos.31/19/1 (2-16) and 22/2 (0-16), total measuring 3 Kanals 12 Marlas vide Jamabandi for the year 2000-2001, situated within revenue estate of Village Sakhol, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar (hereinafter referred as ‘suit property’) in favour of plaintiff No.2 on payment of balance sale consideration i.e. ` 15 Lakh along with compensation to the tune of ` 50 Lakh. Further defendant Nos.1 (b) & (c) were also directed to hand over the vacant possession of suit property to plaintiff No.2.

BRIEF FACTS

(2.1) Case set up by respondent Nos.1 & 2, namely, M/s J.V.Builders Private Ltd. through its Managing Director (MD)-Jagbir Singh & Jagbir Singh, respectively, (hereinafter referred as ‘plaintiff Nos.1 & 2’) is that plaintiff No.1 is a Private Limited Company. Plaintiff No.2 and respondent No.3-Vinay Chhabra (hereinafter referred as ‘defendant No.2’) were MDs of plaintiff No.1. Appellant-Deepak Bhardwaj (since deceased & now represented through his legal representative-Hitesh Bhardwaj) [hereinafter referred as ‘defendant No.1’] was absolute owner and in possession of suit property.

(2.2) Defendant No.1 entered into an ‘Oral Agreement to Sell’ of suit property with plaintiff No.2 & defendant No.2 in equal shares on 11.03.2007 for a total sale consideration of ` 30 Lakh. It was agreed between them to get Sale Deed executed and registered on or before 31.12.2008.

(2.3) On the same day i.e. 11.03.2007, an amount of ` 10 Lakh was paid to defendant No.1 by plaintiff No.2 vide Cheque bearing No.128033 as earnest money in the presence of witnesses, namely, Pavitar Ruhil (PW-4), Azad Singh (PW-5) & Sukhbir Singh.

(2.4) On asking of defendant No.1, defendant No.2 paid an amount of ` 10 Lakh and ` 5 Lakh vide two different Cheques bearing Nos.353946 & 272226 dated 03.07.2007 & 15.04.2008, respectively. Similarly, another Cheque for an amount of ` 5 Lakh was also paid to defendant No.1 vide cheque bearing No.453452 dated 17.04.2008, issued by plaintiff No.2. In this way, entire sale consideration of ` 30 Lakh was already paid to defendant No.1 regarding suit property.

(2.5) Further plaintiff No.2 is owner and in possession of a plot, measuring 1008 Sq. Yds. out of land comprised in Khewat No.330/314 Min Khatoni No.358 & Rect. & Killa No.31//18/1/2 (2-4) and 18/2/1 (1-16), situated within the revenue estate of Village Sakhol. After annexing said plot, shown by letters ‘BEFG’ with the suit property, he raised boundary walls with iron rod fencing, erected two iron gates and also planted a number of trees after investing an amount of ` 15 Lakh over the suit property with the verbal consent of defendant No.1.

(2.6) On 23.04.2008, plaintiff No.2 went to the Office of Sub Registrar, Bahadurg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top