IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.04.2026 Dinesh Kumar ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Hansraj and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Jayant Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. S.M.Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate and Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts, whereby the suit filed by the appellant for specific performance of contract dated 24.08.2005, has been dismissed by both the District Courts.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff had filed instant suit seeking specific performance of contract dated 24.08.2005 executed in his favour by defendants No.1 and 2. It was pleaded case of the appellant that Durga Parshad/defendant No.3 had executed an Agreement to Sell dated 03.04.1996 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 for sale of disputed plot for a total sale consideration of Rs.92,000/-. Defendants No.1 and 2 had made full and final payment to defendant No.3 and had received possession of suit plot. Thereafter, defendants No. 1 and 2 had executed instant Agreement to Sell dated 24.08.2005 in favour of the plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs.3,28,500/-; of which they had received Rs.85,000/- as earnest amount. It was alleged that possession of suit property was given to the appellant at the time of execution of Agreement to Sell. Target date for execution of Sale Deed was fixed for 15.05.2006. On 15.05.2006, defendants No.1 and 2 had shown their inability to appear before the Sub Registrar. Hence, the present suit was filed on 22.05.2006.

3. Upon notice, defendants No. 1 and 2 had appeared and filed written statement pleading therein that they had entered into an Agreement dated 03.04.1996 to purchase the suit plot from defendant No.3 for total sale consideration of Rs.92,000/-. However, despite the fact that they had paid Rs.60,000/- as earnest money they could not get the Sale Deed executed in their favour. Thus, the agreement executed in their favour by defendant no.3 became cancelled when they could not get the sale deed executed within time. The possession was also restored in favour of defendant no.3. It is claimed that they had not executed any agreement in favour of the plaintiff. They had not received any earnest money from the plaintiff. Therefore, the question of giving possession to the plaintiff did not arise. Thus, suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

4. The defendant no.3 had filed a separate written statement. He claimed that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit against him. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.3. The suit against him is not maintainable and bad for misjoinder of parties. On merits, it was claimed that the defendant no.3 has already cancelled his deal with defendants no.1 and 2 because they could not honour their promise to get the sale deed executed within time. Therefore, the contract dated 03.04.1996 was cancelled. The plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant no.3 so the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

5. Replication was filed wherein plaintiff reiterated the averments made in the plaint and denied those made in the written statements.

6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 10.01.2008: -

“1. Whether the defendants entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff on 24.08.2005 regarding the suit property?

OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the suit property by way of such a performance of the agreement to sell dated 24.08.2005?OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the p