(109) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 27.04.2026 KULWANT KAUR AND ANOTHER ...Appellants Vs.

BALWINDER KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the appellants/plaintiffs.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, whereby their suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 08.12.2009 has been dismissed. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajnala, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 18.07.2017, and the appeal preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2022.

2. Briefly stated, the appellants–plaintiffs instituted a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 08.12.2009. In the ₹

alternative, they sought recovery of a sum of 4,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum, as well as confirmation of possession; and further a decree for possession along with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property. It was pleaded that Dalbir Singh was the original owner of the suit land, who entered into an agreement to sell the same in favour of the plaintiffs on 08.12.2009 after ₹

receiving earnest money of 2,00,000/-. As per the terms of the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed and registered on or before 30.04.2010 upon payment of the balance sale consideration. It was further averred that possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiffs at the time of execution of the agreement. The plaintiffs asserted that they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and continue to remain so. However, before the execution of the sale deed, Dalbir Singh expired, and his estate devolved upon the present respondents–defendants as his legal representatives. Despite this, the respondents failed to honour the agreement. The plaintiffs claimed that on the stipulated date, they remained present in the office of the Tehsildar, Ajnala, along with the balance sale consideration and necessary registration charges, but the defendants failed to appear and execute the sale deed. Despite repeated requests, the legal heirs of Dalbir Singh did not perform their obligations, compelling the plaintiffs to file the present suit. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein they categorically denied the execution of any agreement to sell by Dalbir Singh and also disputed the receipt of earnest money. It was specifically pleaded that the alleged agreement to sell is a result of fraud and fabrication and is not binding upon them. The plaintiffs filed a replication reiterating the averments made in the plaint and controverting those raised in the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated

08.12.2009? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiffs have not locus standi or cause of action? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands?OPD.

6. Whether the suit of plaintiff is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary party? OPD.

7. Relief.

3. The parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead their respective evidence in support of their claims and defences. Upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the appel