IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.: 20.04.2026 Suraj Bhan …..Appellant Vs.

Khushi Ram (deceased) thr LRs and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate with Mr. Lakhan Paul Garg, Advocate for the appellant.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The plain"ff-appellant has approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 26.02.2019, and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 31.08.2024, whereby his suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 08.12.2008 has been dismissed.

2. The case set up by the plain"ff is that defendants No.1 to 4 entered into an agreement to sell the suit land in his favour on 08.12.2008 for a total sale considera"on of ₹11,00,000/-, out of which a sum of ₹10,00,000/- was allegedly paid as earnest money. It was pleaded that possession of the suit land was also delivered to him at the "me of execu"on of the agreement. Since the vendors were yet to perfect their "tle on account of pending muta"on arising out of a release deed, no specific date for execu"on of the sale deed was fixed. On 13.01.2009, another amount of ₹ 50,000/- was paid and fresh agreement to sell was executed with target date fixed as 30.04.2009. According to the plain"ff, a=er comple"on of formali"es, he repeatedly approached the defendants NEETIKA TUTEJA and even appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 24.01.2014 and therea=er on 17.02.2014 along with balance considera"on, but the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract, constraining him to ins"tute the suit.

3. The defendants contested the claim by denying execu"on of the agreement dated 08.12.2008 and alleged that the same was a forged and fabricated document. Their stand was that only a subsequent agreement dated 13.01.2009 had been executed, which the plain"ff himself failed to perform within the s"pulated "me, resul"ng in forfeiture of the earnest money. Various other objec"ons including limita"on, absence of readiness and willingness, and lack of cause of ac"on were also raised.

4. Both the Courts below, upon apprecia"on of oral as well as documentary evidence, returned concurrent findings against the plain"ff and dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court, while affirming the judgment of the trial Court, examined the maBer in detail, as is evident from the record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that once execu"on of the agreement dated 08.12.2008 stood proved, the Courts below erred in declining the relief of specific performance. It has further been argued that since no specific date was fixed in the agreement, limita"on would commence only when the defendants refused performance, and therefore the suit filed in 2014 was within "me. It is also urged that the plain"ff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal.

7. It is well seBled that the jurisdic"on of this Court in a second appeal under Sec"on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to substan"al ques"ons of law. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless the same are shown to be perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or suffering from a patent illegality. In the present case, the findings returned by both the Courts below are based on a proper and cogent apprecia"on of the evidence on record.

8. At the outset, it may be no"ced that the relief of specific performance is discre"onary and equitable in nature. Even where execu"on of an agreement is proved, the plain"ff is required to establish con"nuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, which is a sine qua non for grant of such relief.

9. In the present case, the