[2026:RJ-JD:7037]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 971/2025 Mahaveer Prasad S/o Sohanlal, Aged About 41 Years, Niwadan Goluwala, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus Suresh Kumar S/o Chetram, Ayalki, Chak 18 JRK, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manas Khatri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Monal Chugh HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

09/02/2026

1. The present first appeal has been filed aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 12.08.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) in Civil Original Suit No.10/2017 (CIS No.10/2017) whereby suit for specific performance of agreement dated 27.05.2015 as filed by the plaintiff, stood decreed.

2. The facts as averred in the plaint are that vide agreement dated 27.05.2015 the defendant agreed to sell out his agricultural land measuring 7.9066 hectares to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rupees 6 Lakhs. As per the agreement, part payment of Rupees 5 Lakhs was made on the date of agreement itself and the due consideration amount of Rupees 1 Lakh was agreed to be paid on 27.05.2017 before the Registrar, i.e. on the date fixed for execution of sale deed.

3. As per the plaint, 27.05.2017 and 28.05.2017 being the State Holidays, the plaintiff informed the defendant to remain present on 29.05.2017 in the office of the Registrar for execution of the sale deed. As per the plaintiff, he remained present before the Registrar’s office with all the requisite stamps and stamp duties as required but the defendant did not appear. The plaintiff got his attendance registered in writing before the office of Sub-

Registrar, Rajiyasar.

4. Notice dated 09.06.2017 was then served on the defendant calling upon him to get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff after accepting the due consideration amount of Rupees 1 Lakh. However the notice remained un-responded to and hence, the suit in question was filed.

5. As per the defendant, although the agreement in question was executed but then the same was for security purposes qua a debt taken by the plaintiff from the defendant. The debt remained re-paid and hence, the plaintiff was not entitled to get any decree for specific performance in his favour. On basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed the following 7 issues :

“01- D;k okn i= dh in la[;k 2 esa mYysf[kr Hkwfe dks N% yk[k :i;s esa izfroknh us oknh dks 27-05-2015 dks cspus dk djkj fd;k vkSj mldk iath;u Hkh djok;k\

--oknh

02- D;k izfrQy Lo:i oknh us izfroknh dks ikap yk[k #i;s vfxze vnk fd;s\

--oknh

03- D;k oknh vius i{k dh “krksZa ,oa nkf;Roksa dk fuoZgu ds fy, lnSo rRij ,oa rS;kj jgk gS\

--oknh

04- D;k izfroknh us djkj ds vuq:i fookfnr Hkwfe dk foØ; foys[k oknh ds i{k esa iath;u ugha djok;k\

--oknh

05- D;k izfroknh fookfnr Hkwfe dks vU;= gLrkarfjr ;k izHkkfjr djuk pkgrk gS\

--oknh

06- D;k oknh us mi;qDr U;k;”kqYd izLrqr fd;k gS\

--oknh

07- vuqrks’k\”

6. The learned Trial Court proceeded on to decide all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and as a consequence, decreed the suit in his favour.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the following grounds before this Court:

I. It was not proved on record that 27.05.2017 and

28.05.2017 were the State Holidays and hence it was not proved that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Counsel submitted that the office of the Registrar works on Saturdays and hence the plaintiff was required to remain present before the Registrar on 27.05.2017 itself i.e. the date fixed vide the agreement.

II. Time being the essence of the contract, the plaintiff was required to pay the due consideration amount of Rupees 1 Lakh prior to 27.05.2017. It having not been established on record that the plaintiff ever offered so or made any attempt to do so, issue No.3 has wrongly been decided in favour of the plaintiff.

III. Although, a specific