RSA No.5660 of 2018

Page 1 of 9

237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA NO. 5660 OF 2018

DATE OF DECISION: 02.02.2023

Krishan Kumar and another

…Appellants

Versus

Nirmala Devi and others

…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Mr. Lajpat Sharma, Advocate,

For appellants.

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

CM-15598-C-2018

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and

delay of 42 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM-15597-C-2018

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and

delay of 44 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

Main case (O&M)

For convenience, parties herein are described as per recitals

before learned trial Court.

2.

Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by two Courts

below, plaintiffs are in second appeal before this Court assailing the

learned trial Court judgment and decree dated 12.03.2014, as upheld by

learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated

19.12.2017, dismissing the suit for specific performance of contract filed

by appellant/plaintiffs.

SHALINI BHATIA

2023.03.04 13:56

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA No.5660 of 2018

Page 2 of 9

3.

Briefly stated, facts as noticed by Courts below are that

defendants No.1 and 2, namely, Nirmala Devi and Jagdish were owners in

possession of land measuring 12 Kanals 03 Marlas. It was inherited by

them from their father Jainarain as per Jamabandi for the year 1988-89

comprised in Khewat No.106,Khatoni No. 229 and as per mutation

No.791 dated 04.05.1994. The land is situated in revenue estate of village

Mehrana, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. In latest Jamabandi for

the year 2003-04, their land has been shown by Khewat No.139, Khatoni

No.250 out of total land measuring 36 Kanal 09 Marlas in which both

defendants were depicted to be owners in 1/6^th share each. It is further

alleged that Jainarain was real brother of father of plaintiffs, namely,

Bhagwan Singh. Nirmala is married to defendant No.3, Phul Singh, who

holds general power of attorney on behalf of defendants No.1 and 2 since

1991, which is a registered document. Through said power of attorney,

defendants entered into an agreement dated 12.09.1991 with plaintiffs for

sale of their agricultural land measuring 12Kanals 03 Marlas for sale

consideration of Rs.1,38,000/-. A sum of Rs.68,000/- was paid as earnest

money by plaintiff No.1, Nirmala Devi on 12.09.1991 and agreement was

executed to this effect. It was agreed between parties to the contract to

execute sale deed within six months and remaining sale consideration of

Rs.70,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. It was

further stipulated in the agreement that if defendants fail to execute the

sale deed, they will pay double the amount of earnest money to plaintiff

No.1 and in case plaintiffs refused to get the sale deed registered, the

earnest money was to be forfeited. After one month of execution of

agreement, plaintiff No.1 paid another sum of Rs.58,000/- to defendant

No.3 and as such, Rs.12,000/- remained to be paid. Plaintiff no.1

SHALINI BHATIA

2023.03.04 13:56

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA No.5660 of 2018

Page 3 of 9

requested defendants to execute the sale deed but defendants delayed the

same on one pretext or the other.

3.1.

It is further alleged that defendants started demanding more

money on the ground that price of land has increased. Parties again

reached a settlement in the year-1994 whereby plaintiffs agreed to pay

further sum of Rs.20,000/- to the defendants in addition to Rs.1,26,000/-

already paid and thereafter, sale deed would be executed. A writing to this

effect was also executed on 26.07.1994 by defendant No.3 on behalf of

defendants No.1 and 2. The possession of suit property was als