RSA No.1517 of IN THE 104 Gian Kaur and an Surjit Singh (sinc 2. RSA No.1 Gian Kaur and an Surjit Singh (sinc CORAM : HON Present: Mr. Mr. for t Mr. for l Mr. Ms. for r for r *** AMARINDER S 1. This Nos.1517 and 15 the same judgm Additional Distr Appellate Court) of 1995 (O&M) -1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH X Obj No.4-C RSA No.1517 of Reserved on:02.0 Pronounced on: Uploaded on:09 and another Versus (since deceased) through LRs and ot No.1518 of 1995 (O&M) and another Versus (since deceased) through LRs and ot HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate w Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. C.S. Jattana, Advocate for legal representatives of responde Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate and Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5 in RSA No for respondents No.3 to 6 in RSA No ***** DER SINGH GREWAL, J. This order of mine shall dispose and 1518 of 1995 as well as the cross judgment and decree dated 15.05 District Judge, Sangrur (hereinafter Court). The appellants before this Cou NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH of 1996 (O&M) and of 1995 (O&M) 02.04.2026 d on:08.04.2026 09.04.2026 ... Appellants others ... Respondents ... Appellants and others ... Respondents MARINDER SINGH GREWAL ocate with pondent No.1/cross-objector. SA No.1517 of 1995 and SA No.1518 of 1995. ispose of two appeals bearing RSA cross objections, as they arise out of 15.05.1995 passed by the learned inafter referred to as the learned 1 his Court are challenging the judgment RSA out of earned ed 1st gment PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of and decree dated the Civil Appeal of Civil Suit No Surjit Singh was 01.02.1991 passe referred to as t performance of r sale consideratio Surjit Singh-resp judgment, the lea of 25.02.1991 aside of the judg Court in Civil S Singh. For the No.1517 of 1995 2. In b performance of a land in dispute propounded by th the agreement to 5 (plaintiffs in Ci favour by one S agreement to se No.201 of 10.06. Khatauni Nos.23 of 1995 (O&M) -2- dated 15.05.1995 passed by the learn ppeal No.21 of 25.02.1991 filed by re uit No.245 of 15.06.1988 titled as was allowed, while setting aside t passed by the learned Sub Judge 1 as the learned trial Court) and d ce of respondents No.2 to 5 with a dir eration within a period of two month respondent No.1 in favour of respo the learned 1st Appellate Court had di 991 filed by respondent No.1-Surjit dgment and decree dated 01.02.1 ivil Suit No.201 of 10.06.1987 title or the sake of brevity, the facts are f 1995. In brief the facts are that two ce of agreement to sell dated 03.05.19 spute was common. The agreement d by the appellants (plaintiffs in Civil ent to sell dated 15.04.1987 was prop s in Civil Suit No.245 of 15.06.1988) one Surjit Singh-respondent No.1 to sell dated 03.05.1987, which wa 10.06.1987, pertained to land measur 238/417 and 292/513, comprised e learned 1st Appellate Court whereby d by respondents No.2 to 5 arising out d as Kamikkar Singh and others Vs. aside the judgment and decree dated dge 1st Class, Malerkotla (hereinafter and decreeing the suit for specific h a direction to deposit the remaining months and execution of sale deed by f respondents No.2 to 5. Vide same had dismissed the Civil Appeal No.22 Surjit Singh, who had sought setting 1.02.1991 passed by the learned trial 7 titled as Gian Kaur etc. Vs. Surjit ts are being enumerated from RSA two suits were filed for specific .05.1987 and 15.04.1987 wherein the ement to sell dated 03.05.1987 was Civil Suit No.201 of 10.06.1987) and s propounded by respondents No.2 to 1988) allegedly to be executed in their No.1 (defendant in both suits). The ich was subject matter of Civil Suit easuring 7 kanals 17 marlas, bearing prised in Khasra Nos.85//4 (7-0) and hereby ng out Vs. dated inafter pecific aining eed by same No.22 setting d trial urjit RSA pecific he 7 was 7) and o.2 to n their The il Suit earing 0) and PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of 85//26/1 (7-0), s therein had plead land in their favo and agreed to ex possession of the deed. In case of within the stipula executed through stand forfeited. A the land were me sale deed as agre the Sub-Registra PM, but the de presence marked the defendant to filed. 3. The plaintiffs and ass suit land nor exe agreement was f want of cause of 4. In th Kamikar Singh a agreement to se measuring 7 kan of 1995 (O&M) -3- 0), situated in the revenue estate of pleaded that the defendant executed ir favour @ ₹20,000/- per killa, receiv to execute the sale deed on 14.06.198 of the land would be delivered at th ase of failure on the part of the defe stipulated period, the plaintiffs would hrough the intervention of the Court, ited. As the copy of jamabandi was n ere mentioned in the agreement. The as agreed. On 04.06.1987, the plaintif egistrar along with the balance sale co he defendant did not turn up. Ther arked and issued a registered notice ant to execute the sale deed, but to no The defendant, in his written state nd asserted that he had never entered or executed any such agreement in th was forged and fictitious, and that use of action. In the connected suit i.e. Civil Suit ingh and others, they sought specific to sell dated 15.04.1987 executed 7 kanals 17 marlas. It was pleaded t tate of village Kalsian. The plaintiffs ecuted an agreement to sell the said received ₹10,000/- as earnest money, .06.1987. It was further stipulated that d at the time of execution of the sale e defendant to execute the sale deed would be entitled to get the sale deed Court, and the earnest money would i was not available, the boundaries of t. The defendant failed to execute the laintiffs appeared before the office of sale consideration and waited till 5:00 . Thereafter, the plaintiffs got their notice dated 05.06.1987 calling upon t to no avail. Hence, the said suit was n statement, denied the claim of the ntered into any agreement to sell the nt in their favour. He alleged that the that the suit deserved dismissal for il Suit No.245 of 15.06.1988 filed by ecific performance on the basis of an cuted by the defendant for the land aded that the defendant had received intiffs e said oney, ed that e sale e deed e deed would ries of te the fice of ll 5:00 t their upon it was of the ell the at the sal for led by of an e land ceived PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of ₹10,000/- as earn killa on or before the said agreeme measuring 11 kan Khata Khatauni Khasra No.79//17 ₹39,000/-. Subse another agreemen land measuring ₹15,000/- more agreement and in leading to the fili 5. In th claim of plaintiff 6. Both proceedings were and others Vs. Su “ 03.0 2. W to p 3. R 7. On learned trial Cou Kaur and others of 1995 (O&M) -4- as earnest money and agreed to execut before 20.05.1987. It was further aver reement, the defendant executed a sa 11 kanals 3 marlas out of the land me tauni No.238/417, Khasra No.79//8 .79//17/1(3-3) situation in Village Ka Subsequently, on 18.08.1987, the d reement with the plaintiffs to execute uring 7 kanals 7 marlas on or befo more as earnest money. However, the and instead started threatening to al the filing of the suit. In the aforesaid suit, the defendant aintiffs and prayed that the suit be dec Both the suits were consolidated o s were conducted in Civil Suit No.20 s. Surjit Singh wherein following iss “1. Whether defendant execute 03.05.1987 and received Rs.10,000/ 2. Whether the plaintiffs have rema to perform their part of the contract 3. Relief.” On appreciation of oral as well al Court decreed the Civil Suit No.201 hers; whereas dismissed the Civil S execute the sale deed @ ₹36,000/- per er averred that, in part performance of d a sale deed on 18.07.1987 for land and measuring 19 kanals comprised in 79//8-0, Khata Khatauni No.292/513, ge Kalsian for a sale consideration of the defendant allegedly entered into ecute the sale deed for the remaining r before 15.05.1988, after receiving er, the defendant failed to honour the to alienate the land to third parties, endant-Surjit Singh had admitted the be decreed in their favour. ated on the statement of parties and No.201 of 1987 titled as Gian Kaur ing issues were already framed:- cuted an agreement to sell dated 000/- as earnest money? OPP remained and still ready and willing tract? OPP well as documentary evidence, the o.201 of 10.06.1987 filed by the Gian ivil Suit No. 245 of 15.06.1988 titled per nce of r land ised in 2/513, tion of d into aining eiving ur the arties, ed the es and Kaur ated lling e, the Gian titled PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of as Kamikar Sing judgment and de Court has set asi favour of appella instant appeals. 8. Mr. Chander, Advoca have suffered fro facts, and is, thu record the agreem well as documen box and categor execution of the adverse inferenc submitted that a jointly by Gian Bhagwan Singh non-examination to discard the ca husband of Surin on their behalf. I purchase, can be power of attorney 9. It w been duly establ of 1995 (O&M) -5- Singh and others Vs. Surjit Singh nd decree passed by the learned trial set aside the judgment and decree pas appellants-plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.2 eals. Mr. M.L. Saggar, learned Senior C dvocate submitted that the findings o from misreading of evidence and in thus, liable to be set aside. The a agreement to sell dated 03.05.1987 (Ex cumentary evidence. PW-4 Karamjee egorically supported the case of of the agreement. The learned 1st Ap ference on account of non-appeara that a valid Power of Attorney (Ex Gian Kaur and Surinder Kaur in fa Singh. Once an authorized attorney ha nation of other attorney i.e. Bhagwan the case of the appellants. Furthermo f Surinder Kaur and closely related to G half. It is a settled proposition that suc can be undertaken by a close family m ttorney at the time of agreement does n It was further submitted that the id established and was never in dispute ingh. In appeals filed against the d trial Court, the learned 1st Appellate ee passed by the learned trial Court in it No.201 of 10.06.1987 and thus, the nior Counsel assisted by Mr. Subhash ings of the learned 1st Appellate Court and incorrect appreciation of material The appellants have duly proved on 87 (Ex. P-1) by leading cogent oral as amjeet Singh appeared in the witness e of the appellants and proved the Appellate Court erred in drawing ppearance of Bhagwan Singh. It is y (Ex. PW-4/A) had been executed r in favour of Karamjeet Singh and ney has stepped into the witness box, gwan Singh cannot be made a ground thermore, Karamjeet Singh, being the ed to Gian Kaur, was competent to act at such acts, particularly in matters of ily member, and absence of a formal does not invalidate the transaction. the identity of the suit property has dispute. Though the agreement dated st the pellate ourt in us, the bhash Court aterial ed on oral as itness ed the rawing It is ecuted and s box, round ng the t to act ters of formal ty has dated PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of 03.05.1987 ment is clearly specifi both suits were c the learned 1st unsustainable. T part of the contr stipulated date al marked. They al appellants deposi with the decree conclusively pro the learned 1st opportunity to le full opportunity examined at leng The respondents lead additional e argued that the inherently doubt pertained to a lar executed. Therea remaining land Rs.15000/- was p the sale deed of 1995 (O&M) -6- mentions the land by boundaries, the pecified, which fact was not disputed were consolidated by consent of the p Appellate Court doubting the ide The appellants were always read contract. The appellants appeared b date along with the balance sale cons hey also issued a legal notice to th deposited the balance sale consideratio decree passed by the learned tria ly proves their continuous readiness a st Appellate Court that the re y to lead evidence is factually incorrec tunity was granted. The witnesses at length, and the defendant Surjit Sin ndents never moved any application ional evidence. Hence, no prejudice the agreement dated 15.04.1987 doubtful and does not inspire co o a larger extent of land i.e. 19 kanal Thereafter, another agreement dated land measuring 7 kanals 17 marlas was paid and the target date was fixed deed. This sequence of transactio es, the total area of 7 kanals 17 marlas isputed by Kamikar Singh. Moreover, f the parties. Therefore, the finding of the identity of the property is legally s ready and willing to perform their ared before the Sub Registrar on the nsideration and got their presence to the respondent. Furthermore, the ideration on 09.02.1991 in compliance d trial Court on 01.02.1991. This iness and willingness. The finding of the respondents were not afforded correct. The record clearly shows that esses of the appellants were cross rjit Singh himself appeared as DW-1. ation nor expressed any intention to udice has been caused. It was also .1987 set up by Kamikar Singh is ire confidence. The said agreement kanals, yet only a part sale deed was dated 18.08.1987 was alleged for the marlas for which earnest money of s fixed as 15.05.1998 for execution of sactions clearly indicated that the marlas eover, ing of legally their on the esence re, the liance This ing of forded s that cross- 1. tion to s also gh is ement d was or the ey of tion of at the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of respondents were appellants. 10. Per RSA No.1517 of submitted that performance of a kanals 17 marla village Kalsia, w said details of pro denied the execu notice Ex.PW4/C were depicted. by Kamikar Sing respect to 19 kan executed the sal marlas, comprisi and for remainin 0-7, the sale dee earnest money of 11. It w after consolidatio plaintiff of each written statement the claim of each 1995 and for res of 1995 (O&M) -7- ts were aware of the prior agreement d Per contra, learned counsel appearin 517 of 1995 and for respondents No.3 that while filing the civil suit, Gian ce of agreement to sell dated 03.05.19 marlas, comprised in Khasra No.8 lsia, whereas the agreement to sell da s of property. Moreover, respondent N execution of said agreement, being for PW4/C, khasra numbers were not m ted. On the other hand, respondent N r Singh and others had admitted the c 19 kanals of land and on the basis of he sale deed on 18.04.1987 for the mprising Khasra No.79//24/8-0, 17//1 maining 7 kanals 17 marlas, comprise le deed was agreed to be executed o ney of Rs.15,000/-. It was further argued that as per th lidation of both suits, the learned tri f each suit as defendant in other sui tement could be completed in both suit f each other, thus, rights of responden for respondents No.3 to 6 in RSA N ent dated 03.05.1987 in favour of the ppearing for respondents No.2 to 5 in ts No.3 to 6 in RSA No.1518 of 1995 , Gian Kaur etc. had sought specific 3.05.1987 for the land admeasuring 7 No.85//4/7-10, 26/1/0-7 situated in sell dated 03.05.1987 did not specify ent No.1-Surjit Singh had specifically ing forged and fabricated. Even in the not mentioned and only boundaries dent No.1-Surjit Singh in the suit filed d the claim raised in the said suit with sis of agreement dated 15.04.1987, he r the land admeasuring 11 kanals 2 , 17//1/3-3 situated in village Kalsia mprised of Killa No.85//4/7-10, 26/1/ uted on or before 15.05.1988 against per the prescribed procedure of law, ned trial Court ought to have arrayed er suit so that pleadings by way of th suits to enable the parties to contest ondents No.2 to 5 in RSA No.1517 of SA No.1518 of 1995 were seriously of the to 5 in f 1995 pecific ring 7 ted in pecify fically in the daries it filed it with 87, he nals 2 Kalsia , 26/1/ gainst f law, rrayed ay of ontest 517 of riously PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of prejudiced. It w decreed the suit made by respon procedure was n prove their readi Sub Registrar on relied upon the ju Raj Vs. Subha (deceased) rep. b 1982 PLR 668 2004(3) RCR (C absence of descri enforced in law. 12. Mr. cross objector su in favour of Gian consideration and filed before the l of both the regula 13. I ha paper book as we 14. This 1st Appellate Co appellants suffer proper identifica of 1995 (O&M) -8- It was further argued that the le e suit filed by Kamikar Singh and ot respondent No.1-Surjit Singh in his was not adopted. It was also argue r readiness and willingness and the a trar only to create false evidence. In the judgment passed by a Coordinate bhash Rani and others 2012(2) ep. by LRs Vs. Nawab Mohammad 668 and Surjit Singh and another R (Civil) 761 to contend that the description of land allegedly agreed t law. Mr. C.S. Jattana, learned counsel a ctor submitted that neither the executio f Gian Kaur and Kamikar Singh was ion and thus, both suits were liable to e the learned 1st Appellate Court. Th regular second appeals filed before th I have heard learned counsel for th as well as the case laws cited with the This Court finds substance in the re te Court that the agreement to sell d suffers from material inconsistencie ntification of the suit property. Th the learned trial Court should have and others on the basis of admission n his written statement but the said argued that the appellants could not the application was filed before the In support of his contentions, he rdinate Benches of this Court in Megh 12(2) PLR 392, Bhagwan Singh mad Iftikhar Ali Khan and others ther Vs. Manohar Lal and others at the agreement being vague in the reed to be sold cannot be specifically unsel appearing for respondent No.1 xecution of alleged agreements to sell h was proved nor he received any sale ble to be dismissed and so the appeals rt. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal fore this Court. for the parties and have perused the ith their able assistance. the reasoning adopted by the learned sell dated 03.05.1987 set up by the stencies, particularly with regard to ty. The absence of specific khasra have ission e said ld not re the ns, he egh ingh thers thers in the fically No.1- to sell y sale ppeals missal ed the earned by the ard to khasra PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of numbers in the a regarding the ce grant of a decree that an agreemen property sought assumes greater agreements to s agreement which is more credible a 15. Furt written statemen unequivocally a (respondents No. RSA No.1518 o circumstances of with respect to 15.04.1987, the s unambiguous adm the total land m registered sale de to land measurin dated 15.04.1987 deed for the re However, respon stipulated period of 1995 (O&M) -9- the agreement as well as in the lega the certainty of the contract, which decree for specific performance. It is reement to sell, which is vague and ought to be conveyed, cannot be spec reater significance in the present s to sell pertain to the same proper which contains a definite and identifi dible and inspires greater confidence i Further, the admission made by resp atement filed in Civil Suit No.245 ally admitted the claim set up by ts No.2 to 5 in RSA No.1517 of 199 518 of 1995), assumes considerable ces of the present case. Once respond ct to the suit property on the bas , the suit ought to have been decreed o us admission. Moreover, it stands es and measuring 19 kanals, responden sale deed dated 18.07.1987 in favour o easuring 11 kanals 3 marlas, in part 4.1987. It is further evident that the the remaining land would be execu respondent No.1 failed to honour his c period, thereby compelling Kamikar S e legal notice creates a serious doubt hich is an essential requirement for It is a well-settled principle of law nd lacks a clear description of the e specifically enforced. This principle resent case, where two competing property. In such circumstances, the dentifiable description of the property ence in the eyes of law. y respondent No.1–Surjit Singh in his o.245 of 15.06.1988, whereby he up by Kamikar Singh and others of 1995 and respondents No.3 to 6 in erable significance in the facts and spondent No.1 had admitted the claim e basis of agreement to sell dated creed on the strength of such clear and nds established on record that, out of ondent No.1 had already executed a vour of the said plaintiffs with respect n part performance of the agreement t the parties had agreed that the sale executed on or before 15.05.1988. r his contractual obligation within the ikar Singh and others to institute the doubt nt for of law of the inciple peting , the operty in his by he others to 6 in and claim dated ar and out of uted a espect ement e sale .1988. in the ute the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of suit for specific p assurance to th 15.04.1987. Th that the general subsequent to th invalidate the sa because the agre the test of validit to note that unde be sold at the agreement dated killa. Such a sub renders the latte agree to sell pro agreement to se Lastly, this Cou respondents No.2 RSA No.1518 of they were not gr support of their c the claim of appe the learned 1st examined the en reasons while rev arrived at by the of 1995 (O&M) -10- cific performance. The said conduct o to the genuineness and enforceab The contention raised by learned s eneral power of attorney dated 04.0 t to the agreement to sell dated 03 the said agreement, loses significance e agreement itself fails to withstand l validity on the basis of the evidence ad t under the agreement to sell dated 15. t the rate of ₹36,000/- per killa, w dated 03.05.1987, the sale considera a substantial reduction in price, wit e latter agreement doubtful, as no pr ell property at a significantly lower r to sell dated 03.05.1987 loses its s Court finds merit in the argument ts No.2 to 5 in RSA No.1517 of 199 518 of 1995 that serious prejudice wa not granted opportunity by the learned their case in Civil Suit No.245 of 15.0 appellants-plaintiffs in Civil Suit N Appellate Court, being the fina the entire evidence on record and has ile reversing the findings of the learn by the learned 1st Appellate Court can duct of respondent No.1 lends further orceability of the agreement dated rned senior counsel for the appellants d 04.06.1987, having been executed ted 03.05.1987, does not ipso facto ficance in the present case. This is so tand legal scrutiny and does not pass nce adduced on record. It is pertinent ted 15.04.1987, the land was agreed to illa, whereas under the subsequent sideration was fixed at ₹20,000/- per e, without any plausible explanation, no prudent person would ordinarily ower rate. On this count as well, the es its credibility and enforceability. ument raised by learned counsel for f 1995 and respondents No.3 to 6 in ice was caused to said respondents, as learned trial Court to lead evidence in of 15.06.1988 filed by them and rebut Suit No.201 of 10.06.1987. Therefore, final Court of facts, has minutely nd has assigned cogent and plausible e learned trial Court. The conclusions rt cannot be said to be either perverse further dated ellants ecuted facto s is so t pass rtinent reed to equent per nation, inarily ll, the bility. sel for o 6 in nts, as nce in rebut refore, nutely usible usions rverse PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of or contrary to th this Court. 16. In v Pankajakshi (De and others (2016 (2019) 17 SCC 7 Singh (dead) thr law are not req Haryana High C Section 41 of the 17. As a the findings rend upheld. Resultan objections are dis 18. Pend April 08, 2026 Pankaj* of 1995 (O&M) -11- to the material available on record s In view of the judgments passed by i (Dead) through Legal Representa 2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur V CC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead ) through LRs and others (2023) SC ot required to be framed in second igh Court whose jurisdiction is ci of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. As an upshot of above, this Court fin s rendered by the learned 1st Appellate esultantly, both the regular second dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall (AMARI Whether speaking/reaso Whether reportable cord so as to warrant interference by sed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in entatives and others Vs. Chandrika ur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan 3) SCC Online SC 875, questions of econd appeal before the Punjab and is circumscribed by provisions of ourt finds no illegality and infirmity in pellate Court and the same are hereby econd appeals as well as the cross , shall also stand disposed of. MARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE g/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No nce by ourt in rika thers aran ons of b and ns of ity in hereby cross PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh