IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1748-1999 (O&M) Smt. Ram Kala and Another . . . . Appellants Vs. Chand Singh and Another . . . . Respondents Reserved on: 27.01.2026 Pronounced on: 03.02.2026 Pronounced fully/opera8ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Chetan Mial, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate and Mr. Vikas Thakur, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate and Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Background : The defendant (since deceased and now represented through his legal representaves) is before this Court in the present Regular Sec- ond Appeal, assailing the judgment and decree of reversal. The suit for specific performance filed by the plain(ffs Chand Singh and Raam Lal (respondents herein) came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 31.03.1997. However, the appeal preferred by the plain(ffs was allowed by the learned District Judge, Gurugram, vide judgment and decree dated 22.04.1999, whereby the suit was decreed by reversing the findings recorded by the Trial Court. 2. The Trial Court record, as available on the DMS, has been perused. For the sake of convenience and to avoid any confusion, the par(es are referred to herein as per their status before the Trial Court. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1748-1999 (O&M) 3. Admied Facts : The dispute pertains to a ½ share in land measur- ing 33 Kanal 8 Marla, situated within the revenue estate of Village Nanduki, Sub- Tehsil Tauru, Tehsil Nuh, District Gurgaon, as detailed in paragraph No.1 of the plaint. The said land was owned by the defendant Khawani (since deceased – predecessor of appellants herein). It is an admied posi(on on record that Khawani entered into an agreement to sell dated 21.06.1994 (Ex.P1) in favour of the plain(ffs in respect of his aforesaid ½ share for a total sale considera(on of ₹5,00,000/-. On the same date, he received a sum of ₹1,25,000/- as earnest money, regarding which a separate receipt (Ex.P2) was executed. As per the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed and registered on or before 21.03.1995, upon payment of the balance sale considera(on. Prior to the execu- (on of the sale deed, the defendant undertook to obtain the requisite Income Tax Clearance Cer(ficate (ITCC) at the expense of the plain(ffs. It was further agreed that in the event of non-procurement of the ITCC by the s(pulated date, the target date for execu(on of the sale deed would stand automa(cally ex- tended. Usual default clauses were also incorporated in the agreement. Up to this stage, there is no dispute between the par(es. 4.1 Plainff’s Case : According to the plain(ffs, during November 1994, the defendant approached them sta(ng that he was in need of money for construc(ng a house for his daughters at Rewari. At his request, the plain(ffs al- legedly paid an addi(onal amount of ₹1,75,000/-, for which a separate receipt dated 24.11.1994 was executed by the defendant. It is further pleaded that at the (me of this second payment, possession of the suit land was also delivered to the plain(ffs. 4.2 The plain(ffs further averred that the defendant failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, par(cularly by not obtaining the Income Tax Clearance Cer(ficate, thereby obstruc(ng execu(on of the sale deed. They even asked the defendant to get his share par((oned but he avoided the same. They asserted that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. It was pleaded that in February 1995, the plain(ffs had already ins(- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1748-1999 (O&M) tuted a suit for permanent injunc(on to restrain the defendant from aliena(ng the suit property to any third party. It is further the pleaded case of the plain(ffs that on 21.03.1995, the s(pulated date for execu(on of the sale deed, they ap- peared before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tauru, with the requisite funds. As the defendant failed to turn up, the plain(ffs moved an applica(on (Ex.P3), which was returned by the Sub-Registrar vide order of the same date (Ex.P4). 4.3 With the aforesaid averments, the plain(ffs sought a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.06.1994 on payment of the remaining sale considera(on of ₹2,00,000/-. 5.1 Defendant’s Stand : In his wrien statement, the defendant ad- mied execu(on of the agreement to sell dated 21.06.1994 and receipt of ₹1,25,000/- as earnest money. He also did not dispute the other terms and con- di(ons incorporated therein. However, he categorically denied having ever ap- proached the plain(ffs for any addi(onal amount or having received ₹1,75,000/- on 24.11.1994. He specifically denied execu(on of any receipt in respect thereof. The receipt dated 24.11.1994 was alleged to be a fabricated document, purportedly created in collusion with the aes(ng witnesses. 5.2 The defendant contended that even if the receipt bears his thumb impression, the same is the result of fraud, misrepresenta(on, and forgery. He alleged that during the relevant period, his old age pension had been stopped and that the plain(ffs had taken him to the Tehsil premises at Tauru, where he was made to affix his thumb impression on blank papers and forms under the belief that the plain(ffs were assis(ng him in restora(on of his pension. It was asserted that the plain(ffs might have misused those thumb impressions to fab- ricate the alleged receipt. The defendant empha(cally denied receipt of any ad- di(onal amount and also denied delivery of possession of the suit property to the plain(ffs, asser(ng that possession has always remained with him. 5.3 The defendant further disputed the readiness and willingness of the plain(ffs to perform their part of the contract and denied having been ap- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1748-1999 (O&M) proached by them for execu(on of the sale deed. He asserted that the plain(ffs had no right to compel him to get his share par((oned, as there was no such s(pula(on in the agreement. According to the defendant, the plain(ffs were pressurizing him to get the land par((oned, to which he never agreed. 5.4 Alleging that the plain(ffs were aemp(ng to forcibly dispossess him, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. In the rejoinder, the plain(ffs reiterated the averments made in the plaint and controverted the allega(ons raised in the wrien statement. 7. Necessary issues were framed by the learned Trial Court. During the pendency of the suit, the sole defendant Khawani expired. His daughters, Smt. Ram Kala and Smt. Ramra(, being his only legal heirs, were duly impleaded on record. 8. Trial Court Findings : Upon apprecia(on of the oral and document- ary evidence led by the par(es, the learned Trial Court returned categorical findings against the plain(ffs. It was held that the alleged payment of an addi- (onal amount of ₹1,75,000/- by the plain(ffs to the defendant was not proved. The receipt dated 24.11.1994, relied upon by the plain(ffs in support thereof, was also held to be not proved in accordance with law. The Trial Court further held that the plain(ffs had failed to establish that possession of the suit prop- erty had ever been delivered to them. It was also concluded that the plain(ffs had not proved their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the con- tract, a mandatory requirement for grant of relief of specific performance. Holding that the plain(ffs were not en(tled to the discre(onary relief under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the suit was dismissed vide a detailed judgment and decree dated 31.03.1997. 9.1 Appellate Court Findings : Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the plain(ffs preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Gurugram. The First Appellate Court, upon a fresh and comprehensive re-apprecia(on of NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1748-1999 (O&M) the en(re evidence on record, reversed the findings of the Trial Court. It was held that the evidence on record duly established that the defendant Khawani had, in fact, received an addi(onal amount of ₹1,75,000/- from the plain(ffs on 24.11.1994, and that the receipt executed in this regard stood duly proved. 9.2 The learned First Appellate Court further held that the defendant had miserably failed to substan(ate the plea of fraud, misrepresenta(on, or fabrica(on as alleged by him. The plea that his thumb impressions had been ob- tained on blank papers under the guise of assistance in restora(on of old age pension was rejected as being unsubstan(ated and improbable. 9.3 It was further held that the plain(ffs had successfully proved their con(nuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. The First Appellate Court also reversed the finding of the Trial Court regarding deliv- ery of possession, observing that even if the plain(ffs had pleaded that posses- sion was delivered at the (me of the second payment and such delivery was not established, the same by itself could not be a valid ground to deny the equitable relief of specific performance. 9.4 Consequently, vide judgment and decree dated 22.04.1999, the learned District Judge, Gurugram, decreed the suit for specific performance in favour of the plain(ffs, direc(ng execu(on and registra(on of the sale deed in respect of the suit land on payment of the balance sale considera(on of ₹2,00,000/- by the plain(ffs, along with stamp duty and registra(on charges. Thus, the findings and conclusions recorded by the Trial Court were set aside. 10.1 Contenons by Appellants : Assailing the aforesaid judgment and decree of reversal passed by the learned First Appellate Court, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants—legal representa(ves of the ori- ginal defendant submied that the relief of specific performance is discre(on- ary and equitable in nature, as envisaged under Sec(on 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It was contended that the plain(ffs, having made false and incorrect averments in the plaint regarding alleged delivery of possession of the suit NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1748-1999 (O&M) property, had approached the Court with unclean hands and, therefore, were not en(tled to the discre(onary relief of specific performance. According to learned senior counsel, the learned First Appellate Court commied a grave er- ror in reversing the well-reasoned findings of the Trial Court on this aspect. 10.2 In support of these submissions, reliance was placed upon Major Gen. Darshan Singh (deceased) thr LRs and anr. v. Brij Bhushan Chaudhary (deceased) thr LRs, 2024 (3) SCC 489; Lourdu Mari David v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswammy, 1996(5) SCC 589; M. Harinarayana @ Haribabu v. P. Swaroopa Rani, A.S. No.271 of 2006 (Andhra Pradesh High Court); K. Raju v. P. Ramalingam (deceased) and ors., 2014(51) RCR (Civil) 606; G. Anbazhagan v. G. Manoharan and others, 2014(11) RCR (Civil) 1774; and Dua Seethama- halakshmamma v. Yanamadala Balaramaiah and another, 2003 AIR Andhra Pradesh 430. 10.3 It was further argued that the learned First Appellate Court erred in holding that the defendant Khawani had received an addi(onal amount of ₹1,75,000/- from the plain(ffs. It was submied that the Trial Court had recor- ded cogent and detailed reasons for disbelieving the alleged receipt dated 24.11.1994, and there was no jus(fica(on for the Appellate Court to discard those findings. 10.4 Learned senior counsel further contended that the First Appellate Court commied a serious error in holding that the plain(ffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, by completely mis-appreciat- ing the evidence on record. It was argued that the plain(ffs had failed to lead cogent evidence regarding their financial capacity and availability of funds to pay the balance sale considera(on within the s(pulated (me. In support of this conten(on, reliance was placed upon Nand Ram v. Dhudi and another, 2010(32) RCR (Civil) 720, and U.N. Krishnamurthy (since deceased) thr LRs v. A.M. Krishnamurthy, 2022 AIR SC 3361. Page 6 of 14 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1748-1999 (O&M) 10.5 On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel prayed for seLng aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court and for restora(on of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court by allowing the present appeal. 11. Contenons by Respondents : Per contra, learned counsel appear- ing on behalf of the respondents-plain(ffs argued that the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court is well-reasoned and based on proper appreci- a(on of the evidence on record. It was contended that the First Appellate Court, being the final Court of facts, had rightly reversed the erroneous findings recorded by the Trial Court and had correctly decreed the suit for specific per- formance. Learned counsel accordingly submied that no substan(al ques(on of law arises for considera(on in the present appeal and prayed for its dis- missal. 12. This Court has heard learned counsel for the par(es at length and has carefully examined the pleadings, evidence, and judgments passed by the Courts below. 13. Dispute pertaing to receipt of ₹1,75,000/- : There is no dispute with regard to the execu(on of the agreement to sell dated 21.06.1994 (Ex.P1) or the receipt of ₹1,25,000/- by defendant Khawani as earnest money on the same date, acknowledged through a separate receipt. The primary controversy between the par(es concerns the alleged payment of an addi(onal amount of ₹1,75,000/- by the plain(ffs to the defendant on 24.11.1994, which is claimed to have been acknowledged by a separate receipt. The defendant has denied both the receipt of this amount and the execu(on of the said document. 14. The learned Trial Court disbelieved the alleged receipt primarily on the basis of certain inconsistencies in the tes(monies of Suresh Kumar, Deed Writer (PW-2), Fateh Mohammad, aes(ng witness (PW-3), and Raan Lal, one of the plain(ffs (PW-5). The Trial Court also took note of the fact that Khawani was ordinarily accompanied by his daughters or son-in-law while execu(ng doc- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1748-1999 (O&M) uments and, therefore, doubted the genuineness of the receipt as neither the daughters nor the son-in-law had signed it. Further, the report of the handwrit- ing and fingerprint expert Vijay Rastogi (PW-4) was held to be unreliable. 15. The learned First Appellate Court, however, on a re-apprecia(on of the en(re evidence, reversed these findings. It held that the execu(on of the re- ceipt dated 24.11.1994 stood duly proved through consistent and credible evi- dence. Suresh Kumar (PW-2), the Deed Writer, categorically deposed about scribing the receipt and making corresponding entries in his register, which were thumb-marked by the defendant. His tes(mony regarding the presence of the son-in-law of the defendant was found to be tenta(ve and uncertain, and there- fore insufficient to discredit the receipt. Fateh Mohammad (PW-3), an aes(ng witness, supported the execu(on of the receipt and the payment of ₹1,75,000/- in his presence. He was found to be a natural witness, being a neighbour of the defendant, and no material contradic(on could be elicited from his tes(mony. Similarly, Raan Lal (PW-5) consistently deposed about the payment being made at the request of the defendant for construc(on of a house for his daugh- ter and about the execu(on of the receipt in the presence of independent wit- nesses. 16. The First Appellate Court also relied upon the tes(mony of Vijay Rastogi (PW-4), the handwri(ng and fingerprint expert, who aMer scien(fic ex- amina(on and comparison of the disputed thumb impressions on the receipt with admied thumb impressions of the defendant, opined that they were af- fixed by the same person. The expert’s report was found to be reasoned, sup- ported by photographic enlargements, and remained unshaken in cross-exami- na(on. 17. The defence plea that the thumb impressions had been obtained by fraud or misrepresenta(on under the pretext of assis(ng the defendant in restora(on of his old age pension was found to be unsubstan(ated. The Appel- late Court noted that no contemporaneous ac(on was taken by the defendant NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1748-1999 (O&M) to challenge the alleged misuse of thumb impressions, despite sufficient (me having elapsed prior to the ins(tu(on of the suit. The tes(mony of Ram Kala (DW-3), daughter of the defendant, was also found insufficient to establish fraud, par(cularly when she herself admied that her father, despite his age, was capable of managing his affairs and land independently. 18. The Appellate Court further observed that the absence of signa- tures of the daughters or son-in-law on the receipt dated 24.11.1994 could not be treated as fatal, especially when even the earlier receipt dated 21.06.1994 for ₹1,25,000/- did not bear such signatures. The prac(ce of making payments through receipts between the par(es stood established from the record. It was also no(ced that during the subsistence of the agreement dated 21.06.1994, the defendant had received other payments from the plain(ff in connec(on with separate transac(ons, which further rendered the receipt of ₹1,75,000/- neither unusual nor improbable. 19. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court for discarding the receipt, such as the body of the document being typewrien and the names of wit- nesses being filled later in ink, were held to be inconsequen(al, par(cularly when the execu(on of the document and the defendant’s thumb impressions thereon stood duly proved. 20. In view of the detailed and cogent reasoning recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, which is the final Court of facts, this Court finds no perversity or legal infirmity in the finding that defendant Khawani had, in fact, received an amount of ₹1,75,000/- from the plain(ffs on 24.11.1994 and had duly executed a receipt acknowledging the same. The said finding is based on proper apprecia(on of evidence and does not warrant interference in second appeal. 21. Readiness & Willingness : Turning to the next conten(ous issue regarding the readiness and willingness of the plain(ffs to perform their part of the contract, the learned Trial Court had held against the plain(ffs on the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1748-1999 (O&M) ground that they failed to establish their financial capacity to pay the balance sale considera(on. The learned First Appellate Court, however, reversed this finding upon a detailed apprecia(on of the evidence on record. The First Appel- late Court noted that Raan Lal (PW-5) had deposed that he maintained a bank account with Syndicate Bank and had deposited a sum of ₹2,00,000/- therein. He further stated that Chand Singh, the co-plain(ff, was a re(red Army person- nel drawing pension. It was also deposed that at the (me of payment of the earnest money of ₹1,25,000/-, half of the amount was contributed by Raan Lal and the remaining half by Chand Singh, and a similar arrangement existed with regard to the subsequent payment of ₹1,75,000/- made on 24.11.1994. The source of funds was explained as proceeds from sale of crops, cale, and food- grains. 22. The First Appellate Court further took note of the admied fact that Raan Lal and his brother Krishan had purchased 6 kanals of land from de- fendant Khawani vide sale deed dated 29.11.1994 (Ex.D1) for a considera(on of ₹1,20,000/-, which transac(on was proved even by the defendants through Surender Singh (DW-1) and admied by Ram Kala (DW-3). This sale transac(on took place during the subsistence of the agreement to sell dated 21.06.1994, the s(pulated date for execu(on whereof was 21.03.1995. These circumstances, according to the Appellate Court, clearly established the financial capacity of the plain(ffs to pay the total sale considera(on of ₹5,00,000/-. 23. The First Appellate Court also aached significance to the conduct of the plain(ffs in appearing before the Sub-Registrar, Tauru, on 21.03.1995, the s(pulated date for execu(on of the sale deed. Raan Lal (PW-5) proved the ap- plica(on (Ex.P3) submied to the Sub-Registrar asser(ng readiness with the bal- ance sale considera(on and registra(on expenses, which was returned vide or- der dated 21.03.1995 (Ex.P4) for want of necessity to mark presence as per the registra(on manual. The endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar clearly recorded the presence of both plain(ffs on the said date. Page 10 of 14 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1748-1999 (O&M) 24. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhbir Singh v. Brij Pal Singh, AIR 1996 SC 2510, the First Appellate Court held that the appearance of the plain(ffs before the Sub-Registrar on the ap- pointed date is a posi(ve and reliable circumstance to establish readiness and willingness. It was further observed that the law does not require a purchaser to carry cash at all (mes; what is material is the capacity and conduct demonstrat- ing preparedness to perform the contract. 25. On the basis of the pleadings, oral evidence, documentary proof, and conduct of the plain(ffs, the First Appellate Court concluded that the plain- (ffs had duly proved their con(nuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the agreement. 26. This Court finds no perversity or legal infirmity in the said finding. The conclusion reached by the learned First Appellate Court is based on proper apprecia(on of evidence and seled principles of law. Accordingly, the finding that the plain(ffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract calls for no interference in second appeal. 27. Effect of false plea & Conduct of plainffs : The final issue that falls for considera(on is whether the plain(ffs were en(tled to the discre(onary and equitable relief of specific performance, having regard to the facts and cir- cumstances of the case. 28. A careful scru(ny of the pleadings reveals that the plain(ffs specifically pleaded that possession of the suit land was delivered to them on 24.11.1994, at the (me of the alleged second payment. However, neither the receipt dated 24.11.1994 nor any other contemporaneous document contains such a recital. More importantly, when Raan Lal (PW-5), one of the plain(ffs, entered the witness box, he did not depose that possession was delivered to the plain(ffs on the said date. The asser(on regarding delivery of possession thus remained unsupported by both documentary and oral evidence. Page 11 of 14 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1748-1999 (O&M) 29. The falsity of this plea becomes even more evident upon examina- (on of the revenue record. The Jamabandi (Ex.P5) establishes that Khawani was not the exclusive owner of the en(re land measuring 33 Kanal 8 Marla, but was a co-sharer to the extent of ½ share. There is neither any pleading nor evidence explaining how actual possession of an undivided half share in joint land could have been delivered, nor any case set up regarding delivery of symbolic posses- sion. Despite this, the plain(ffs made a categorical and specific asser(on of ac- tual delivery of possession, which has been found to be incorrect. 30. Equally significant is the conduct of the plain(ffs in rela(on to the contractual s(pula(on concerning procurement of the Income Tax Clearance Cer(ficate (ITCC). Under the agreement to sell dated 21.06.1994 (Ex.P1), the obliga(on to obtain the ITCC was cast upon the defendant, but the expenses were required to be borne by the plain(ffs. There is no pleading, evidence, or no(ce to show that the plain(ffs ever tendered or offered the requisite ex- penses or called upon the defendant to obtain the ITCC. This omission further reflects upon the overall conduct of the plain(ffs while seeking an equitable re- lief. 31. Despite these material infirmi(es, the learned First Appellate Court treated the false plea regarding delivery of possession as insignificant and proceeded to grant the relief of specific performance. This approach, in the con- sidered opinion of this Court, is contrary to seled legal principles governing dis- cre(onary relief. 32. Even though the plain(ffs succeeded in proving execu(on of the agreement, payment of considera(on, and their readiness and willingness to perform the contract, the grant of specific performance is not automa(c, and the Court is duty-bound to refuse such equitable relief where the plain(ff is found to have made a false and material asser(on affec(ng the conscience of the Court. Page 12 of 14 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1748-1999 (O&M) 33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Major Gen. Darshan Singh v. Brij Bhushan Chaudhary (supra), has categorically held that specific performance is a discre(onary and equitable relief, and a plain(ff who makes false or incorrect material statements in the plaint is disen(tled to such relief. In that case, the plain(ff had falsely pleaded delivery of possession, which was later found to be untrue. The Supreme Court held that such conduct amounted to lack of clean hands and jus(fied denial of specific performance. 34. Similarly, in Lourdu Mari David v. Louis Chinnaya Arogiaswammy, (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated that a party seeking equitable relief must approach the Court with clean hands, and a plain(ff who makes false averments on material facts is not en(tled to the discre(onary relief of specific perfor- mance. The same principle has consistently been applied by High Courts, includ- ing in M. Harinarayana v. P. Swaroopa Rani (supra) and Dua Seethamaha lakshmamma v. Yanamadala Balaramaiah and another (supra), where false pleas regarding possession were held fatal to the claim for specific performance. 35. Applying the above principles to the present case, this Court finds that the plain(ffs knowingly made a false and material asser(on regarding deliv- ery of possession, which goes to the root of the maer. Such conduct disen(tles them from the equitable relief of specific performance, irrespec(ve of findings on other factual issues. The learned First Appellate Court, therefore, erred in law in exercising discre(on in favour of the plain(ffs while ignoring this vital as- pect. 36. When discre(on under the Specific Relief Act is exercised by over- looking a false and material pleading, the resul(ng decree suffers from an error of law, thereby warran(ng interference by the High Court under Sec(on 100 of CPC, notwithstanding concurrent or reversed findings on other factual aspects. 37. Conclusion : Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 22.04.1999 passed by the learned First Appellate Court decreeing the suit for specific performance are hereby set aside, and the judgment and decree dated NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1748-1999 (O&M) 31.03.1997 passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit for specific per- formance are restored. 38. However, having regard to the receipt of amounts totaling ₹3,00,000/- by defendant Khawani from the plain(ffs, it is necessary to balance the equi(es. Accordingly, the appellants, being the legal representa(ves of the deceased defendant Khawani, are directed to refund the sum of ₹3,00,000/- to the plain(ffs along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, calculated from the date of ins(tu(on of the suit (ll actual realiza(on. 39. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The par(es shall bear their own costs. Pending applica(on(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 03.02.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Uploaded on.: 03.02.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.03 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document