IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 115 RSA-2858-2024 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 2026.04.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2858-2024 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 Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2858-2024 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 First Appellate Court has, in fact, observed that the plain"ff succeeded in proving execu"on of the agreement dated 08.12.2008. However, the maBer does not rest there. The crucial ques"on is whether the plain"ff discharged the burden of proving his readiness and willingness. 10. The record reveals that muta"on in favour of defendants No.1 to 4, which was a condi"on precedent for execu"on of the sale deed, stood sanc"oned on 13.01.2009. Even otherwise, a subsequent agreement dated 13.01.2009 executed on same date, admiBedly signed by the plain"ff, fixed 30.04.2009 as the date for execu"on of the sale deed. These facts clearly establish that the plain"ff was fully aware, at least in January 2009, that the vendors had acquired the requisite "tle enabling execu"on of the sale deed. 11. Despite this, the plain"ff did not take any steps for enforcement of the agreement within a reasonable "me. He remained silent for more than five years and ul"mately filed the suit on 17.04.2014. Such prolonged inac"on, in the considered view of this Court, is wholly inconsistent with the conduct expected of a party seeking equitable relief of specific performance. The explana"on sought to be furnished on the basis of alleged oral dates fixed in January and February 2014 has rightly Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2858-2024 been disbelieved by the Courts below, par"cularly when no independent evidence has been led to substan"ate the same. 12. It is also significant that the plain"ff chose not to seek enforcement of the subsequent agreement dated 13.01.2009, despite the same having been admiBed by the defendants. The existence of two agreements and the conduct of the plain"ff in selec"vely relying upon one while ignoring the other further casts doubt on his bona fides. 13. The conten"on regarding limita"on also does not advance the case of the appellant. Even in cases where no specific date is fixed, the plain"ff is required to act within a reasonable "me from the date when performance becomes possible. In the present case, once muta"on was sanc"oned in 2009, the plain"ff was expected to act with due diligence. Filing of the suit a=er a lapse of more than five years cannot be said to be within a reasonable period so as to en"tle him to discre"onary relief. 14. Both the Courts below have, thus, concurrently held that the plain"ff failed to establish his readiness and willingness and that his conduct dis-en"tles him from the relief of specific performance. These findings are based on proper apprecia"on of evidence and correct applica"on of law. The same cannot be said to be perverse or suffering from any illegality so as to warrant interference in exercise of jurisdic"on under Sec"on 100 CPC. 15. No substan"al ques"on of law arises for considera"on in the present appeal. Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applica"ons, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 20, 2026 Nee"ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.21 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document