IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3547-1997 Pritam Lal . . . . Appellant Vs. Mohinder Singh . . . . Respondent **** Reserved on: 26.09.2025 Pronounced on: 30.09.2025 **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravi Du Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Amit Jangra, Advocate for respondent No.8. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. This is a Regular Second Appeal by the plain'ff challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The plain'ff’s suit for specific performance was partly decreed, as the trial Court awarded recovery of ₹62,500 with interest but declined specific performance. The plain'ff’s first appeal was dismissed. 2. Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused. To avoid confusion, par'es shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court. 3. Defendant No.1 Smt. Gurnam Kaur, was allo ed Plot No.1 in Scheme No.7 by the Kaithal Improvement Trust/Municipal Commi ee through allotment le er dated 19.06.1982 (Ex.D15) for a total price of ₹17,375/-, out of which she deposited one-fourth (₹4,375). The plot measured about 250 sq. yards approximately, subject to adjustment on actual measurement at the 'me NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3547-1997 of possession, with addi'onal charges for access area, if applicable. The allot- ment le er also required execu'on of an agreement with the Improvement Trust within one month. 4. Defendant No.1 appointed defendant No.2 Kashmiri Lal as her gen- eral power of a orney holder vide registered GPA dated 24.09.1982 (Ex.P1). Based upon this GPA, defendant No.2 Kashmiri Lal executed an agreement to sell dated 16.05.1983 (Ex.P2) in favour of the plain'ff for selling the said plot for total considera'on of ₹62,500/- and received an amount of ₹5,000/- towards earnest money vide separate receipt (Ex.P3). Defendant No.2 undertook to de- posit the balance instalments of the sale price and to inform the plain'ff ac- cordingly about the same. Par'es agreed that sale deed will be got registered within one month from the date so in'mated. Balance price of ₹57,500/- was agreed to be paid at the 'me of execu'on of the sale deed. Usual default clauses were also s'pulated in the said agreement. Later on, an amount of ₹30,000/- was paid by plain'ff to defendant No.1-allo ee directly on 18.12.1983 (receipt - Ex.P4). Another amount of ₹20,000/- was paid by him to defendant No.1 on 14.05.1985 (receipt - Ex.P5). This way, an amount of ₹55,000/- was received by defendant No.1 and only an amount of ₹7,500/- was leD to be paid as per the agreement. In the mean'me, defendant No.1 can- celled the GPA of defendant No.2 vide registered deed dated 14.01.1984. 5. Plain'ff brought the suit on 24.07.1986 contending that he has al- ways been ready & willing and s'll ready & willing to perform his part of con- tract. However, defendant No.1 was backing out from the agreement entered through power of a orney. It was further alleged defendant No.3 Rajpal started claiming himself to be transferee from defendant No.1 in the plot, though plain'ff denies the said fact. With this averments, plain'ff prayed for a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.05.1983 by direc'ng defendant Nos.1 and 2 to execute sale deed in his favour on receipt of balance amount of ₹7,500/-. In the alterna've, plain'ff prayed for recovery of ₹62,500/- with future interest. Page 2 of 8 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3547-1997 6. Defendant No.1 i.e., allo ee Gurnam Kaur neither disputed ap- pointment of defendant No.2 as her GPA nor she denied execu'on of the agree- ment to sell. She also admi ed having received an amount of ₹55,000/- out of total considera'on of ₹62,500/-. However, she denied that plain'ff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. This defendant also pleaded that though she had informed Execu've Officer of the Municipal Commi ee, who is brother-in-law of defendant No.3 Rajpal, about the existence of the agreement dated 16.05.1983 between her and the plain'ff but s'll brother-in-law of de- fendant No.3 agreed to transfer the said plot in favour of defendant No.3 Ra- jpal. Defendant No.1 claimed that she does not even know said defendant No.3 nor she received any considera'on from him. With these submissions, she prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. Defendant No.2 Kashmiri Lal, the former general power of a orney of Defendant No.1, admi ed the plain'ff’s en're claim. 8. In contrast, Defendant No.3 Rajpal, in his wri en statement asser- ted that he was a bona fide purchaser of the suit property without no'ce of the prior agreement to sell between the plain'ff and Defendant No.1. He main- tained that he had made full inquiries before purchasing and was therefore, protected under law. He further claimed to have incurred substan'al expendit- ure on improvements to the property, to the knowledge of the plain'ff. 9. During the pendency of the suit, Defendant No.3, ac'ng through his a orney Devi Dayal, sold the property to Defendants No.4 and 5 under a sale deed dated 06.04.1990 (Ex.D1) in equal share. Consequently, Defendants No.4 and 5 were impleaded, and they adopted the wri en statement of De- fendant No.3. 10. Upon framing issues and evalua'ng the evidence, the trial Court held that the agreement to sell had been validly executed between the plain'ff and Defendant No.1 through her a orney, and that payments made by the plain'ff were established. The Court also found that the plain'ff was not at p. 3 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3547-1997 fault. However, it concluded that Defendant No.3 was a bona fide purchaser, who had acquired ownership of the property. Accordingly, by judgment dated 15.09.1994, the trial Court declined the relief of specific performance but de- creed recovery of ₹62,500 with interest. These findings were affirmed by the first Appellate Court while dismissing the plain'ff’s appeal on 27.05.1997. 11.1 Assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant-plain'ff argues that despite proving execu'on of the agreement and payment of ₹55,000/- out of the total sale considera'on of ₹62,500/-, and despite sufficient evidence of his readiness and willingness to perform the contract, the relief of specific performance was wrongly denied by trea'ng defendant No.3 Rajpal as a bona fide purchaser. 11.2 It is submi ed that Rajpal is the brother-in-law of the then Execut- ive Officer of the Municipal Commi ee, Kaithal, who was duly informed about the agreement between the plain'ff and defendant No.1, yet he collusively transferred the plot in Rajpal’s favour. Notably, Rajpal himself never entered the witness box to prove bona fides, and the statement of his a orney Devi Dayal cannot subs'tute such proof. Further, no sale deed was ever executed by defendant No.1 in Rajpal’s favour, nor was any considera'on paid to him. Thus, Rajpal having failed to establish himself as a bona fide purchaser, the plain'ff’s claim for specific performance could not have been lawfully denied. 11.3 On above conten'ons, Ld. counsel prays for seKng aside the im- pugned judgments & decrees and for decreeing the suit for specific perform- ance. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for contes'ng respondent No.8 Yogesh Kumar (defendant No.5 before the trial Court) supports the concurrent findings, emphasizing that the suit property stood transferred to Rajpal on 18.11.1985 (Ex.D14). It is Rajpal, who not only secured site plan approval but also made substan'al improvements by inves'ng heavily in construc'on. Ld. Counsel fur- ther points out that by this 'me, nearly 40 years have passed, during which the p. 4 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3547-1997 property’s value has steeply escalated given its urban loca'on. Relying on the judgment in Nanjappan v. Ramasamy (2015 (3) PLR 218 [SC], he submits that the appellant does not deserve the equitable relief of specific performance and prays for dismissal of the appeal. Court Analysis & Findings: 13. This Court has heard learned counsel for both sides and has carefully appraised the record and the findings recorded by the Courts below. 14. It is not in dispute that the agreement to sell dated 16.05.1983 (Ex.P2) was executed by Defendant No.1, Smt. Gurnam Kaur, through her a or- ney (Defendant No.2) in favour of the plain'ff for a total considera'on of ₹62,500/-. The evidence further establishes that ₹5,000/- was paid at the 'me of execu'on, followed by payments of ₹50,000/- on 18.12.1983 (Ex.P4) and 14.05.1985 (Ex.P5), aggrega'ng to ₹55,000/-. Only a sum of ₹7,500/- remained unpaid. Having discharged the bulk of the considera'on, there is every jus'fica- 'on to accept the plain'ff’s asser'on that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 15. However, it is equally significant to note that when the agreement was executed, Defendant No.1 was merely an allo ee of a 250 sq. yd. plot un- der the Improvement Trust vide allotment le er dated 19.06.1982 (Mark D15). As per the condi'ons of allotment, she was required to execute an agreement with the Trust within one month, and the actual measurement was to be de- termined at the 'me of delivery of possession. The record shows that on 14.11.1985 Defendant No.1 cleared the balance sale price, deposited the secur- ity (Ex.D6, Ex.D9), and also paid an addi'onal sum of ₹11,293.75/- towards the excess area since the actual measurement was 412.41 sq. yd. (Ex.D10). Only thereaDer did the Administrator, Municipal Commi ee, Kaithal, issue posses- sion le er (Ex.D12) and deliver possession (Ex.D13). On 18.11.1985, the plot was transferred to Defendant No.3 Rajpal, on payment of requisite transfer fee (Ex.D7, Ex.D8), as evidenced by transfer order (Ex.D14). These documents stand p. 5 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3547-1997 proved by DW-3 Sa'sh Kumar, an official of the Municipal Commi ee. It is, therefore, clear that the transfer in favour of Defendant No.3 was effected with the consent and par'cipa'on of Defendant No.1. 16. The only ques'on requiring determina'on is whether Defendant No.3 Rajpal was a bona fide purchaser without no'ce of the prior agreement (Ex.P2). It is undisputed that the property was transferred in favour of defend- ant No.3 on 18.11.1985 by the then Execu've Officer of the Municipal Commit- tee, Kaithal. However, defendant No.3 never entered the witness box to affirm his bona fides, and the tes'mony of his a orney cannot subs'tute such direct evidence. Further, no sale deed was executed by defendant No.1, and no con- sidera'on was shown to have been paid to her. These circumstances raise seri- ous doubt about the validity of the transfer and the bona fide character of de- fendant No.3’s 'tle. The rela'onship between Rajpal and the then Execu've Officer, coupled with absence of cogent proof of considera'on, for'fies the in- ference of collusion. Accordingly, defendant No.3 failed to establish his plea of being a bona fide purchaser. Finding to the contrary by the courts below, is re- versed. 17. However, the relief of specific performance cannot be granted, for other reasons. The agreement (Ex.P2) was executed in respect of a tenta've al- lotment of 250 sq. yd., whereas the actual area turned out to be 412.41 sq. yd. nearly two and a half years later. The agreement is silent on the consequences of varia'on in area. 18. Apart from above, specific performance being an equitable remedy is governed by principles of fairness and balance of equi'es. Though the plain'ff has succeeded in proving execu'on of the agreement and his readiness and willingness, the Court cannot remain oblivious to the subsequent develop- ments. Moreover, the transfer to Defendant No.3 took place on 18.11.1985, i.e., almost four decades ago. In these circumstances, direc'ng specific perform- ance at this belated stage, when urban property prices have escalated steeply, p. 6 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3547-1997 would be wholly inequitable and contrary to se led equitable principles govern- ing the discre'onary relief under the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court in Nanjappan v. Ramasamy (supra) has held that inordinate delay and escala'on of value are relevant considera'ons for denying specific performance and in- stead gran'ng alterna've relief. 19. In the present case, direc'ng specific performance aDer such a long lapse of 'me would cause grave prejudice to the transferee and disturb equi'es crystallised over the years. The plain'ff, however, is en'tled to refund of the part considera'on of ₹55,000/- along with reasonable interest, as also compensa'on for denial of the contracted bargain. 20. Conclusion: Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The judg- ments and decrees of the Courts below, declining the relief of specific perform- ance, are affirmed. However, it is further directed as under: In lieu of specific performance: o The plain'ff shall be en'tled to recover a sum of ₹55,000/- from defendant No.1, being the amount paid as part considera'on. o The aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum, pay- able from the date of payment 'll realiza'on. To balance the equi'es, the plain'ff shall further be en'tled to compens- a'on as under: o A sum of ₹2,00,000/-, recoverable from defendant No.3, who in collusion with the Execu've Officer, Municipal Commi ee, Kaithal (his brother-in-law), managed to get the property transferred des- pite the subsis'ng agreement between the plain'ff and defendant No.1. o A sum of ₹2,00,000/-, recoverable from defendants No.4 and 5, who purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Page 7 of 8 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3547-1997 There shall be no order as to costs. Decree be drawn accordingly. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 30.09.2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No p. 8 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.30 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document