RSA-1984-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 128 Ashok Kumar and others S.R. Education Society (regd). a CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate, for appellants. Mr. K.P.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. ***** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The defendants, who are appellants before this Court, have assailed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Vide judgment and decree dated 27.04.2017, the learned the suit for specific performance as one fo costs by directing defendants No.1 to 3 to refund a sum of simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum, calculated on 29.07.2011 and on the remaining realization, with further stipulation that in No.1-plaintiff execution. The appeal preferred by the by the learned First Appellate C 18.03.2025, thereby affirming the findings of the 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA Date of Decision:27.08.2025 umar and others Versus Education Society (regd). and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate, for appellants. Mr. K.P.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. ***** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The defendants, who are appellants before this Court, have assailed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Vide judgment and decree dated 27.04.2017, the learned the suit for specific performance as one for recovery, decreed the same with costs by directing defendants No.1 to 3 to refund a sum of simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum, calculated on 29.07.2011 and on the remaining ₹15,00,000/ alization, with further stipulation that in c plaintiff would be entitled to recover the decretal amount through execution. The appeal preferred by the appellants by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.03.2025, thereby affirming the findings of the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1984-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:27.08.2025 ...Appellants ...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The defendants, who are appellants before this Court, have assailed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Vide judgment and decree dated 27.04.2017, the learned trial Court, while treating r recovery, decreed the same with costs by directing defendants No.1 to 3 to refund a sum of ₹30,00,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum, calculated on ₹15,00,000/- from ₹15,00,000/- from 05.10.2011 till case of default, the respondent would be entitled to recover the decretal amount through appellants-defendants was dismissed ourt vide judgment and decree dated 18.03.2025, thereby affirming the findings of the learned trial Court. It is The defendants, who are appellants before this Court, have assailed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Vide rial Court, while treating r recovery, decreed the same with with from from 05.10.2011 till ase of default, the respondent would be entitled to recover the decretal amount through defendants was dismissed ourt vide judgment and decree dated rial Court. It is PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1984-2025 (O&M) against the aforesaid concurrent findings that the defendants have approached this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal. 2. For the sake terms of their status before the learned trial Court. 3. In owner in possession of land measuring 12 kanals, comprised in khewat No.9, khatoni No.12, Rect. No.31, Killa No.10/2/2 min Dakshin (1 Rect. No.32, Killa No.6 min Dakshin (1 situated in village Samani, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, as per jamabandi for the year 2008 dated 07.03.2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). Defendant No.4 entered into an agreement to sell land measuring 18 kanals 7 marlas comprised in Khewat No.9, Khatoni No.12, total kittas property) in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 vide agreement 11.03.2011 at the rate of ₹10,00,000/- as earnest money, followed by an additional sum of on 29.07.2011 deed was initially fixed as 05.09.2011, later extended 4. On the streng No.1 to 3 executed an agreement to sell plaintiff on 29.07.2011 at the rate of secure the sale deed from defendant No.4 on or befo day, the plaintiff paid cheque) as earnest money. Subsequently, the plaintiff also paid as additional earnest money on request of defendants No.1 to 3, followed by 2025 (O&M) -2- against the aforesaid concurrent findings that the defendants have approached this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the learned trial Court. In brief, facts of the case are that defendant No.4 was recorded owner in possession of land measuring 12 kanals, comprised in khewat No.9, khatoni No.12, Rect. No.31, Killa No.10/2/2 min Dakshin (1 Rect. No.32, Killa No.6 min Dakshin (1-10), 15/1 situated in village Samani, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, as per jamabandi for the year 2008-2009 read with registered sale deed No.14298 dated 07.03.2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). Defendant red into an agreement to sell land measuring 18 kanals 7 marlas comprised in Khewat No.9, Khatoni No.12, total kittas property) in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 vide agreement 11.03.2011 at the rate of ₹43,25,000/- per acre, against which he received as earnest money, followed by an additional sum of on 29.07.2011 from defendant Nos.1 to 3. The date for execution of the sale deed was initially fixed as 05.09.2011, later extended On the strength of the aforesaid agreement No.1 to 3 executed an agreement to sell qua the suit property in plaintiff on 29.07.2011 at the rate of ₹47,00,000/ secure the sale deed from defendant No.4 on or befo day, the plaintiff paid ₹15,00,000/- (₹10,50,000/ cheque) as earnest money. Subsequently, the plaintiff also paid as additional earnest money on request of defendants No.1 to 3, followed by against the aforesaid concurrent findings that the defendants have approached this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal. of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the learned trial Court. facts of the case are that defendant No.4 was recorded owner in possession of land measuring 12 kanals, comprised in khewat No.9, khatoni No.12, Rect. No.31, Killa No.10/2/2 min Dakshin (1-10), 11/1 (4-6), 10), 15/1 (4-14), total kitta-4, situated in village Samani, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, as per 2009 read with registered sale deed No.14298 dated 07.03.2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). Defendant red into an agreement to sell land measuring 18 kanals 7 marlas comprised in Khewat No.9, Khatoni No.12, total kittas-5 (including the suit property) in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 vide agreement to sell dated acre, against which he received as earnest money, followed by an additional sum of ₹10,00,000/- . The date for execution of the sale deed was initially fixed as 05.09.2011, later extended upto 25.10.2011. th of the aforesaid agreement to sell, defendants the suit property in favor of the ₹47,00,000/- per acre, undertaking to secure the sale deed from defendant No.4 on or before 22.10.2011. On that ₹10,50,000/- in cash and ₹4,50,000/- by cheque) as earnest money. Subsequently, the plaintiff also paid ₹10,00,000/- as additional earnest money on request of defendants No.1 to 3, followed by against the aforesaid concurrent findings that the defendants have approached of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in facts of the case are that defendant No.4 was recorded owner in possession of land measuring 12 kanals, comprised in khewat No.9, 6), 4, situated in village Samani, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, as per 2009 read with registered sale deed No.14298 dated 07.03.2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit property’). Defendant red into an agreement to sell land measuring 18 kanals 7 marlas (including the suit dated acre, against which he received - . The date for execution of the sale , defendants of the per acre, undertaking to re 22.10.2011. On that by - as additional earnest money on request of defendants No.1 to 3, followed by PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1984-2025 (O&M) another ₹5,00,000/ payment of ₹30,00,000/ approached defendants No.1 to 3 on 21.10.2011 with the balance sale consideration, whereupon they assured execution o since 22.10.2011 and 23.10.2011 were holidays. However, defendants failed to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiff marked his presence before the Sub-Registrar, Thanesar, on 24.10.2011 through affidavit, along with th requisite funds. Meanwhile, defendant No.4 executed a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2011 in favour of defendant No.5 qua 11 kanals 19 marlas of the suit property, despite prior knowledge of the subsisting agreement. 5. Defendants No.1 to 3 later issu (received on 16.11.2011), wherein execution of agreement dated 29.07.2011 and receipt of 21.11.2011, but no compliance was made. Left with no alternative, the plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking decree as per prayer clause 6. Upon notice of the suit, their written statement contesting the suit. They raised preliminary objections as to maintainability, locus standi, etc. On merits, it was pleaded that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement to sell dated 29.07.2011, whereas the plaintiff himself was not ready and willing to get the sale deed ex favour. It was further submitted that the plaintiff never tendered the balance sale consideration and, accordingly, the answering defendants issued notice dated 08.11.2011 calling upon the plaintiff to appear for execution of the sale deed. On 15.11.2011, the defendants remained present in the office of Sub 2025 (O&M) -3- ₹5,00,000/- vide writing dated 05.10.2011, thus making a ₹30,00,000/-. The plaintiff remained ready and willing and approached defendants No.1 to 3 on 21.10.2011 with the balance sale consideration, whereupon they assured execution o since 22.10.2011 and 23.10.2011 were holidays. However, defendants failed to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiff marked his presence before Registrar, Thanesar, on 24.10.2011 through affidavit, along with th requisite funds. Meanwhile, defendant No.4 executed a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2011 in favour of defendant No.5 qua 11 kanals 19 marlas of the suit property, despite prior knowledge of the subsisting agreement. Defendants No.1 to 3 later issu (received on 16.11.2011), wherein execution of agreement dated 29.07.2011 and receipt of ₹30,00,000/- was admitted. The plaintiff duly replied on 21.11.2011, but no compliance was made. Left with no alternative, the tituted the present suit seeking decree as per prayer clause Upon notice of the suit, defendants No.1 to 3 appeared and filed their written statement contesting the suit. They raised preliminary objections as to maintainability, locus standi, concealment of material facts, estoppel, etc. On merits, it was pleaded that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement to sell dated 29.07.2011, whereas the plaintiff himself was not ready and willing to get the sale deed ex favour. It was further submitted that the plaintiff never tendered the balance sale consideration and, accordingly, the answering defendants issued notice dated 08.11.2011 calling upon the plaintiff to appear for execution of the sale n 15.11.2011, the defendants remained present in the office of Sub vide writing dated 05.10.2011, thus making a total The plaintiff remained ready and willing and approached defendants No.1 to 3 on 21.10.2011 with the balance sale consideration, whereupon they assured execution of sale deed on 24.10.2011, since 22.10.2011 and 23.10.2011 were holidays. However, defendants failed to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiff marked his presence before Registrar, Thanesar, on 24.10.2011 through affidavit, along with the requisite funds. Meanwhile, defendant No.4 executed a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2011 in favour of defendant No.5 qua 11 kanals 19 marlas of the suit property, despite prior knowledge of the subsisting agreement. Defendants No.1 to 3 later issued notice dated 08.11.2011 (received on 16.11.2011), wherein execution of agreement dated 29.07.2011 was admitted. The plaintiff duly replied on 21.11.2011, but no compliance was made. Left with no alternative, the tituted the present suit seeking decree as per prayer clause. defendants No.1 to 3 appeared and filed their written statement contesting the suit. They raised preliminary objections concealment of material facts, estoppel, etc. On merits, it was pleaded that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement to sell dated 29.07.2011, whereas the plaintiff himself was not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in his favour. It was further submitted that the plaintiff never tendered the balance sale consideration and, accordingly, the answering defendants issued notice dated 08.11.2011 calling upon the plaintiff to appear for execution of the sale n 15.11.2011, the defendants remained present in the office of Sub- total The plaintiff remained ready and willing and approached defendants No.1 to 3 on 21.10.2011 with the balance sale f sale deed on 24.10.2011, since 22.10.2011 and 23.10.2011 were holidays. However, defendants failed to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiff marked his presence before e requisite funds. Meanwhile, defendant No.4 executed a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2011 in favour of defendant No.5 qua 11 kanals 19 marlas of the ed notice dated 08.11.2011 (received on 16.11.2011), wherein execution of agreement dated 29.07.2011 was admitted. The plaintiff duly replied on 21.11.2011, but no compliance was made. Left with no alternative, the defendants No.1 to 3 appeared and filed their written statement contesting the suit. They raised preliminary objections concealment of material facts, estoppel, etc. On merits, it was pleaded that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement to sell dated 29.07.2011, whereas the ecuted in his favour. It was further submitted that the plaintiff never tendered the balance sale consideration and, accordingly, the answering defendants issued notice dated 08.11.2011 calling upon the plaintiff to appear for execution of the sale - PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1984-2025 (O&M) Registrar, Thanesar, but the plaintiff did not turn up. They, thus, denied the allegations of default and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. Defendant No.4 also filed a separate pleaded that there was no privity of contract between him and the plaintiff, and therefore the suit was not maintainable against him. He asserted that the date for execution of the sale deed had been extended at the instance of defendants No.1 to 3, who lacked funds to pay the balance consideration. Defendant No.4 further stated that he had already executed a registered sale deed for land measuring 6 kanals 8 marlas in favour of defendants No.1 and 3, and another sale deed for 11 kanal on 20.12.2011, with the consent of defendants No.1 to 3. He denied knowledge of any subsequent agreement to sell between defendants No.1 to 3 and the plaintiff, an 8. Defendant No. bona fide purchaser for consideration and, therefore, the sale deed in his favour cannot be questioned by the plaintiff. He further averred that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part that despite repeated requests and even issuance of a legal notice, the plaintiff failed to tender the balance sale consideration. It was claimed that the earnest money paid under the earlier agreement stood rightly forfeited by defend No.1 to 3, and thereafter defendant No.4 validly executed the sale deed in his favour. Dismissal of the suit was accordingly prayed for. 9. On the basis of rival pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues i. 2025 (O&M) -4- Registrar, Thanesar, but the plaintiff did not turn up. They, thus, denied the allegations of default and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Defendant No.4 also filed a separate pleaded that there was no privity of contract between him and the plaintiff, and therefore the suit was not maintainable against him. He asserted that the date for execution of the sale deed had been extended at the instance of ants No.1 to 3, who lacked funds to pay the balance consideration. Defendant No.4 further stated that he had already executed a registered sale deed for land measuring 6 kanals 8 marlas in favour of defendants No.1 and 3, and another sale deed for 11 kanals 19 marlas in favour of Narender Singh on 20.12.2011, with the consent of defendants No.1 to 3. He denied knowledge of any subsequent agreement to sell between defendants No.1 to 3 and the plaintiff, and sought dismissal of the suit. Defendant No.5 also contested the claim, pleading that he is a purchaser for consideration and, therefore, the sale deed in his favour cannot be questioned by the plaintiff. He further averred that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part that despite repeated requests and even issuance of a legal notice, the plaintiff failed to tender the balance sale consideration. It was claimed that the earnest money paid under the earlier agreement stood rightly forfeited by defend No.1 to 3, and thereafter defendant No.4 validly executed the sale deed in his favour. Dismissal of the suit was accordingly prayed for. On the basis of rival pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues vide order dated 27.04.2017 – Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell with Registrar, Thanesar, but the plaintiff did not turn up. They, thus, denied the allegations of default and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Defendant No.4 also filed a separate written statement. He pleaded that there was no privity of contract between him and the plaintiff, and therefore the suit was not maintainable against him. He asserted that the date for execution of the sale deed had been extended at the instance of ants No.1 to 3, who lacked funds to pay the balance consideration. Defendant No.4 further stated that he had already executed a registered sale deed for land measuring 6 kanals 8 marlas in favour of defendants No.1 and s 19 marlas in favour of Narender Singh on 20.12.2011, with the consent of defendants No.1 to 3. He denied knowledge of any subsequent agreement to sell between defendants No.1 to 3 d sought dismissal of the suit. 5 also contested the claim, pleading that he is a purchaser for consideration and, therefore, the sale deed in his favour cannot be questioned by the plaintiff. He further averred that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that despite repeated requests and even issuance of a legal notice, the plaintiff failed to tender the balance sale consideration. It was claimed that the earnest money paid under the earlier agreement stood rightly forfeited by defendants No.1 to 3, and thereafter defendant No.4 validly executed the sale deed in his favour. Dismissal of the suit was accordingly prayed for. On the basis of rival pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the – Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell with Registrar, Thanesar, but the plaintiff did not turn up. They, thus, denied the written statement. He pleaded that there was no privity of contract between him and the plaintiff, and therefore the suit was not maintainable against him. He asserted that the date for execution of the sale deed had been extended at the instance of ants No.1 to 3, who lacked funds to pay the balance consideration. Defendant No.4 further stated that he had already executed a registered sale deed for land measuring 6 kanals 8 marlas in favour of defendants No.1 and s 19 marlas in favour of Narender Singh on 20.12.2011, with the consent of defendants No.1 to 3. He denied knowledge of any subsequent agreement to sell between defendants No.1 to 3 5 also contested the claim, pleading that he is a purchaser for consideration and, therefore, the sale deed in his favour cannot be questioned by the plaintiff. He further averred that the of the contract and that despite repeated requests and even issuance of a legal notice, the plaintiff failed to tender the balance sale consideration. It was claimed that the earnest ants No.1 to 3, and thereafter defendant No.4 validly executed the sale deed in his On the basis of rival pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell with PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1984-2025 (O&M) ii. iii. iv. 10. Thereafter, both sides were afforded opportunity to lead their evidence. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined Ram Saran Bhola as PW- also produced and relied upon several documents including the agreement to sell dated 29.07.2011 (Ex.P1), receipt dated 05.10.2011 (Ex.P2), resolution dated 01.10.2012 (Ex.P3), affidavit of the plai 08.11.2011 (Ex.P5), reply to the legal notice (Ex.P6), postal receipt (Ex.P7), certified copy of sale deed dated 08.09.2011 (Ex.P8), certified copy of sale deed dated 27.12.2011 (Ex.P9), certified copy of sale deed dated 0 (Ex.P10), jamabandi for the year 2008 11.03.2011 (Ex.P12) and the receipt (Ex.P13). 11. 11. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 appeared as DW and 5, however, did not adduce any oral evidence. their defence, placed reliance upon the affidavit of defendant Ashok Kumar (Ex.D1) and the postal receipt (Ex.D2). 12. Upon appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court held that though the for specific performance, the transaction in question was essentially an “agreement upon agreement ( law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 (O&M) -5- consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from the Court? OPD Relief. Thereafter, both sides were afforded opportunity to lead their evidence. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined Ram Saran -1 and Ram Saran, Reader to Tehsildar, as PW also produced and relied upon several documents including the agreement to sell dated 29.07.2011 (Ex.P1), receipt dated 05.10.2011 (Ex.P2), resolution dated 01.10.2012 (Ex.P3), affidavit of the plai 08.11.2011 (Ex.P5), reply to the legal notice (Ex.P6), postal receipt (Ex.P7), certified copy of sale deed dated 08.09.2011 (Ex.P8), certified copy of sale deed dated 27.12.2011 (Ex.P9), certified copy of sale deed dated 0 (Ex.P10), jamabandi for the year 2008-09 (Ex.P11), agreement to sell dated 11.03.2011 (Ex.P12) and the receipt (Ex.P13). In rebuttal, defendant No.1 appeared as DW and 5, however, did not adduce any oral evidence. their defence, placed reliance upon the affidavit of defendant Ashok Kumar (Ex.D1) and the postal receipt (Ex.D2). Upon appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court held that though the for specific performance, the transaction in question was essentially an “agreement upon agreement (Baiyana upon Baiyana law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts from the Court? OPD Thereafter, both sides were afforded opportunity to lead their evidence. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined Ram Saran nd Ram Saran, Reader to Tehsildar, as PW-2. The plaintiff also produced and relied upon several documents including the agreement to sell dated 29.07.2011 (Ex.P1), receipt dated 05.10.2011 (Ex.P2), resolution dated 01.10.2012 (Ex.P3), affidavit of the plaintiff (Ex.P4), legal notice dated 08.11.2011 (Ex.P5), reply to the legal notice (Ex.P6), postal receipt (Ex.P7), certified copy of sale deed dated 08.09.2011 (Ex.P8), certified copy of sale deed dated 27.12.2011 (Ex.P9), certified copy of sale deed dated 07.03.2011 09 (Ex.P11), agreement to sell dated 11.03.2011 (Ex.P12) and the receipt (Ex.P13). In rebuttal, defendant No.1 appeared as DW-1. Defendants No.4 and 5, however, did not adduce any oral evidence. Defendants No.1 to 3, in their defence, placed reliance upon the affidavit of defendant Ashok Kumar Upon appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court held that though the suit was framed as one for specific performance, the transaction in question was essentially an Baiyana)”, which, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material Thereafter, both sides were afforded opportunity to lead their evidence. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined Ram Saran 2. The plaintiff also produced and relied upon several documents including the agreement to sell dated 29.07.2011 (Ex.P1), receipt dated 05.10.2011 (Ex.P2), resolution ntiff (Ex.P4), legal notice dated 08.11.2011 (Ex.P5), reply to the legal notice (Ex.P6), postal receipt (Ex.P7), certified copy of sale deed dated 08.09.2011 (Ex.P8), certified copy of sale 7.03.2011 09 (Ex.P11), agreement to sell dated 1. Defendants No.4 Defendants No.1 to 3, in their defence, placed reliance upon the affidavit of defendant Ashok Kumar Upon appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary suit was framed as one for specific performance, the transaction in question was essentially an )”, which, in view of the Suraj Lamp & Industries PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1984-2025 (O&M) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sta could not confer title in immovable property, ownership being transferable only by a duly registered sale deed. It was noted that defendants No.1 to 3 were not owners of the property, which stood veste sale deed dated 07.03.2011, yet they executed agreement Ex.P1 in favour of the plaintiff and received and payment stood proved, specific performance was declined since the executants lacked ownership rights, and defendant No.4 had already discharged her obligations under earlier agreements and subsequent registered sale deeds (Ex.P8 & Ex.P9). The plaintiff’s readiness and willingness was held immaterial in such circumstances, and d bona fide purchaser entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. Nevertheless, invoking Order VII Rule 7 CPC, Court, vide judgment and decree dated 27.04.2017, moulded the relief decreed the suit as one for recovery, directing defendants No.1 to 3 to refund ₹30,00,000/- with 6% simple interest (half from 29.07.2011 and half from 05.10.2011) within three months, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to execute the decree First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.03.2025. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants the Courts below have gravely erred in law and on facts in granting the relief of refund of earnest money to the plaintiff, despite there being no such prayer in the original plaint or in the amended plaint. It is submitted that 2025 (O&M) -6- Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, 2011 (3) Apex Court Judgments 552 (SC) could not confer title in immovable property, ownership being transferable only by a duly registered sale deed. It was noted that defendants No.1 to 3 were not owners of the property, which stood veste sale deed dated 07.03.2011, yet they executed agreement Ex.P1 in favour of the plaintiff and received ₹30,00,000/- as earnest money. While the agreement and payment stood proved, specific performance was declined since the nts lacked ownership rights, and defendant No.4 had already discharged her obligations under earlier agreements and subsequent registered sale deeds (Ex.P8 & Ex.P9). The plaintiff’s readiness and willingness was held immaterial in such circumstances, and d bona fide purchaser entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. Nevertheless, invoking Order VII Rule 7 CPC, Court, vide judgment and decree dated 27.04.2017, moulded the relief decreed the suit as one for recovery, directing defendants No.1 to 3 to refund with 6% simple interest (half from 29.07.2011 and half from 05.10.2011) within three months, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to execute the decree. The said findings were duly affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court in the appeal preferred by the appellants vide judgment and decree dated 18.03.2025. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants the Courts below have gravely erred in law and on facts in granting the relief of refund of earnest money to the plaintiff, despite there being no such prayer in the original plaint or in the amended plaint. It is submitted that , 2011 (3) Apex Court Judgments 552 (SC), could not confer title in immovable property, ownership being transferable only by a duly registered sale deed. It was noted that defendants No.1 to 3 were not owners of the property, which stood vested in defendant No.4 under sale deed dated 07.03.2011, yet they executed agreement Ex.P1 in favour of as earnest money. While the agreement and payment stood proved, specific performance was declined since the nts lacked ownership rights, and defendant No.4 had already discharged her obligations under earlier agreements and subsequent registered sale deeds (Ex.P8 & Ex.P9). The plaintiff’s readiness and willingness was held immaterial in such circumstances, and defendant No.5 was treated as a bona fide purchaser entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. Nevertheless, invoking Order VII Rule 7 CPC, the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 27.04.2017, moulded the relief and decreed the suit as one for recovery, directing defendants No.1 to 3 to refund with 6% simple interest (half from 29.07.2011 and half from 05.10.2011) within three months, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled The said findings were duly affirmed by the learned in the appeal preferred by the appellants-defendants vide judgment and decree dated 18.03.2025. Hence, the present Regular Learned counsel for the appellants–defendants submits that both the Courts below have gravely erred in law and on facts in granting the relief of refund of earnest money to the plaintiff, despite there being no such prayer in the original plaint or in the amended plaint. It is submitted that the , could not confer title in immovable property, ownership being transferable only by a duly registered sale deed. It was noted that defendants No.1 to 3 d in defendant No.4 under sale deed dated 07.03.2011, yet they executed agreement Ex.P1 in favour of as earnest money. While the agreement and payment stood proved, specific performance was declined since the nts lacked ownership rights, and defendant No.4 had already discharged her obligations under earlier agreements and subsequent registered sale deeds (Ex.P8 & Ex.P9). The plaintiff’s readiness and willingness was efendant No.5 was treated as a bona fide purchaser entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Trial and decreed the suit as one for recovery, directing defendants No.1 to 3 to refund with 6% simple interest (half from 29.07.2011 and half from 05.10.2011) within three months, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled The said findings were duly affirmed by the learned defendants vide judgment and decree dated 18.03.2025. Hence, the present Regular fendants submits that both the Courts below have gravely erred in law and on facts in granting the relief of refund of earnest money to the plaintiff, despite there being no such prayer the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1984-2025 (O&M) amended plaint was confined only to challeng 27.12.2011, yet even at that stage money. The grant of such relief, therefore, is wholly beyond pleadings and contrary to Section 22 of t as the Act of 1963) K.R. Suresh v. R. Poornima that refund of earnest money cannot be granted un the plaint or sought by way of amendment, and that a general prayer such as “any other relief” does not entitle the plaintiff to such a decree. Similar view has been reiterated in Singh, (2023) 3 SCC 714 in absence of a prayer clause is impermissible. 14. Learned counsel would next submit that the plaintiff himself failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part o PW-1 in his cross sufficient funds in its account on the appointed date, i.e. 22.10.2011, and further admitted that the sale deed was to be executed directly by defendant No.4 Kiran Bala in favour of the plaintiff. It is also urged that the so presence of one Rakesh Kumar in the Tehsil Office on 24.10.2011, who was neither an office bearer nor an authorised person of the society, is wholly irrelevant and does not establish plaintiff. It is further contended that under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the vendor is entitled to forfeit the earnest money in case of default by the vendee, and in the present case, since the plaintiff failed to perform his obligations, appellants 2025 (O&M) -7- amended plaint was confined only to challeng 27.12.2011, yet even at that stage, no prayer was made for refund of earnest money. The grant of such relief, therefore, is wholly beyond pleadings and contrary to Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the Act of 1963). It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.R. Suresh v. R. Poornima & Ors., 2025 INSC 617 that refund of earnest money cannot be granted un the plaint or sought by way of amendment, and that a general prayer such as “any other relief” does not entitle the plaintiff to such a decree. Similar view has been reiterated in by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh, (2023) 3 SCC 714, holding that a decree for refund of earnest money in absence of a prayer clause is impermissible. Learned counsel would next submit that the plaintiff himself failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part o 1 in his cross-examination admitted that the plaintiff sufficient funds in its account on the appointed date, i.e. 22.10.2011, and further admitted that the sale deed was to be executed directly by defendant ran Bala in favour of the plaintiff. It is also urged that the so presence of one Rakesh Kumar in the Tehsil Office on 24.10.2011, who was neither an office bearer nor an authorised person of the society, is wholly irrelevant and does not establish readiness and willingness on the part of the It is further contended that under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the vendor is entitled to forfeit the earnest money in case of default by the vendee, and in the present case, since the plaintiff failed to perform his appellants-defendants were justified in forfeiting the same. The amended plaint was confined only to challenge sale deed No.18822 dated no prayer was made for refund of earnest money. The grant of such relief, therefore, is wholly beyond pleadings and he Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ors., 2025 INSC 617, has categorically held that refund of earnest money cannot be granted unless specifically prayed in the plaint or sought by way of amendment, and that a general prayer such as “any other relief” does not entitle the plaintiff to such a decree. Similar view by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Desh Raj v. Rohtash , holding that a decree for refund of earnest money in absence of a prayer clause is impermissible. Learned counsel would next submit that the plaintiff himself failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement. examination admitted that the plaintiff-society did not have sufficient funds in its account on the appointed date, i.e. 22.10.2011, and further admitted that the sale deed was to be executed directly by defendant ran Bala in favour of the plaintiff. It is also urged that the so-called presence of one Rakesh Kumar in the Tehsil Office on 24.10.2011, who was neither an office bearer nor an authorised person of the society, is wholly readiness and willingness on the part of the It is further contended that under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the vendor is entitled to forfeit the earnest money in case of default by the vendee, and in the present case, since the plaintiff failed to perform his were justified in forfeiting the same. The sale deed No.18822 dated no prayer was made for refund of earnest money. The grant of such relief, therefore, is wholly beyond pleadings and (hereinafter referred to It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in , has categorically held less specifically prayed in the plaint or sought by way of amendment, and that a general prayer such as “any other relief” does not entitle the plaintiff to such a decree. Similar view ash , holding that a decree for refund of earnest money Learned counsel would next submit that the plaintiff himself f the agreement. society did not have sufficient funds in its account on the appointed date, i.e. 22.10.2011, and further admitted that the sale deed was to be executed directly by defendant called presence of one Rakesh Kumar in the Tehsil Office on 24.10.2011, who was neither an office bearer nor an authorised person of the society, is wholly readiness and willingness on the part of the It is further contended that under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the vendor is entitled to forfeit the earnest money in case of default by the vendee, and in the present case, since the plaintiff failed to perform his were justified in forfeiting the same. The PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1984-2025 (O&M) concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are stated to be perverse as they are based on misreading of evidence and on conjectures, while ignoring the clear admissions of the plaintiff’s own wit 15. Learned counsel finally, prayed that this Court may kindly allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2017 passed in Civil Suit No. 3417 of 2013 by the learned judgment and decree dat 2017 by the learned 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the findings of the Courts below, submitting that vide the agreement to sell dated 11.03.2 No.4, Kiran Bala, had agreed to sell land measuring 18 kanals 7 marlas, including the suit pr namely, defendant No.1 Ashok Kumar, defendant No.3 Dharmender Kumar the basis of th agreement to sell dated 29.07.2011 in favour of the respondent No.1 at the rate of fixed as 22.10.2011. ₹15 lacs through Cheque No.426953 dated 29.07.2011, in addition to earlier payments of ₹10 lacs and ₹5 lacs on 05.10.2011, making the tota money received by appellants/ 17. It is respondent No.2 19 marlas in favour of 2025 (O&M) -8- concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are stated to be perverse as they are based on misreading of evidence and on conjectures, while ignoring the clear admissions of the plaintiff’s own witnesses. Learned counsel finally, prayed that this Court may kindly allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2017 passed in Civil Suit No. 3417 of 2013 by the learned judgment and decree dated 18.03.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 352 of 2017 by the learned First Appellate. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the findings of the Courts below, submitting that vide the agreement to sell dated 11.03.2011, proforma respondent No.2 No.4, Kiran Bala, had agreed to sell land measuring 18 kanals 7 marlas, including the suit property, in favour of appellants/ efendant No.1 Ashok Kumar, defendant No.2 Raj Kumar, and ndant No.3 Dharmender Kumar at the rate of the basis of this agreement, appellants/defendants agreement to sell dated 29.07.2011 in favour of the respondent No.1 at the rate of ₹47 lacs per acre, with the date for execution of the sale deed fixed as 22.10.2011. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 ₹15 lacs through Cheque No.426953 dated 29.07.2011, in addition to earlier ₹10 lacs and ₹5 lacs on 05.10.2011, making the tota money received by appellants/defendants No.1 to 3 It is further contended that notwithstanding the above, respondent No.2-defendant No.4 (Kiran Bala) sold land measuring 11 kanals 19 marlas in favour of pro forma respondent No.3 concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are stated to be perverse as they are based on misreading of evidence and on conjectures, while ignoring nesses. Learned counsel finally, prayed that this Court may kindly allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2017 passed in Civil Suit No. 3417 of 2013 by the learned trial Court, as well as the ed 18.03.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 352 of Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff has supported the findings of the Courts below, submitting that vide the 011, proforma respondent No.2-defendant No.4, Kiran Bala, had agreed to sell land measuring 18 kanals 7 marlas, operty, in favour of appellants/defendants No.1 to 3 efendant No.2 Raj Kumar, and at the rate of ₹43,25,000/- per acre. On defendants No.1 to 3 executed an agreement to sell dated 29.07.2011 in favour of the respondent No.1-plaintiff the date for execution of the sale deed t is submitted that the respondent No.1-plaintiff paid ₹15 lacs through Cheque No.426953 dated 29.07.2011, in addition to earlier ₹10 lacs and ₹5 lacs on 05.10.2011, making the total earnest No.1 to 3 amounting to ₹30 lacs. contended that notwithstanding the above, pro forma defendant No.4 (Kiran Bala) sold land measuring 11 kanals respondent No.3-defendant No.5 (Narendra concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are stated to be perverse as they are based on misreading of evidence and on conjectures, while ignoring Learned counsel finally, prayed that this Court may kindly allow the present appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2017 , as well as the ed 18.03.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 352 of plaintiff has supported the findings of the Courts below, submitting that vide the defendant No.4, Kiran Bala, had agreed to sell land measuring 18 kanals 7 marlas, 3 efendant No.2 Raj Kumar, and per acre. On executed an plaintiff the date for execution of the sale deed plaintiff paid ₹15 lacs through Cheque No.426953 dated 29.07.2011, in addition to earlier st forma defendant No.4 (Kiran Bala) sold land measuring 11 kanals defendant No.5 (Narendra PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1984-2025 (O&M) Singh) vide registered sale deed dated 27.12.2011. On 24.10.2011, the respondent No.1 before the Sub appellants-defendants failed to perform their part of the contract. The appellants-defendants also issued a notice dated 08.11.2011, to which the respondent No.1 willingness to perform his oblig submitted that the legal position, and that there is no ground for interference. The respondent No.1-plaintiff’s claim for refund of earnest mon agreement to sell is fully justified in law and on facts. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book as well as the case laws cited with their able assistance. 19. A careful reading o first defendants No.1 to 3 entered into an agreement to sell dated 11.03.2011 with defendant No.4 and thereafter, they had executed another agreement to sell dated 29.07.2011 with the plaintiff 11.03.2011, according to which, 22.10.2011. Admittedly, the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Thanesar on 24.1 and got marked his presence by way of affidavit. It is also admitted fact that defendants No.1 to 3 had received a sum of Rs.15 lakhs i.e. Rs.10,50,000/ cash and Rs.4,50,000/ agreement to sell dated 29. earnest money, in total Rs.30 lakhs. 2025 (O&M) -9- Singh) vide registered sale deed dated 27.12.2011. On 24.10.2011, the respondent No.1-plaintiff, through Member Rakesh Kumar, remained present before the Sub-Registrar, Thanesar, to execute the sale deed, defendants failed to perform their part of the contract. The defendants also issued a notice dated 08.11.2011, to which the respondent No.1-plaintiff responded, demonstrating his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the agreement. that the Courts below correctly appreciate legal position, and that there is no ground for interference. The respondent plaintiff’s claim for refund of earnest mon agreement to sell is fully justified in law and on facts. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book as well as the case laws cited with their able assistance. A careful reading of the record of the case makes it apparent that first defendants No.1 to 3 entered into an agreement to sell dated 11.03.2011 with defendant No.4 and thereafter, they had executed another agreement to sell dated 29.07.2011 with the plaintiff on the basis o , according to which, sale deed was to be Admittedly, the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, Thanesar on 24.10.2011 as 22.10.2011 & 23.10.2011 were holidays ot marked his presence by way of affidavit. It is also admitted fact that defendants No.1 to 3 had received a sum of Rs.15 lakhs i.e. Rs.10,50,000/ cash and Rs.4,50,000/- through cheque No.426953 dated 29.07.2011 in lieu of agreement to sell dated 29.07.2011 and further Rs.15 lakhs as additional earnest money, in total Rs.30 lakhs. It is also admitted that defendants No.1 to Singh) vide registered sale deed dated 27.12.2011. On 24.10.2011, the plaintiff, through Member Rakesh Kumar, remained present nesar, to execute the sale deed, however, the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract. The defendants also issued a notice dated 08.11.2011, to which the plaintiff responded, demonstrating his readiness and ations under the agreement. It is also Courts below correctly appreciated the evidence and the legal position, and that there is no ground for interference. The respondent plaintiff’s claim for refund of earnest money and enforcement of the agreement to sell is fully justified in law and on facts. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book as well as the case laws cited with their able assistance. f the record of the case makes it apparent that first defendants No.1 to 3 entered into an agreement to sell dated 11.03.2011 with defendant No.4 and thereafter, they had executed another agreement to on the basis of agreement to sell dated was to be executed on or before Admittedly, the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub .2011 as 22.10.2011 & 23.10.2011 were holidays ot marked his presence by way of affidavit. It is also admitted fact that defendants No.1 to 3 had received a sum of Rs.15 lakhs i.e. Rs.10,50,000/- in through cheque No.426953 dated 29.07.2011 in lieu of 07.2011 and further Rs.15 lakhs as additional It is also admitted that defendants No.1 to Singh) vide registered sale deed dated 27.12.2011. On 24.10.2011, the plaintiff, through Member Rakesh Kumar, remained present ver, the defendants failed to perform their part of the contract. The defendants also issued a notice dated 08.11.2011, to which the plaintiff responded, demonstrating his readiness and It is also the evidence and the legal position, and that there is no ground for interference. The respondent ey and enforcement of the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the f the record of the case makes it apparent that first defendants No.1 to 3 entered into an agreement to sell dated 11.03.2011 with defendant No.4 and thereafter, they had executed another agreement to f agreement to sell dated n or before Admittedly, the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub .2011 as 22.10.2011 & 23.10.2011 were holidays ot marked his presence by way of affidavit. It is also admitted fact that in through cheque No.426953 dated 29.07.2011 in lieu of 07.2011 and further Rs.15 lakhs as additional It is also admitted that defendants No.1 to PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1984-2025 (O&M) 3 were not present on 24.10.2011. They issued a legal notice dated 08.11.2011 to the plaintiff to get the sale deed registered w which was received by the plaintiff on 16.11.2011; whereas defendants No.1 to 3 remained present before the Sub date also, they were not having title of the suit property measuring 12 kanals, thus, serving a legal notice upon the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed on 15.11.2011 was meaningless. Further kanals 19 marlas in favour of defendant No.5 by defendant No.4 is also not disputed. Therefore, totality of ci grant of relief of specific performance was frustrated due to conduct of defendants No.1 to 3 and the question for consideration before this Court is whether both the Courts below were justified recovery of amount of Rs.30 lakhs advanced by the plaintiff to No.1 to 3 in the absence of any specific relief sought for relief of refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or made by him of Section 22 of the 20. It is apt to reproduce Section 22 of the Act of 1963 for proper adjudication of the present case, which “ earnest money, etc. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (5 of 1908), any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may, in an appropriate case, ask for (a) possession property, in addition to such performance; or 2025 (O&M) -10- 3 were not present on 24.10.2011. They issued a legal notice dated 08.11.2011 to the plaintiff to get the sale deed registered w which was received by the plaintiff on 16.11.2011; whereas defendants No.1 to 3 remained present before the Sub-Registrar on 15.11.2011 and on the said date also, they were not having title of the suit property measuring 12 kanals, rving a legal notice upon the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed on 15.11.2011 was meaningless. Further, sale deed dated 27.12.2011 qua 11 kanals 19 marlas in favour of defendant No.5 by defendant No.4 is also not disputed. Therefore, totality of circumstances leads to the conclusion that grant of relief of specific performance was frustrated due to conduct of defendants No.1 to 3 and the question for consideration before this Court is both the Courts below were justified recovery of amount of Rs.30 lakhs advanced by the plaintiff to No.1 to 3 in the absence of any specific relief sought for relief of refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or made by him of Section 22 of the Act of 1963. It is apt to reproduce Section 22 of the Act of 1963 for proper adjudication of the present case, which is as under: “22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money, etc.— (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (5 of 1908), any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may, in an appropriate case, ask for (a) possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property, in addition to such performance; or 3 were not present on 24.10.2011. They issued a legal notice dated 08.11.2011 to the plaintiff to get the sale deed registered within one week, which was received by the plaintiff on 16.11.2011; whereas defendants No.1 Registrar on 15.11.2011 and on the said date also, they were not having title of the suit property measuring 12 kanals, rving a legal notice upon the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed on sale deed dated 27.12.2011 qua 11 kanals 19 marlas in favour of defendant No.5 by defendant No.4 is also not rcumstances leads to the conclusion that grant of relief of specific performance was frustrated due to conduct of defendants No.1 to 3 and the question for consideration before this Court is both the Courts below were justified in granting a decree for recovery of amount of Rs.30 lakhs advanced by the plaintiff to defendants No.1 to 3 in the absence of any specific relief sought for relief of refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or made by him in terms of sub-clause (2) It is apt to reproduce Section 22 of the Act of 1963 for proper as under:- 22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (5 of 1908), any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may, in an appropriate case, ask for— , or partition and separate possession, of the property, in addition to such performance; or 3 were not present on 24.10.2011. They issued a legal notice dated ithin one week, which was received by the plaintiff on 16.11.2011; whereas defendants No.1 Registrar on 15.11.2011 and on the said date also, they were not having title of the suit property measuring 12 kanals, rving a legal notice upon the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed on sale deed dated 27.12.2011 qua 11 kanals 19 marlas in favour of defendant No.5 by defendant No.4 is also not rcumstances leads to the conclusion that grant of relief of specific performance was frustrated due to conduct of defendants No.1 to 3 and the question for consideration before this Court is for defendants No.1 to 3 in the absence of any specific relief sought for relief of refund of clause (2) It is apt to reproduce Section 22 of the Act of 1963 for proper 22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (5 of 1908), any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of , or partition and separate possession, of the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1984-2025 (O&M) (b) any other relief to which he may be entitled, including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or case his claim for specific perform (2) No relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed: relief in the plaint, the court shall, at proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief. (3) The power of the court to grant relief under clause (b) of sub compensation under section 21. A bare perusal of aforesaid provisions of Section 2 Act ibid reveals that contract for the transfer of immovable property may in an appropriate case ask for any other relief to which he may be entitled including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or made by him, in case his claim for specific performance is refused. 21. At this stage, it is also apt to mention here that in the original suit filed as well as in the amended plaint, following prayer is also made ancillary to the main prayer: the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded.” 22. Now coming to the this Court, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the said case there was a clause in the agreement to sell itself qua 2025 (O&M) -11- (b) any other relief to which he may be entitled, including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or case his claim for specific perform (2) No relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed: Provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relief in the plaint, the court shall, at proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief. (3) The power of the court to grant relief under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be without prejudice to its powers to award compensation under section 21.” A bare perusal of aforesaid provisions of Section 2 reveals that any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may in an appropriate case any other relief to which he may be entitled including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or made by him, in case his claim for specific performance is refused. At this stage, it is also apt to mention here that in the original suit as well as in the amended plaint, following prayer is also made ancillary to the main prayer:- “Any other relief to which the plaintiff is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded.” Now coming to the lis in hand, in the respectful submission of this Court, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the said case there was a clause in the agreement to sell itself qua (b) any other relief to which he may be entitled, including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or made by him, in case his claim for specific performance is refused. (2) No relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relief in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief. (3) The power of the court to grant relief under clause (b) of section (1) shall be without prejudice to its powers to award A bare perusal of aforesaid provisions of Section 22 (1) (b) of the any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may in an appropriate case any other relief to which he may be entitled including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or made by him, in case his claim for At this stage, it is also apt to mention here that in the original suit as well as in the amended plaint, following prayer is also made ancillary “Any other relief to which the plaintiff is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded.” in hand, in the respectful submission of this Court, the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Desh Raj’s (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the said case there was a clause in the agreement to sell itself qua forfeiture of the (b) any other relief to which he may be entitled, including the him, in section (1) shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may (3) The power of the court to grant relief under clause (b) of section (1) shall be without prejudice to its powers to award of the any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may in an appropriate case any other relief to which he may be entitled including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or made by him, in case his claim for At this stage, it is also apt to mention here that in the original suit as well as in the amended plaint, following prayer is also made ancillary “Any other relief to which the plaintiff is found entitled in in hand, in the respectful submission of Desh Raj’s (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the said forfeiture of the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1984-2025 (O&M) earnest money in case of breach of contract on the part of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was found to be the party, who did not fulfil his part of obligation and therefore, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that of earnest money at the time of filing of suit by way of amendment, no such relief can be granted; whereas in the present case, the relief of specific performance could not be gra contract on the part of defendants No.1 to 3 and further, it is not any other relief based on facts and circumstances of the case, was sought for in Desh Raj’s case Same is the position in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in 23. Clause (b) of Section 22 (1) of the provision. It is no but also empowers the Court to "grant any other relief to which he may be entitled". This phrase "grant any other relief" has wider connotation and import. It will take into its fold the relief the plaintiff from defendants. The rule of equity and justice requires that if in fact, money has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants under an agreement, not otherwise unlawful, the defendants should pay back t amount to the plaintiff even if for some reason the contract as such is not enforceable. The law safeguards against any unlawful enrichment at the cost of a party and provides for restitution in all such cases. eventuality, the defendants c enrichment. 2025 (O&M) -12- earnest money in case of breach of contract on the part of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was found to be the party, who did not fulfil his part of obligation and therefore, in the absence of any prayer with respect Hon’ble Apex Court has held that unless plaintiff specifically of earnest money at the time of filing of suit by way of amendment, no such relief can be granted; whereas in the present case, the relief of specific performance could not be granted due to unfair conduct and breach of contract on the part of defendants No.1 to 3 and further, it is not any other relief based on facts and circumstances of the case, was sought for Desh Raj’s case (supra) or not but has been sought i Same is the position in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in K.R. Suresh’s case Clause (b) of Section 22 (1) of the provision. It is not restricted to relief of refund of earnest amount or deposit but also empowers the Court to "grant any other relief to which he may be entitled". This phrase "grant any other relief" has wider connotation and import. It will take into its fold the relief of return of the amount received by the plaintiff from defendants. The rule of equity and justice requires that if in fact, money has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants under an agreement, not otherwise unlawful, the defendants should pay back t amount to the plaintiff even if for some reason the contract as such is not enforceable. The law safeguards against any unlawful enrichment at the cost of a party and provides for restitution in all such cases. eventuality, the defendants cannot be allowed to bear the fruit of unjust enrichment. "Unjust enrichment" occurs when a person retains money or earnest money in case of breach of contract on the part of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was found to be the party, who did not fulfil his part of obligation in the absence of any prayer with respect to refund of amount, unless plaintiff specifically sought refund of earnest money at the time of filing of suit by way of amendment, no such relief can be granted; whereas in the present case, the relief of specific nted due to unfair conduct and breach of contract on the part of defendants No.1 to 3 and further, it is not clear whether any other relief based on facts and circumstances of the case, was sought for (supra) or not but has been sought in the present case. Same is the position in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon K.R. Suresh’s case (supra). Clause (b) of Section 22 (1) of the Act of 1963 is an enabling t restricted to relief of refund of earnest amount or deposit but also empowers the Court to "grant any other relief to which he may be entitled". This phrase "grant any other relief" has wider connotation and of return of the amount received by the plaintiff from defendants. The rule of equity and justice requires that if in fact, money has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants under an agreement, not otherwise unlawful, the defendants should pay back the amount to the plaintiff even if for some reason the contract as such is not enforceable. The law safeguards against any unlawful enrichment at the cost of a party and provides for restitution in all such cases. In such an annot be allowed to bear the fruit of unjust nrichment" occurs when a person retains money or earnest money in case of breach of contract on the part of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was found to be the party, who did not fulfil his part of obligation refund of amount, refund of earnest money at the time of filing of suit by way of amendment, no such relief can be granted; whereas in the present case, the relief of specific nted due to unfair conduct and breach of clear whether any other relief based on facts and circumstances of the case, was sought for n the present case. Same is the position in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon is an enabling t restricted to relief of refund of earnest amount or deposit but also empowers the Court to "grant any other relief to which he may be entitled". This phrase "grant any other relief" has wider connotation and of return of the amount received by the plaintiff from defendants. The rule of equity and justice requires that if in fact, money has been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants under an he amount to the plaintiff even if for some reason the contract as such is not enforceable. The law safeguards against any unlawful enrichment at the cost In such an annot be allowed to bear the fruit of unjust nrichment" occurs when a person retains money or PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1984-2025 (O&M) benefits which in justice, equity and good conscience belongs to someone else. The doctrine of "unjust enrichment" therefore, is that no per allowed to enrich himself inequitably at the expense of another. The principle of "unjust enrichment" proceeds on the basis that it would be unjust to allow one person to retain a benefit received at the expense of another person. It provides the theoretical foundation of the law governing restitution. A right of recovery under the doctrine of "unjust enrichment" arises where retention of benefit is considered contrary to justice or against equity. 24. The relief under the principle of equity. The principle of equity incorporates balancing the interest of parties involved. Equity inputs an intention to fulfi seek equity, one must do equity. In the present case, the balance of eq tilts towards the plaintiff. The decree of specific performance was not refused to the plaintiff due to his fault but owing to the fact that third party rights were created in favour of defendant No.5. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contra outsmart and defeated the relief of specific performance. If the amount of Rs.30 lakhs as paid by plaintiff to defendants No.1 to 3 is not returned to him, it will just not constitute an unfa cause undue hardship to the respondent in integrum will have to be applied in such cases i.e. the principle of restitution of the benefit. 25. Furthermore, the general r on pleadings made by parties and thus, where from pleadings and evidence, the Civil Court is satisfied that though the larger claim as prayed for in the 2025 (O&M) -13- benefits which in justice, equity and good conscience belongs to someone else. The doctrine of "unjust enrichment" therefore, is that no per allowed to enrich himself inequitably at the expense of another. The principle of "unjust enrichment" proceeds on the basis that it would be unjust to allow one person to retain a benefit received at the expense of another person. It e theoretical foundation of the law governing restitution. A right of recovery under the doctrine of "unjust enrichment" arises where retention of benefit is considered contrary to justice or against equity. The relief under the Act of 1963 of equity. The principle of equity incorporates balancing the interest of parties involved. Equity inputs an intention to fulfi one must do equity. In the present case, the balance of eq tilts towards the plaintiff. The decree of specific performance was not refused to the plaintiff due to his fault but owing to the fact that third party rights were created in favour of defendant No.5. The plaintiff was always ready and erform his part of the contract but outsmart and defeated the relief of specific performance. If the amount of Rs.30 lakhs as paid by plaintiff to defendants No.1 to 3 is not returned to him, it will just not constitute an unfair advantage to the appellants cause undue hardship to the respondent-plaintiff. The principle of will have to be applied in such cases i.e. the principle of restitution of the benefit. Furthermore, the general rule is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by parties and thus, where from pleadings and evidence, the Civil Court is satisfied that though the larger claim as prayed for in the benefits which in justice, equity and good conscience belongs to someone else. The doctrine of "unjust enrichment" therefore, is that no person can be allowed to enrich himself inequitably at the expense of another. The principle of "unjust enrichment" proceeds on the basis that it would be unjust to allow one person to retain a benefit received at the expense of another person. It e theoretical foundation of the law governing restitution. A right of recovery under the doctrine of "unjust enrichment" arises where retention of benefit is considered contrary to justice or against equity. Act of 1963 is fundamentally based on the of equity. The principle of equity incorporates balancing the interest of parties involved. Equity inputs an intention to fulfill an obligation and to one must do equity. In the present case, the balance of equity tilts towards the plaintiff. The decree of specific performance was not refused to the plaintiff due to his fault but owing to the fact that third party rights were created in favour of defendant No.5. The plaintiff was always ready and but defendants No.1 to 3 played outsmart and defeated the relief of specific performance. If the amount of Rs.30 lakhs as paid by plaintiff to defendants No.1 to 3 is not returned to him, ir advantage to the appellants-defendants but plaintiff. The principle of restitutio will have to be applied in such cases i.e. the principle of ule is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by parties and thus, where from pleadings and evidence, the Civil Court is satisfied that though the larger claim as prayed for in the benefits which in justice, equity and good conscience belongs to someone son can be allowed to enrich himself inequitably at the expense of another. The principle of "unjust enrichment" proceeds on the basis that it would be unjust to allow one person to retain a benefit received at the expense of another person. It e theoretical foundation of the law governing restitution. A right of recovery under the doctrine of "unjust enrichment" arises where retention of ntally based on the of equity. The principle of equity incorporates balancing the interest l an obligation and to uity tilts towards the plaintiff. The decree of specific performance was not refused to the plaintiff due to his fault but owing to the fact that third party rights were created in favour of defendant No.5. The plaintiff was always ready and defendants No.1 to 3 played outsmart and defeated the relief of specific performance. If the amount of Rs.30 lakhs as paid by plaintiff to defendants No.1 to 3 is not returned to him, defendants but restitutio will have to be applied in such cases i.e. the principle of ule is that the relief should be founded on pleadings made by parties and thus, where from pleadings and evidence, the Civil Court is satisfied that though the larger claim as prayed for in the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1984-2025 (O&M) suit is not feasible, owing to peculiar circumstances, but any though such relief has not been specifically asked for, it has grant either general relief or other relief which appears to and proper. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly taken aid of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 7 CPC in granting relief to the plaintiff. Had the arguments that in the absence of any specific relief prayed for by the plaintiff seeking refund of money is accepted, then the plaintiff would be left high and dry and would be pu furtherance of agreement to sell executed between the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 could not be executed due to the mischief played by defendants and if the earnest money is not returned to the pl injustice to him, which could never be the intention of the legislature and, therefore, in such kind of peculiar situation provisions of Order 7 Rule 7 CPC comes to the rescue of plaintiff so that scales of justice 26. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others, are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 o the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. 27. As an upshot of above discussion, this Court finds no illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact rendered by both the Courts 2025 (O&M) -14- suit is not feasible, owing to peculiar circumstances, but any though such relief has not been specifically asked for, it has grant either general relief or other relief which appears to and proper. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly taken aid of the ovisions of Order 7 Rule 7 CPC in granting relief to the plaintiff. Had the arguments that in the absence of any specific relief prayed for by the plaintiff seeking refund of money is accepted, then the plaintiff would be left high and dry and would be put to jeopardy for not fault of his. The sale deed in furtherance of agreement to sell executed between the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 could not be executed due to the mischief played by defendants and if the earnest money is not returned to the pl injustice to him, which could never be the intention of the legislature and, therefore, in such kind of peculiar situation provisions of Order 7 Rule 7 CPC comes to the rescue of plaintiff so that scales of justice In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others, are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 o the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. As an upshot of above discussion, this Court finds no illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact rendered by both the Courts suit is not feasible, owing to peculiar circumstances, but any other relief, even though such relief has not been specifically asked for, it has inherent power to grant either general relief or other relief which appears to it to be legitimate and proper. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly taken aid of the ovisions of Order 7 Rule 7 CPC in granting relief to the plaintiff. Had the arguments that in the absence of any specific relief prayed for by the plaintiff seeking refund of money is accepted, then the plaintiff would be left high and t to jeopardy for not fault of his. The sale deed in furtherance of agreement to sell executed between the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 could not be executed due to the mischief played by defendants and if the earnest money is not returned to the plaintiff, it would cause gross injustice to him, which could never be the intention of the legislature and, therefore, in such kind of peculiar situation provisions of Order 7 Rule 7 CPC comes to the rescue of plaintiff so that scales of justice are balanced. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others, questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of As an upshot of above discussion, this Court finds no illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact rendered by both the Courts other relief, even inherent power to it to be legitimate and proper. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly taken aid of the ovisions of Order 7 Rule 7 CPC in granting relief to the plaintiff. Had the arguments that in the absence of any specific relief prayed for by the plaintiff seeking refund of money is accepted, then the plaintiff would be left high and t to jeopardy for not fault of his. The sale deed in furtherance of agreement to sell executed between the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 could not be executed due to the mischief played by defendants and aintiff, it would cause gross injustice to him, which could never be the intention of the legislature and, therefore, in such kind of peculiar situation provisions of Order 7 Rule 7 CPC In view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Gurbachan Singh (dead) through questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana f As an upshot of above discussion, this Court finds no illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact rendered by both the Courts PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1984-2025 (O&M) below and the same is upheld. Resultantly, the regular second appeal is dismissed. 28. Misc. application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. August 27, 2025 Pankaj* 2025 (O&M) -15- below and the same is upheld. Resultantly, the regular second appeal is Misc. application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable below and the same is upheld. Resultantly, the regular second appeal is Misc. application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes : Yes below and the same is upheld. Resultantly, the regular second appeal is Misc. application(s) pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.09 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh