IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (130) (1) KARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS JASWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS (131) (2) RANJIT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS JASWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr.Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants, in RSA Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants, in RSA **** VIRINDER AGGARWAL 1. These two appeals have been filed by appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide which, the respondents/plaintiffs were granted relief of recovery of earnest money along with interest. 2. Briefly, the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against appellants/defendants with regard to suit land and it was admitted fact that agreement to sell was executed and earnest money of Rs.1,20,00, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA KARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS Versus JASWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS RSA RANJIT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS Versus JASWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Date of Decision: -.- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants, in RSA-2241-2025. Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants, RSA-2788-2025. **** VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral) These two appeals have been filed by appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide which, the respondents/plaintiffs were granted relief of recovery of earnest money along with interest. Briefly, the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against appellants/defendants with regard to suit land and it was admitted fact that agreement to sell was executed and earnest money of Rs.1,20,00,000/- was paid by the respondents/plaintiffs to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2241-2025 (O&M) … Appellants ... Respondents RSA-2788-2025 (O&M) RANJIT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS … Appellants ... Respondents Date of Decision: 19.08.2025 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants, Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants, These two appeals have been filed by appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide which, the respondents/plaintiffs were granted relief of recovery of earnest Briefly, the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against appellants/defendants with regard to suit land and it was admitted fact that agreement to sell was executed and was paid by the respondents/plaintiffs to These two appeals have been filed by appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide which, the respondents/plaintiffs were granted relief of recovery of earnest Briefly, the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against appellants/defendants with regard to suit land and it was admitted fact that agreement to sell was executed and was paid by the respondents/plaintiffs to SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.08.21 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appellants/defendants and on the stipulated date, sale deed could not be executed. Both the parties ha perform their part of the contract and the other party to perform its part. Suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge by recording a finding that the respondents/plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, as such, they are not entitled to any rel earnest money was ordered to be forfeited. Respondents/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda and learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and granted alternative relief of refund of earnest money along with interest. 3. Aggrieved, the present appeals appellants/defendants. The judgment of the First Appellate Court has been assailed on the grounds that the learned First Appellate Court has not bothered that respondents/plaintiffs were not ready to perform their part of the contract and the liability has been faste of the admission of the defendants in written statement 1/12th share in the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs that they were not aware about the ownership of the suit land of Hardeep Kaur and Veerpal Kaur is a meager share and they ar appellants/defendants Amarjeet Singh. The learned Lower Appellate Court has ignored the settled position of law that buyer had to be vigilant and has to exercise the due diligence and vendee was under obligation to make inquiries as to the exclusive title of the vendor and relied upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in SCC Online SC 981 appellants/defendants and on the stipulated date, sale deed could not be executed. Both the parties have alleged that they remained ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and the other party to perform its part. Suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge by recording a finding that the respondents/plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, as such, they are not entitled to any rel earnest money was ordered to be forfeited. Respondents/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda and learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and granted alternative relief of nest money along with interest. Aggrieved, the present appeals appellants/defendants. The judgment of the First Appellate Court has been assailed on the grounds that the learned First Appellate Court has not bothered spondents/plaintiffs were not ready to perform their part of the contract and the liability has been fastened upon appellants/defendants of the admission of the defendants in written statement share in the suit land of Hardeep Kaur and Veer of the respondents/plaintiffs that they were not aware about the ownership of the suit land of Hardeep Kaur and Veerpal Kaur. The share of Hardeep Kaur and pal Kaur is a meager share and they ar appellants/defendants Amarjeet Singh. The learned Lower Appellate Court has ignored the settled position of law that buyer had to be vigilant and has to exercise the due diligence and vendee was under obligation to make inquiries as to the exclusive title of the vendor and relied upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar versus Anand Kumar and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 981 on account of plaintiffs conduct. appellants/defendants and on the stipulated date, sale deed could not be alleged that they remained ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and the other party was not ready and willing to perform its part. Suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge by recording a finding that the respondents/plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, as such, they are not entitled to any relief. Their earnest money was ordered to be forfeited. Respondents/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda and learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and granted alternative relief of Aggrieved, the present appeals have been preferred by the appellants/defendants. The judgment of the First Appellate Court has been assailed on the grounds that the learned First Appellate Court has not bothered spondents/plaintiffs were not ready to perform their part of the contract ned upon appellants/defendants only on account of the admission of the defendants in written statements qua the ownership of nd of Hardeep Kaur and Veerpal Kaur. It is not the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that they were not aware about the ownership of the Kaur. The share of Hardeep Kaur and pal Kaur is a meager share and they are mother and sister of appellants/defendants Amarjeet Singh. The learned Lower Appellate Court has ignored the settled position of law that buyer had to be vigilant and has to exercise the due diligence and vendee was under obligation to make inquiries as to the exclusive title of the vendor and relied upon the law laid down by us Anand Kumar and others, 2024 on account of plaintiffs conduct. appellants/defendants and on the stipulated date, sale deed could not be alleged that they remained ready and willing to was not ready and willing to perform its part. Suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge by recording a finding that the respondents/plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform ief. Their earnest money was ordered to be forfeited. Respondents/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda and learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and granted alternative relief of been preferred by the appellants/defendants. The judgment of the First Appellate Court has been assailed on the grounds that the learned First Appellate Court has not bothered spondents/plaintiffs were not ready to perform their part of the contract only on account qua the ownership of pal Kaur. It is not the case of the respondents/plaintiffs that they were not aware about the ownership of the Kaur. The share of Hardeep Kaur and e mother and sister of appellants/defendants Amarjeet Singh. The learned Lower Appellate Court has ignored the settled position of law that buyer had to be vigilant and has to exercise the due diligence and vendee was under obligation to make inquiries as to the exclusive title of the vendor and relied upon the law laid down by us Anand Kumar and others, 2024 SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.08.21 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned First Appellate Court has not taken into consideration that suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs on the last date of limitation and in such circumstances, the relief ought not to be granted 5. I have gone through the file carefully. 6. It is not denied that the appellants/defendants were not owners of the entire property Exhibit P1 clearly show Amarjeet Singh has claimed themselves to be the owners in possession of suit land without any encumbrance and free from all disputes and litigations, so it has not been stated in the agreement to sell that are also owners of the suit land to the extent of 1/12 undertaking on behalf of the appellants/defendants to get the sale deed executed of their share in favour of respondents/plaintiffs. So, it is clear sell was not capable of appellants/defendants due to defect in their title with regard to the suit property. Learned First Appellate Court has rightly observed that when the sell could not be specifically performed by the appellants/defendants, there is no question of taking into consideration as to if respondents/plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed relian Kumar versus Anand Kumar and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 981 perusal of that judgment clearly shows that the same would not help the appellants in any manner. Para 6 and 7 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court is reproduced as under: “6. Admittedly, the initial agreement dated 26.09.1995 was executed by Defendant no. 1 Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned First Appellate Court has not taken into consideration that suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs on the last date of limitation and in such circumstances, the relief ought not to be granted on account of plaintiffs conduct. I have gone through the file carefully. It is not denied that the appellants/defendants were not owners of the entire property. Annexure A1-Agreement to Sell of land, which clearly show that Karnail Singh, Ajaib Singh, Amarjeet Singh has claimed themselves to be the owners in possession of suit land without any encumbrance and free from all disputes and litigations, so it been stated in the agreement to sell that Veer are also owners of the suit land to the extent of 1/12 undertaking on behalf of the appellants/defendants to get the sale deed executed of their share in favour of respondents/plaintiffs. So, it is clear sell was not capable of being performed specifically by the appellants/defendants due to defect in their title with regard to the suit property. earned First Appellate Court has rightly observed that when the be specifically performed by the appellants/defendants, there is no question of taking into consideration as to if respondents/plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed relian Kumar versus Anand Kumar and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 981 perusal of that judgment clearly shows that the same would not help the in any manner. Para 6 and 7 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court is reproduced as under:- 6. Admittedly, the initial agreement dated 26.09.1995 was executed by Defendant no. 1-Gajay Bahadur Bakshi. It is the case of the Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned First Appellate Court has not taken into consideration that suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs on the last date of limitation and in such circumstances, on account of plaintiffs conduct. I have gone through the file carefully. It is not denied that the appellants/defendants were not owners of greement to Sell of land, which is copy of that Karnail Singh, Ajaib Singh, Ranjit Singh and Amarjeet Singh has claimed themselves to be the owners in possession of suit land without any encumbrance and free from all disputes and litigations, so it Veerpal Kaur and Hardeep Kaur are also owners of the suit land to the extent of 1/12th share. There is no undertaking on behalf of the appellants/defendants to get the sale deed executed of their share in favour of respondents/plaintiffs. So, it is clear that agreement to performed specifically by the appellants/defendants due to defect in their title with regard to the suit property. earned First Appellate Court has rightly observed that when the agreement to be specifically performed by the appellants/defendants, there is no question of taking into consideration as to if respondents/plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon Rajesh Kumar versus Anand Kumar and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 981. The perusal of that judgment clearly shows that the same would not help the in any manner. Para 6 and 7 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court 6. Admittedly, the initial agreement dated 26.09.1995 was executed Gajay Bahadur Bakshi. It is the case of the Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned First Appellate Court has not taken into consideration that suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs on the last date of limitation and in such circumstances, It is not denied that the appellants/defendants were not owners of is copy of and Amarjeet Singh has claimed themselves to be the owners in possession of suit land without any encumbrance and free from all disputes and litigations, so it pal Kaur and Hardeep Kaur share. There is no undertaking on behalf of the appellants/defendants to get the sale deed executed that agreement to performed specifically by the appellants/defendants due to defect in their title with regard to the suit property. agreement to be specifically performed by the appellants/defendants, there is no question of taking into consideration as to if respondents/plaintiffs were ready Rajesh The perusal of that judgment clearly shows that the same would not help the in any manner. Para 6 and 7 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court 6. Admittedly, the initial agreement dated 26.09.1995 was executed Gajay Bahadur Bakshi. It is the case of the SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.08.21 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appellant/plaintiff that Gajay Bahadur Bakshi was the Power of Attorney Holder of Defendant nos. 2 to 11, the other co owners/ itself no where states that Gajay Bahadur Bakshi has executed the agreement as Attorney Holder of Defendant nos. 2 to 11. On the contrary, it is mentioned in the agreement that Gajay Bahadur Bakshi w registered by all the co registration. Neither the names of all the co khatedars are right in finding that all the co agreement. The subsequent endorsement of receipt of additional amount of Rs. 40,000/ The same is the condition with the 3rd agreement dated 26.12.1996 and the extension endorsement dated 27.03.1997 and 23.04.1997. Significantly, the so through which the defendant nos. 2 to 11 authorised defendant no. 1 to execute the agreement, have not been produced and pr Trial Court. Thus, neither in the agreement nor in course of trial the power of attorney is proved by tendering the same in evidence. Hence, in the absence of evidence, the High Court rightly held that the agreement is not signed by all the co 7. In the matter of Nadar all the co agreement, following is held in paras 29,30 & 31: “29. The facts in present case are distinguishable. Admittedly, the property has been jointly inherited by two brothers and three sisters. As heirs under the as co brothers together had undivided share in the property, and they could not have agreed for sale competent to execute agreement to the extent only of their undivided share in the property. In the event of sale of such undivided share, appellant/plaintiff that Gajay Bahadur Bakshi was the Power of Attorney Holder of Defendant nos. 2 to 11, the other co owners/coparceners of the suit property. However, the agreement itself no where states that Gajay Bahadur Bakshi has executed the agreement as Attorney Holder of Defendant nos. 2 to 11. On the contrary, it is mentioned in the agreement that Gajay Bahadur Bakshi would be responsible for getting the sale deed executed and registered by all the co- owners or co registration. Neither the names of all the co khatedars are mentioned in the agreement, thus, the High Court is right in finding that all the co- agreement. The subsequent endorsement of receipt of additional amount of Rs. 40,000/- is also not signed by all the co The same is the condition with the 3rd agreement dated 26.12.1996 and the extension endorsement dated 27.03.1997 and 23.04.1997. Significantly, the so-called power of attorney pleaded in the plaint through which the defendant nos. 2 to 11 authorised defendant no. 1 to execute the agreement, have not been produced and pr Trial Court. Thus, neither in the agreement nor in course of trial the power of attorney is proved by tendering the same in evidence. Hence, in the absence of evidence, the High Court rightly held that the agreement is not signed by all the co In the matter of Shanmughasundaram & Ors. Vs. Diravia Nadar (dead) by Lrs. & Anr.1, this Court has held that in the event all the co-sharers of the property have not executed the sale agreement, a suit for specific performance cannot be decreed. The following is held in paras 29,30 & 31: “29. The facts in present case are distinguishable. Admittedly, the property has been jointly inherited by two brothers and three sisters. As heirs under the Hindu Succession Act as co-owners. In the absence of partition between them, the two brothers together had undivided share in the property, and they could not have agreed for sale of the entire property. They were competent to execute agreement to the extent only of their undivided share in the property. In the event of sale of such undivided share, appellant/plaintiff that Gajay Bahadur Bakshi was the Power of Attorney Holder of Defendant nos. 2 to 11, the other co- coparceners of the suit property. However, the agreement itself no where states that Gajay Bahadur Bakshi has executed the agreement as Attorney Holder of Defendant nos. 2 to 11. On the contrary, it is mentioned in the agreement that Gajay Bahadur ould be responsible for getting the sale deed executed and owners or co-khatedars at the time of registration. Neither the names of all the co-owners/coparceners/co- mentioned in the agreement, thus, the High Court is -owners have not signed the agreement. The subsequent endorsement of receipt of additional is also not signed by all the co-parceners. The same is the condition with the 3rd agreement dated 26.12.1996 and the extension endorsement dated 27.03.1997 and 23.04.1997. called power of attorney pleaded in the plaint through which the defendant nos. 2 to 11 authorised defendant no. 1 to execute the agreement, have not been produced and proved in the Trial Court. Thus, neither in the agreement nor in course of trial the power of attorney is proved by tendering the same in evidence. Hence, in the absence of evidence, the High Court rightly held that the agreement is not signed by all the co-owners. Shanmughasundaram & Ors. Vs. Diravia (dead) by Lrs. & Anr.1, this Court has held that in the event sharers of the property have not executed the sale a suit for specific performance cannot be decreed. The following is held in paras 29,30 & 31: “29. The facts in present case are distinguishable. Admittedly, the property has been jointly inherited by two brothers and three sisters. Hindu Succession Act, they inherited the property owners. In the absence of partition between them, the two brothers together had undivided share in the property, and they of the entire property. They were competent to execute agreement to the extent only of their undivided share in the property. In the event of sale of such undivided share, appellant/plaintiff that Gajay Bahadur Bakshi was the Power of - coparceners of the suit property. However, the agreement itself no where states that Gajay Bahadur Bakshi has executed the agreement as Attorney Holder of Defendant nos. 2 to 11. On the contrary, it is mentioned in the agreement that Gajay Bahadur ould be responsible for getting the sale deed executed and khatedars at the time of - mentioned in the agreement, thus, the High Court is owners have not signed the agreement. The subsequent endorsement of receipt of additional parceners. The same is the condition with the 3rd agreement dated 26.12.1996 and the extension endorsement dated 27.03.1997 and 23.04.1997. called power of attorney pleaded in the plaint through which the defendant nos. 2 to 11 authorised defendant no. 1 oved in the Trial Court. Thus, neither in the agreement nor in course of trial the power of attorney is proved by tendering the same in evidence. Hence, in the absence of evidence, the High Court rightly held that Shanmughasundaram & Ors. Vs. Diravia (dead) by Lrs. & Anr.1, this Court has held that in the event sharers of the property have not executed the sale a suit for specific performance cannot be decreed. The “29. The facts in present case are distinguishable. Admittedly, the property has been jointly inherited by two brothers and three sisters. , they inherited the property owners. In the absence of partition between them, the two brothers together had undivided share in the property, and they of the entire property. They were competent to execute agreement to the extent only of their undivided share in the property. In the event of sale of such undivided share, SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.08.21 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the vendee would be required to file a suit for partition to work out his right in t having undivided share in the whole property, the two brothers are incompetent to abide by the award. 30. Learned counsel makes a reference to Relief Act, 1963 and submits that the arbitration agreement and consequent award should be allowed to be enforced to the extent of share of two brothers leaving the vendee to work out his right, if necessary, in case the sisters object to accordance with 31. Section 12 would absence of sisters being parties to the agreement, the vendee can at best obtain undivided interest of two brothers in the property. the vendee to obtain sale of undivided share of the two brothers with a right to force partition on the sisters who were not parties to the agreement of sale. Such a relief under obtained by a vendee, on purchase of an undivided share of the property of some of the co were not parties to the sale agreement.” 8. It is very clear that owners of the property agreed to be sold by them, the agreement in question was rightly held to be not executable in obtained by vendee on purchase of an undivided share of property of some of the co-owners against other co agreement. When such is the last date of limitation also would not help the appellants/defendants. Furthermore, now there is amendment in Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and once, it is proved on record that there is a valid agreement to sell and the plaintiff remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, then the vendee would be required to file a suit for partition to work out his right in the property. The left out three sisters as co having undivided share in the whole property, the two brothers are incompetent to abide by the award. 30. Learned counsel makes a reference to Relief Act, 1963 and submits that the arbitration agreement and consequent award should be allowed to be enforced to the extent of share of two brothers leaving the vendee to work out his right, if necessary, in case the sisters object to accordance with Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act. Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, in our considered opinion, would be of no assistance in the situation obtaining here. In the absence of sisters being parties to the agreement, the vendee can at best obtain undivided interest of two brothers in the property. Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act cannot be invoked by the vendee to obtain sale of undivided share of the two brothers with a right to force partition on the sisters who were not parties to the agreement of sale. Such a relief under obtained by a vendee, on purchase of an undivided share of the property of some of the co-owners, against other were not parties to the sale agreement.” It is very clear that when the appellants owners of the property agreed to be sold by them, the agreement in question was rightly held to be not executable in toto and relief under Section 12 cannot be obtained by vendee on purchase of an undivided share of property of some of owners against other co-owners, who are not parties to the sale When such is a position, then respondents/plaintiffs filing the last date of limitation also would not help the appellants/defendants. Furthermore, now there is amendment in Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and once, it is proved on record that there is a valid agreement to sell and the f remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, then the vendee would be required to file a suit for partition to work out he property. The left out three sisters as co-owners having undivided share in the whole property, the two brothers are 30. Learned counsel makes a reference to Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and submits that the arbitration agreement and consequent award should be allowed to be enforced to the extent of share of two brothers leaving the vendee to work out his right, if necessary, in case the sisters object to the sale, by a suit in of the Specific Relief Act. of the Specific Relief Act, in our considered opinion, be of no assistance in the situation obtaining here. In the absence of sisters being parties to the agreement, the vendee can at best obtain undivided interest of two brothers in the of the Specific Relief Act cannot be invoked by the vendee to obtain sale of undivided share of the two brothers with a right to force partition on the sisters who were not parties to the agreement of sale. Such a relief under Section 12 cannot be obtained by a vendee, on purchase of an undivided share of the owners, against other co-owners who were not parties to the sale agreement.” when the appellants/plaintiffs were not sole owners of the property agreed to be sold by them, the agreement in question was and relief under Section 12 cannot be obtained by vendee on purchase of an undivided share of property of some of owners, who are not parties to the sale a position, then respondents/plaintiffs filing the suit on the last date of limitation also would not help the appellants/defendants. Furthermore, now there is amendment in Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and once, it is proved on record that there is a valid agreement to sell and the f remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, then the vendee would be required to file a suit for partition to work out owners having undivided share in the whole property, the two brothers are of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and submits that the arbitration agreement and consequent award should be allowed to be enforced to the extent of share of two brothers leaving the vendee to work out his right, if the sale, by a suit in of the Specific Relief Act, in our considered opinion, be of no assistance in the situation obtaining here. In the absence of sisters being parties to the agreement, the vendee can at best obtain undivided interest of two brothers in the of the Specific Relief Act cannot be invoked by the vendee to obtain sale of undivided share of the two brothers with a right to force partition on the sisters who were not parties to the cannot be obtained by a vendee, on purchase of an undivided share of the owners who /plaintiffs were not sole owners of the property agreed to be sold by them, the agreement in question was and relief under Section 12 cannot be obtained by vendee on purchase of an undivided share of property of some of owners, who are not parties to the sale the suit on the last date of limitation also would not help the appellants/defendants. Furthermore, now there is amendment in Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 and once, it is proved on record that there is a valid agreement to sell and the f remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, then SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.08.21 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Court has to grant the relief of specific performance and the relief cannot be declined on the ground that the suit has been filed on the last date of limitation or on account of any ot 9. Once, it is proved on record that agreement to sell executed by appellants/defendants of appellants/defendants being not exclusive owners of the suit property, then, the equity is appellants/defendants cannot be allowed to retain the earnes to Rs.1,20,00,000/ by learned First Appellate Court, as such, th to be dismissed. 10. Ordered accordingly. 11. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. 19.08.2025 S. Pathania Whether reasoned / Whether reportable? Court has to grant the relief of specific performance and the relief cannot be declined on the ground that the suit has been filed on the last date of limitation or on account of any other hardship. Once, it is proved on record that agreement to sell executed by appellants/defendants was incapable of being specifically performed on account of appellants/defendants being not exclusive owners of the suit property, then, the equity is definitely in favour of respondents/plaintiffs and appellants/defendants cannot be allowed to retain the earnes to Rs.1,20,00,000/-. There is no illegality or infirmity in the finding by learned First Appellate Court, as such, the appeals have no merit and deserve to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No Court has to grant the relief of specific performance and the relief cannot be declined on the ground that the suit has been filed on the last date of limitation Once, it is proved on record that agreement to sell executed by was incapable of being specifically performed on account of appellants/defendants being not exclusive owners of the suit property, then, definitely in favour of respondents/plaintiffs and appellants/defendants cannot be allowed to retain the earnest money amounting . There is no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded e appeals have no merit and deserve A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No Court has to grant the relief of specific performance and the relief cannot be declined on the ground that the suit has been filed on the last date of limitation Once, it is proved on record that agreement to sell executed by was incapable of being specifically performed on account of appellants/defendants being not exclusive owners of the suit property, then, definitely in favour of respondents/plaintiffs and money amounting recorded e appeals have no merit and deserve SAURAV PATHANIA 2025.08.21 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document