IN THE HI 113 Vijay Singh & Manik Ram & CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, challenging th the suit filed performance consequential learned Courts 2. status before t 3. plaint are tha village Rewal possession of Panipat and ag of land situat District Panipa E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA h & Another Vs. & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr.Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for the appellants. *** PTA, J. The defendant is in seco g the concurrent findings returned led by the respondent/plaintiff for ce of Agreement to Sell date ntial relief of permanent injunction, urts below. The parties shall hereinaft ore the learned trial Court. Brief facts as averred by th that appellants-defendants Vijay S wali have represented themselve n of land situated in the area of agreed to sell 04 Kanal of land be tuated in the Revenue Area of Vil nipat comprised in Khewat No.1104 D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2201-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA cate second appeal before this Court ned by the Courts below whereby for possession by way of specific dated 10.06.2010, along with ion, has been decreed by both the inafter be referred to as per their y the respondents-plaintiffs in the jay Singh and Sudesh resident of selves that they are owners in of Village Patti Kalyana, District d being 2/5 share out of 09K-19 M f Village Patti Kalyana Tehsil and 1104/1069, Khatoni no.1155, Rect. 14 urt by ific ith he eir he of in ict M nd ct. SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document No.39, Killa No No.32, Killa N Kittas 3 again Sudesh had e agreement da to them as Rs.40,50,000/ agreement an son of Shri Ma and condition 09.12.2010 on agreed that in plaintiffs shal through the c plaintiffs, the execution of t agreed that s remain bound owner shall n execution and executed on p by the plaintif part of contra la No.2/2/1(3-19), Khewat No.2117/ la No. 21/2(0-10), 22/2/2(2-9), Re gainst total sale consideration of R ad entered into an agreement to t dated 10.06.2010. At that time a as earnest money out of the 00/-. A separate receipt has also t and the same was signed by both i Mahabir and Manoj son of Mahind tions of this agreement to sell sale 0 on receipt of balance sale consid at in the event of refusal on the shall have a right to get this agr he court of Law and in the event the earnest money of Rs.8,00,0 of the agreement would stand forf at successor in interest/ legal he ound by the terms and conditions all not create any sort of encumbr and registration of the sale dee on payment of expenses of stamp intiffs. The plaintiffs have been willi ntract and has been tendering bala 117/2048, Khatoni No.2205, Rect. , Rect. No.39, Killa No.2/1. (3-1), of Rs.40,50,000/-. Vijay Singh and t to sell with the plaintiffs vide e a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- was paid the total sale consideration of also been executed along with both of them as well as Jai Karan hinder as Witnesses. As per terms sale deed was to be executed on nsideration. It was also mutually the part of the defendants, the agreement specifically enforced ent of failure on the part of the 00,000/ - given at the time of forfeited. It was further mutually l heirs of both the parties shall tions of this agreement and the mbrances over the suit lands till deed. The sale deed was to be mp duty and registration charges willing and ready to perform their balance sale consideration to the 14 ct. 1), nd ide aid of ith an ms on lly he ed he of lly all he till be es eir he SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document defendants, bu did not come 10.06.2010. T along with the 09.12.2010. Th office of Sub and plaintiffs Magistrate Sa on behalf of th registration of notice and re Registered AD still ready and 10.06.2010. Th 22.04.2012 wi in favour of th notice with in the defendant clearly mentio has been obt present in the their part of ag paying the ba ts, but for the reasons best known t ome forward to perform their par 0. The plaintiffs were present wit the expenses of execution and re 0. The plaintiffs kept on waiting for ub Registrar, Samalkha on 09.12.2 tiffs got an affidavit attested to th e Samalkha on 09.12.2010. The pla of the defendants through advocat n of sale deed within a period of 15 d reply of the same has been sen AD on 05.01.2011 and it was req and willing to perform their par 0. The plaintiffs again served a lega 2 with the request to get the sale of the plaintiffs within a period of 3 intimation to the plaintiffs. Repl dants on 31.05.2011 through their ntioned that necessary permission obtained vide order dated 15.04.2 the office of Sub-Registrar, Samalk of agreement for execution and reg balance sale consideration. It has n to them defendants no.1 and 2 part of agreement to sell dated with remaining balance amount d registration of the sale deed on for the defendants to come in the 12.2010 but they did not turn up to this effect from the Executive plaintiffs received a legal notice ocate regarding the execution and of 15 days from the receipt of this sent to their advocate through requested that the plaintiffs are part of agreement to sell dated legal notice to the defendants on ale deed executed and registered of 30 days from the receipt of this Reply to said notice was given by their advocate in which they had ion to sell the share of the minors .04.2008 and requested to come malkha on 01.07.2011 to perform registration of the sale deed after has been further averred that on 14 d 2 ed nt on he up ive ice nd his gh are ed on ed his by ad ors me rm ter on SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 01.07.2011, th Samalkha alon the sale deed necessary stam again served a to get the sa within a perio requested to registration of the defendan 10.06.2010 in the plaintiffs with the req registration of the defendant this effect from the present su 4. filed written s of the pleadin 1, the plaintiffs remained present alongwith necessary expenses for eed and balance sale consideration. stamp papers of Rs.1,12,500/- on ed a legal notice to the defendants e sale deed executed and register period of 30 days from the receip to intimate the plaintiffs reg n of the sale deed as per the conve dants failed to perform their part 0 intentionally and knowingly. It h iffs again sent a reminder to the request to come present on 25 n of the sale deed after receiving b dants did not appear, and the plaint from the Executive Magistrate, Sam t suit. Upon notice, the appellan en statement contesting the suit on adings of the parties, following issue “(i) Whether the plaintiff is read part of the agreement to sell date (ii) If the issue no.1 is proved, whe specific performance of the agree ent in the office of Sub-Registrar, for execution and registration of ion. The plaintiffs have withdrawn on the same date. The plaintiffs ants on 28.03.2012 with a request istered in favour of the plaintiffs eceipt of this notice and further regarding the execution and nvenience of the defendants. But part of agreement to sell dated It has been further averred that the defendants dated 07.05.2012 25.05.2012 for execution and ng balance sale consideration. But laintiffs got an affidavit attested to , Samalkha on 25.05.2012. Hence, ellants/defendants appeared and it on various grounds. On the basis ssues were framed: - ready and willing to perform his dated 10.06.2017? OPP , whether the plaintiff is entitled to greement to sell dated 10.06.2010 14 ar, of wn iffs est iffs er nd ut ed at 12 nd ut to ce, nd sis his to 10 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fo 5. adduced by th decreed the su 6. the learned Ad decree dated affirmed. 7. vehemently su appellants we that the lear defendants did to Sell dated 1 the defendant on 01.07.2011 that the defe amount of Rs and consequential relief of perm for? OPP (iii) Whether the suit is not main OPD (iv) Whether plaintiff has no caus suit? OPD (v) Relief.” On the basis of oral a y the parties, the learned Civil Jud e suit of the plaintiff vide judgment The appellants filed Civil A d Additional District Judge, Panipat ted 23.08.2017, the judgment of Learned counsel for ly submits that from the record of t were ready and willing to execute t learned Courts below have inco s did not come forward to perform ted 10.06.2010. It is submitted tha dants had come present in the offic 011 for execution of the Sale Deed. defendants had admittedly purch f Rs.10/- which is proven from th permanent injunction, as prayed maintainable in the present form? cause of action to file the present al and documentary evidence il Judge, Junior Division, Panipat ent dated 29.11.2014. vil Appeal No.136 of 2014 before ipat; wherein vide judgment and of the learned trial Court was r the appellants-defendants of the case, it is patent that the ute the Sale Deed. It is submitted incorrectly concluded that the orm their part of the Agreement that it is proven on record that office of Sub-Registrar, Samalkha eed. This is evident from the fact urchased stamp paper for an the testimony of DW3/Stamp 14 ed m? ent SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Vendor, who w record that th executed the perform their Moreover, the totally failed independent w contended tha are against th and non-appli reliable evide sustainable in 8. appellants. 9. perused the ca 10. present appea not yet been appearance o 05.03.2020. Th 21.04.2023. E ho was examined by the defendant at the defendants had gone to th the Affidavit. In fact, it is the plain heir part of the contract along with , the Courts below have failed to co led to prove the Agreement to S nt witness has been examined to that the findings of both the Cou t the facts and law and based on pplication of judicious mind and a vidence and thus, findings of both e in the eyes of law and liable to be No other argument is I have heard learned cou e case file in great detail. At the very outset, it ma ppeal pertains to the year 2018. Ho een issued as the matter has be e of learned counsel for the app 0. Thereafter, the appeal was dismi 3. Even after restoration of the m dants. It is also admitted fact on o the Tehsil on 01.07.2011 and laintiffs who did not turn up to with balance sale consideration. o consider that the plaintiffs had to Sell dated 10.06.2010 as no d to prove the Agreement. It is Courts below on various issues on assumptions, presumptions d are not based on cogent and both the Courts below are not be set aside. is raised on behalf of the counsel for the appellants and t may be pointed out that the . However, notice of motion has s been adjourned due to non- appellants on 17.12.2019 and ismissed for non-prosecution on e matter on 31.08.2023, it was 14 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document adjourned at r and 20.03.202 11. admitted. It always ready a submitted tha the office of 01.07.2011 to learned couns had issued sta Affidavit Ex.DW 12. the basis of th they were pre willingness to not convincin Moreover, it w been admitted that even pre 1.7.2011. 13. presence in th at request of learned counsel for th .2024 and due to non-appearance On merits, the Agreeme It is the case of the appellants/ dy and willing to perform their par that it is for this reason that the of Sub-Registrar on the mutu 1 to perform their part for executio unsel has referred to the testimony stamp paper for Rs.10/- on which t x.DW3/A. A perusal of the entire rec of this Affidavit Ex.DW3/A that the d present in the Tehsil on 1.7.2011, in s to perform the agreement in que incing as admittedly, the said A it was executed on stamp paper itted by learned Counsel for the d presence of the defendants was n On the other hand, the in the Tehsil on 1.7.2011 on the bas or the appellants on 11.09.2023, ce on 26.09.2024. ement in question/Ex. P-1 is nts/defendants that they were part of the contract. It has been he the defendant was present in utually agreed upon date of cution of Sale Deed. In support, ony of DW3/Stamp Vendor who ich the defendants had tendered record reveals that it is only on he defendants are asserting that 1, indicating their readiness and question. However, the same is id Affidavit was not attested. per of only ₹10; and it has also he defendants before this Court as not marked in the Tehsil on the plaintiffs have proved their basis of cogent evidence in the 14 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document form of the 1,12,500/-, wh 14. that at no stag to execute th findings of the dated 29.11.20 fil he stamp papers purchased by t , which are on record as Ex. PW/1/2 In fact, the record is reple stage did the defendants exhibit th e the Sale Deed or perform the c f the learned trial Court as recorded 1.2014 are imperative, and which re “13. Perusal of the file shows th agreement to sell dated 10.06.2 parties for the total sale conside of which the sum of Rs.8 lacs w Vijay Singh and defendants no.2 S this regard plaintiff has tendered agreement to sell. On the said a Vijay Singh, Sudesh Devi, Manik R Signatures of two witnesses Jai K there. The receipt regarding earn written on the same date whic agreement the date for execution 09.12.2010. But on that date plaintiffs Manik Ram and Rohit w file which is the affidavit of atte Registrar, Samalkha which i Magistrate, Samalkha. In this reg the plea that on 09.12.2010 p registration and execution of th remaining sale consideration and by the plaintiffs to the defend examination defendant no.1 has s y them for an amount of Rs. /1/2/8. replete with evidence indicating it their readiness and willingness he contract. In this regard, the rded in Para 13 of the judgment ich reads as under: - ws that it is admitted fact that .06.2010 was entered between sideration of Rs.40,50,000/- out cs was paid to defendant no.1 o.2 Sudesh as earnest money. In ered the Ex. P1 which is alleged aid agreement the signatures of nik Ram and Rohit were present. Jai Karan and Manoj were also earnest money of Rs.8 lacs was which is Ex.P2. As per the said ution of sale deed was fixed on ate only the affidavit of the hit which his Ex.P3 is placed on attendance in the office of Sub h is attested by Executive is regard defendants have taken 10 plaintiffs are not ready for f the sale deed due to lack of and this fact was also informed fendants. Further in his cross- has stated that they went to the 14 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fa Tehsil on 09.12.2010 for execution fact was told by plaintiffs to them the time of one week and the def marking there presence in th defendants again sent the legal n 20.12.2010 for execution and reg dated 10.06.2010 but in that not version is written by the defend defendants that if they went to they got their presence marked Samalkha and mere oral version on that day does not hold any v on the fixed date i.e. 09.12.201 willing to execute and registe defendants have failed to prov also ready and willing on that day 05.01.2011 to the legal notice 20.12.2010 plaintiffs have mentio settled between the parties t registration of the sale deed necessary permission from the c the share of the minors. In thi giving the reply to the legal no 22.04.2011 in Ex.P11 have stat obtained the permission to sell th the court of Sh. Jagjit Singh, the th Panipat vide order dated 15.04.20 the time of the entering the ag have not disclosed this fact to the mentioned this fact in the agr Since, it is admitted fact on the ution of sale deed but when this them then the plaintiffs sought e defendants came back without n the Tehsil. Thereafter, the gal notice to the plaintiffs dated d registration of the agreement t notice which is Ex. P4 no such efendants. It is the duty of the t to Tehsil on 09.12.2010 then rked before the Sub Registrar, sion that they were also present ny value. Meaning thereby that 2.2010 plaintiffs are ready and gister the sale deed but the proved to show that they are t day. Further, in the reply dated otice of the defendants dated entioned that it has been orally es that before execution and eed defendants were obtained he competent court to alienate n this regard defendants while l notice of the plaintiffs dated stated that they have already ell the share of the minors from the then Civil Judge (Sr. Division), 04.2008 Meaning thereby that at e agreement to sell defendants o the plaintiffs neither they have agreement dated 10.06.2010. the part of the defendants that 14 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fix they have obtained the permissio the share of the minors therefo counsel for the defendants that t attached to the agreement to se enforced does not hold any value notice and reply to each other, 0 defendants to get execute and re paying the balance sale conside plaintiffs went to the Tehsil and p of Rs. 1,12,500/-, which are Ex. date defendants have also got th Tehsil and in this regard the Ex.DW3/A. If both the parties Complex on 01.07.2011 then no re have not met with each other or executed on the said date. Whe admitted on the part of the both whether the parties are ready a part of agreement is to be se necessary that the buyer are pr aspect is to be proved by party specific perform of the contract. F the plaintiffs to tender the defen any money except when they ar contract which involves the paym view this fact plaintiffs have willingness to perform their par marked their presence in the Te fixed for executing and registering ission from the Court for selling erefore the plea of the learned hat the interest of the minors is to sell and the same cannot be value. Further, after giving legal er, 01.07.2011 was fixed by the nd registered the sale deed after nsideration. On that date also and purchased the stamp papers Ex. PW/1/2/8 and on the said ot their presence marked in the they have tendered affidavit ties were present in the Tehsil no reason is given that why they er or why the sale deed was not When the agreement to sell is both the parties then the aspect dy and willing to perform their e seen. Further, it is also not e present with money and this arty who wants to enforce the act. Further, it is not essential for efendants or to deposit to court ey are directed by the Court in payment of money. Keeping in ve showed his readiness and r part of agreement by getting e Tehsil on 09.12.2010 i.e date ering the sale deed.” 14 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15. date set by execution of S record Affidav Registrar, Sam Samalkha. On in his cross-ex in the Tehsil. 16. permission to granted as far Deed dated 1 found that the the Sale Deed sell the share o 17. plaintiffs had whereas altho Tehsil on 01.0 said Affidavit w to why, when why was the S defendants w From the above facts, it is by the parties and agreed upon of Sale Deed was 09.12.2010. Plain fidavit (Ex.P3) to prove their atten Samalkha which was also atteste . On the other hand, it has been adm examination that presence of the sil. It further remains undis n to alienate shares of the defend s far back as in 2008. However, ther d 10.06.2010 to this effect; and o t the defendants had prevaricated a eed on the ground that permissio are of the minors. It has further been found had purchased stamp papers of R although the defendants have ma 01.07.2011 vide their Affidavit (Ex.D vit was not attested. Moreover, the hen both the parties were present in the Sale Deed not executed. Accord ts were unable to give satisfacto it is clear that initially the target upon between the parties for laintiffs had duly placed on their ttendance in the office of Sub- ested by Executing Magistrate, admitted by the defendant No.1 the defendants was not marked ndisputed on record that the endants who were minors, was there was no writing in the Sale nd on the contrary it has been ed and delayed the execution of ssion had yet to be obtained to und that on 01.07.2011 also the of Rs.1,12,500/- (Ex.PW/1/2/8); marked their presence in the Ex.DW3/A), however, admittedly , there is no explanation given as nt in the Tehsil on the said date, cordingly, even in appeal as the factory evidence proving their 14 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document readiness and as under: - and willingness, the learned First A “23. So far as the readiness and the suit to perform their part of t as reflected in agreement to sell E to be executed and registered o no.1 and 2-plaintiffs have placed attested by Executive Magistr wherein they have deposed t remained present in the Office of get the sale deed registered defendants/vendors did not turn duly proved by PW3 Ramesh Samalkha who has identified t Executive Magistrate, Samalkha o is no evidence on file on behalf o no.1 and 2 to prove that they w Sub Registrar, Samalkha on 09.12 of the agreement. It is an adm defendants. and performa respo served legal notice Ex.P4/Ex.D3 up plaintiffs alleging that they rema Sub Registrar, Samalkha on 09.1 no.1 and 2-plaintiffs did not turn the agreement. Vide said notice plaintiffs were called upon to get registered in their favour within notice. Said notice was replied b on behalf of the respondents no. dated 05.01.2011 Ex.P5. Appellan st Appellate Court has observed and willingness of the parties to t of the agreement is concerned, sell Ex.P1, sale deed was agreed ed on 09.12.2010. Respondents laced on file affidavit Ex.P3 duly gistrate Samalkha 09.12.2010 ed that on 09.12.2010, they ce of Sub Registrar, Samalkha to ered in their favour but the turn up. Affidavit Ex.P3 has been eshwar, Reader to Tehsildar ed the signatures of the then kha on affidavit Ex.P3. But there alf of the appellants-defendants ey were present in the office of 09.12.2010 to perform their part admitted fact that appellants- espondent no.3-defendant no.4 D3 upon respondents no.1 and 2- emained present in the Office of 09.12.2010 but the respondents turn up to perform their part of otice, respondents no.1 and 2- get the sale deed executed and ithin 15 days of the receipt of ied by Shri R.S.Jaglan, Advocate s no.1 and 2-plaintiffs vide reply ellants-defendants no.1 and 2 in 14 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document their reply dated 31.05.2011 E 22.04.2011 of the respondents upon them to come present in t Samalkha on 01.07.2011 to p agreement after payment of the Appellants-defendants no.1 and affidavit Ex.DW3/A showing thei Sub Registrar, Samalkha on 01.0 affidavit is neither attested by Samalkha nor by any Notary Therefore, such self-serving docu consideration whereas on the ot and 2-plaintiffs have placed on fi to Ex.PW2/8 worth Rs.1,12,500/ Thus, the purchase of the said st prove that on 01.07.2011, respon were ready and willing to get t registered in their favour. Admi purchased by one Sachin but it do as to who has purchased the stam have been purchased in the name plaintiff no.1). It is also correct t purchased for the registration of t of Rs.22,50,000/- whereas the sa land was Rs.40,50,000/- as reflec a matter of common knowledg registered as per the circle rate sale consideration mentioned in th be the agreed sale price of the la evidence has been brought o defendants no.1 and 2 to pro 1 Ex.P11 to the notice dated nts no.1 and 2-plaintiffs called t in the Office of Sub Registrar, to perform their part of the f the balance sale consideration. and 2 have placed on file their presence in the Office of 01.07.2011 but the said Badle by the Executive Magistrate, tary or Oath Commissioner. document can not be taken into e other side, respondents. no.1 on file stamp papers Ex. PW2/1 500/- purchased on 01.07.2011. id stamp papers further goes to espondents no.1 and 2-plaintiffs et the sale deed executed and Admittedly, stamp papers were it does not make any difference stamp papers. The stamp papers ame of Manik Ram (respondent- ect that the stamp papers were n of the sale deed for an amount he sale consideration of the suit eflected in agreement Ex.P1. It is ledge that the sale deeds are rate of the district whereas the in the agreement to sell used to he land between the parties. No t on file by the appellants- prove that the stamp papers 14 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18. or controver explanation fo 19. 20. 15.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo Ex.PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/8 were transaction. Thus, the purchase o 01.07.2011 further makes it clea and 2-plaintiffs were ready and w of the agreement.” Learned counsel for the ap vert the above said evidence, n for the same. In view of the above, prese Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No were meant for some other ase of the said stamp papers on clear that the respondents no.1 nd willing to perform their part e appellants is unable to dispute nce, or give any satisfactory resent appeal is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 14 SUNENA 2025.01.21 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document