RSA No.5123 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 111 Jarnail Singh Charanjit Singh and others CORAM: Present: AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL C.M. No.1558 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading respondents No.9 and 10 as contesting respondents, being necessary parties for just and adjudication of the case. and 10 submits that 29.11.2007 they are nec 5123 of 2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. Date of Decision: Jarnail Singh Vs Singh and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate Ms. Shagun, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate Ms. Shalini Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Gaurav Tangri, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Ms. Shusma Chopra, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 8. Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for applicants- proposed respondents No.9 and 10. -.- AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL J. (ORAL) 1558-C of 2024 The instant application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading respondents No.9 and 10 as contesting respondents, being necessary parties for just and adjudication of the case. Learned counsel for the applicants and 10 submits that the applicants herein being bona fide purchasers against consideration they are necessary party for proper adjudication of the case. It is further IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.5123 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision:15.09.2025 ...Appellant ...Respondents AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate Ms. Shusma Chopra, Advocate Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate proposed respondents No.9 and 10. (ORAL) The instant application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading respondents No.9 and 10 as contesting respondents, being necessary parties for just and proper Learned counsel for the applicants-proposed respondents No.9 the applicants herein had purchased the property on purchasers against consideration and, therefore, essary party for proper adjudication of the case. It is further The instant application has been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading respondents No.9 and 10 as proper proposed respondents No.9 had purchased the property on and, therefore, essary party for proper adjudication of the case. It is further PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.5123 submitted that the applicants acted in good faith as they did not have knowledge of prior agreement to sell and thus, they could not be bound by the agreement to sell. In support of his cont judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shakuntla and others 2025(2) RCR (Civil) 483. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dubey 2000(2) RCR (Civil) 2 others (2018) 11 SCC 761 of vendee is available to all defendants in a suit for specific performance including subsequent and 10 also submits that the plaintiff readiness and willingness of his contention, relies upon various judicial precedents. applicant/respondent No.1 submits that a transferee entitled to come on record as a matter of right and for the said purpose, fact and circumstances of each case should be gone into. There is no absolute rule that such a transferee matter of right. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supre Prabhakar and others 2025(1) RCR (Civil) 875. entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, who alienated the 5123 of 2018 -2- submitted that the applicants acted in good faith as they did not have knowledge of prior agreement to sell and thus, they could not be bound by the agreement to sell. In support of his cont judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shakuntla and others 2025(2) RCR (Civil) 483. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Awadh (dead) by LRs 2000(2) RCR (Civil) 2 and B. Vijaya Bharathi Vs. P. Savitri and others (2018) 11 SCC 761 to contend that plea of readiness and willingness of vendee is available to all defendants in a suit for specific performance including subsequent vendee and vendor itself. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that the plaintiff had readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and in support contention, relies upon various judicial precedents. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the non applicant/respondent No.1 submits that a transferee entitled to come on record as a matter of right and for the said purpose, fact and circumstances of each case should be gone into. There is no absolute rule that such a transferee pendente lite is entitled to come on record as a matter of right. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H. Anjanappa and others Vs. A. Prabhakar and others 2025(1) RCR (Civil) 875. Heard. It is admitted fact that the agreement to sell in question was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, who alienated the submitted that the applicants acted in good faith as they did not have knowledge of prior agreement to sell and thus, they could not be bound by the agreement to sell. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Usha Rani Vs. Shakuntla and others 2025(2) RCR (Civil) 483. Further reliance is placed upon the judgments passed by the Ram Awadh (dead) by LRs Vs. Achhairbar B. Vijaya Bharathi Vs. P. Savitri and contend that plea of readiness and willingness of vendee is available to all defendants in a suit for specific performance vendee and vendor itself. Learned counsel for the applicants-proposed respondents No.9 had miserably failed to prove his to perform his part of the contract and in support contention, relies upon various judicial precedents. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the non applicant/respondent No.1 submits that a transferee pendente lite is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right and for the said purpose, fact and circumstances of each case should be gone into. There is no absolute is entitled to come on record as a matter of right. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment H. Anjanappa and others Vs. A. Prabhakar and others 2025(1) RCR (Civil) 875. It is admitted fact that the agreement to sell in question was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, who alienated the submitted that the applicants acted in good faith as they did not have knowledge of prior agreement to sell and thus, they could not be bound by ention, he relies upon the Usha Rani Vs. passed by the Vs. Achhairbar B. Vijaya Bharathi Vs. P. Savitri and contend that plea of readiness and willingness of vendee is available to all defendants in a suit for specific performance proposed respondents No.9 his to perform his part of the contract and in support Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the non- is not entitled to come on record as a matter of right and for the said purpose, facts and circumstances of each case should be gone into. There is no absolute is entitled to come on record as a matter of right. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment H. Anjanappa and others Vs. A. It is admitted fact that the agreement to sell in question was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, who alienated the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.5123 different parcels o sale deeds present suit was registered as Suit No.142 dated 09.05.2007 and applicants/proposed respondents No.9 & 10 are stated to property on 29.11.2007 i.e. after filing of the suit. Though the vendor and subsequent purchaser No.1, all remaining defendants and in the ap defendant No.1 was also proceeded against decided only on the submissions of the plaintiff and 10 are purchasers from the vendor purchasers from the subsequent purchasers and thus, from defendants No.2 to 8, who are purchasers from defendant No.1 i.e. the original vendor, who entered into agree plaintiff. There is no dispute to the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants that plea of readiness and willingness is available to all defendants in a suit for specific performance including subsequent vendee and vendor itself. this Court, the position is different. The subsequent purchasers in the present case are defendants No.2 to 8 of bona fide they remained Appellate Court for the reasons best known to them the sale deeds as mentioned above is declared illegal, title of applicants proposed respondents No.9 and 10 would automatically become 5123 of 2018 -3- different parcels of suit property in favour of defendants Nos.2 and 8 vide sale deeds No.944, 945 and 946 on the same date i.e. 21.08.2006. The present suit was registered as Suit No.142 dated 09.05.2007 and applicants/proposed respondents No.9 & 10 are stated to property on 29.11.2007 i.e. after filing of the suit. Though the vendor and subsequent purchasers were made parties to the suit except vendor No.1, all remaining defendants i.e. subsequent purchasers and in the appeal before the learned 1st defendant No.1 was also proceeded against decided only on the submissions of the plaintiff It is not the case that the applicants and 10 are purchasers from the vendor purchasers from the subsequent purchasers and thus, defendants No.2 to 8, who are purchasers from defendant No.1 i.e. the original vendor, who entered into agreement to sell in question with the There is no dispute to the ratio decidendi judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants that plea of readiness and willingness is available to all defendants in a suit for specific performance including subsequent vendee and vendor itself. urt, the position is different. The subsequent purchasers in the present case are defendants No.2 to 8 and they had no bar in raising bona fide purchasers as well as readiness and willingness of plaintiff they remained ex parte both before the learned trial Court and Appellate Court for the reasons best known to them the sale deeds as mentioned above is declared illegal, title of applicants proposed respondents No.9 and 10 would automatically become f suit property in favour of defendants Nos.2 and 8 vide 944, 945 and 946 on the same date i.e. 21.08.2006. The present suit was registered as Suit No.142 dated 09.05.2007 and applicants/proposed respondents No.9 & 10 are stated to have purchased the property on 29.11.2007 i.e. after filing of the suit. Though the vendor and were made parties to the suit except vendor-defendant i.e. subsequent purchasers remained ex parte st Appellate Court, even vendor defendant No.1 was also proceeded against ex parte and the appeal was decided only on the submissions of the plaintiff-appellant. It is not the case that the applicants-proposed respondents No.9 and 10 are purchasers from the vendor-defendant No.1 but they are purchasers from the subsequent purchasers and thus, they have derived title defendants No.2 to 8, who are purchasers from defendant No.1 i.e. the ment to sell in question with the ratio decidendi culled out from the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants that plea of readiness and willingness is available to all defendants in a suit for specific performance including subsequent vendee and vendor itself. But here before urt, the position is different. The subsequent purchasers in the and they had no bar in raising the plea purchasers as well as readiness and willingness of plaintiff but the learned trial Court and the learned 1 Appellate Court for the reasons best known to them. If their title based on the sale deeds as mentioned above is declared illegal, title of applicants proposed respondents No.9 and 10 would automatically become illegal. f suit property in favour of defendants Nos.2 and 8 vide 944, 945 and 946 on the same date i.e. 21.08.2006. The present suit was registered as Suit No.142 dated 09.05.2007 and the property on 29.11.2007 i.e. after filing of the suit. Though the vendor and defendant ex parte Appellate Court, even vendor- and the appeal was proposed respondents No.9 defendant No.1 but they are they have derived title defendants No.2 to 8, who are purchasers from defendant No.1 i.e. the ment to sell in question with the culled out from the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants that plea of readiness and willingness is available to all defendants in a suit for specific But here before urt, the position is different. The subsequent purchasers in the the plea but the learned 1st . If their title based on the sale deeds as mentioned above is declared illegal, title of applicants- illegal. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.5123 Thus, applicants parties nor proper parties, as defendants No.2 to 8, who did not even turn up to fight for before the learn the applicants stage to fight for the cause of defendants No.2 to 8 not seek impleadment before the learned tria Appellate Court. appellant-defendant No.1 succeeds then the rights of defendants No.2 to 8 would automatically be protected and so of the applicants respondents No.9 a defendant No.1 are before this Court and are being represented through counsels, as such they would impliedly espouse the case of applicants/proposed respondent No.9 and 10 in their arguments. Furthermore, respondents No.9 and 10 after filing of the suit by the respondent No.1 plaintiff, doct not find any ground to implead the applicants herein as respondents No.9 and 10 in the present appeal. Resultantly, the application stands dismissed. RSA No.5123 1. appellant-defendant passed by the learned 1 respondent No.1 5123 of 2018 -4- Thus, applicants-proposed respondents No.9 and 10 are neither the necessary parties nor proper parties, as title of applicants defendants No.2 to 8, who did not even turn up to fight for before the learned trial Court or before the learned 1 the applicants-proposed defendants No.9 and 10 cannot be allowed at stage to fight for the cause of defendants No.2 to 8 not seek impleadment before the learned tria Appellate Court. In other words, if in the appeal before this Court, defendant No.1 succeeds then the rights of defendants No.2 to 8 would automatically be protected and so of the applicants respondents No.9 and 10. The subsequent purchasers from vendor defendant No.1 are before this Court and are being represented through s, as such they would impliedly espouse the case of applicants/proposed respondent No.9 and 10 in their arguments. Furthermore, since the suit property was purchased by applicants/proposed respondents No.9 and 10 after filing of the suit by the respondent No.1 plaintiff, doctrine of lis pendens is also applicable in the present case. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstanc not find any ground to implead the applicants herein as respondents No.9 and 10 in the present appeal. Resultantly, the application stands dismissed. 5123 of 2018 (O&M) The instant regular second appeal has been preferred by defendant No.1 against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No.1-plaintiff has been allowed and while setting aside the proposed respondents No.9 and 10 are neither the necessary of applicants survives on the title of defendants No.2 to 8, who did not even turn up to fight for the same; either ed trial Court or before the learned 1st Appellate Court and proposed defendants No.9 and 10 cannot be allowed at this stage to fight for the cause of defendants No.2 to 8 especially when they did not seek impleadment before the learned trial Court or the learned 1 In other words, if in the appeal before this Court, defendant No.1 succeeds then the rights of defendants No.2 to 8 would automatically be protected and so of the applicants-proposed The subsequent purchasers from vendor defendant No.1 are before this Court and are being represented through s, as such they would impliedly espouse the case of applicants/proposed respondent No.9 and 10 in their arguments. since the suit property was purchased by applicants/proposed respondents No.9 and 10 after filing of the suit by the respondent No.1 is also applicable in the present case. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to implead the applicants herein as respondents No.9 and 10 in the present appeal. Resultantly, the application stands dismissed. The instant regular second appeal has been preferred by the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018 Appellate Court whereby the appeal preferred by plaintiff has been allowed and while setting aside the proposed respondents No.9 and 10 are neither the necessary of either Appellate Court and this especially when they did l Court or the learned 1st In other words, if in the appeal before this Court, defendant No.1 succeeds then the rights of defendants No.2 to 8 proposed The subsequent purchasers from vendor- defendant No.1 are before this Court and are being represented through s, as such they would impliedly espouse the case of applicants/proposed respondent No.9 and 10 in their arguments. since the suit property was purchased by applicants/proposed respondents No.9 and 10 after filing of the suit by the respondent No.1- es, this Court does not find any ground to implead the applicants herein as respondents No.9 the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018 Appellate Court whereby the appeal preferred by plaintiff has been allowed and while setting aside the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.5123 judgment and decree dated 15.07.2013 passed by the learned trial Court, of respondent No.1 of agreement to sell dated 17.06.2004 with resp decreed. 2. terms of their original status before the learned trial Court. 3. possession of the suit land fully detailed in agreement to sell dated 17.6.2004 bighas 8 biswas along situated at village Kup transaction for the sale arranged by Harjinder Singh son of Harbhajan Singh Chahal resident of Model Town Extension, Ludhiana and Dinesh Kumar son of Jagdish resident of Jawahar Nagar, Ahmedgarh. to pay 2% commission to both the of execution of agreement to sell dated 17.6.2004 received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ Rs.1,00,000/ of Rs.1,00,000/ 24.6.2004 for Rs.1 Ludhiana. The defendant N Rs.1,00,000/ the sale deed was balance sale consideration and at the expenses of the plaintiff. It was also agreed between the 5123 of 2018 -5- judgment and decree dated 15.07.2013 passed by the learned trial Court, of respondent No.1-plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.06.2004 with resp For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred their original status before the learned trial Court. In brief the facts are that possession of the suit land fully detailed in agreement to sell dated 17.6.2004, he agreed to sell the land measuring 12 bighas 8 biswas along with all other rights appurtenant to the said land situated at village Kup, Tehsil Malerkotla @ Rs.2,26,000/ transaction for the sale of the suit land by defendant N arranged by Harjinder Singh son of Harbhajan Singh Chahal resident of Model Town Extension, Ludhiana and Dinesh Kumar son of Jagdish resident of Jawahar Nagar, Ahmedgarh. The parties to the ins pay 2% commission to both the aforesaid of execution of agreement to sell dated 17.6.2004 received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff i.e. 1,00,000/- in cash, one cheque No.427445 dated 16.6.2004 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on UCO Bank, Alamgir and another cheque dated 24.6.2004 for Rs.1,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, B Ludhiana. The defendant No.1 also agreed to receive a furthe Rs.1,00,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff on or before 8.7.2004 the sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.7.2005 after receipt of balance sale consideration and at the expenses of the plaintiff. It was also agreed between the parties that the possession of the suit land shall be judgment and decree dated 15.07.2013 passed by the learned trial Court, suit plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.06.2004 with respect to suit property has been For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to in their original status before the learned trial Court. that defendant No.1 was owner in possession of the suit land fully detailed in head note of the plaint and vide agreed to sell the land measuring 12 with all other rights appurtenant to the said land Tehsil Malerkotla @ Rs.2,26,000/- per bigha. The of the suit land by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff was arranged by Harjinder Singh son of Harbhajan Singh Chahal resident of Model Town Extension, Ludhiana and Dinesh Kumar son of Jagdish Chand he parties to the instant suit agreed aforesaid commission agents. At the time of execution of agreement to sell dated 17.6.2004, the defendant No.1 as earnest money from the plaintiff i.e. o.427445 dated 16.6.2004 for an amount drawn on UCO Bank, Alamgir and another cheque dated drawn on ICICI Bank, Branch Shastri Nagar, o.1 also agreed to receive a further amount of as earnest money from the plaintiff on or before 8.7.2004 and or before 15.7.2005 after receipt of balance sale consideration and at the expenses of the plaintiff. It was also parties that the possession of the suit land shall be suit plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance to suit property has been to in o.1 was owner in vide agreed to sell the land measuring 12 with all other rights appurtenant to the said land he was arranged by Harjinder Singh son of Harbhajan Singh Chahal resident of Chand agreed commission agents. At the time , the defendant No.1 as earnest money from the plaintiff i.e. o.427445 dated 16.6.2004 for an amount drawn on UCO Bank, Alamgir and another cheque dated ar, r amount of and or before 15.7.2005 after receipt of balance sale consideration and at the expenses of the plaintiff. It was also parties that the possession of the suit land shall be PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.5123 delivered by registration of the sale deed of the suit land. returned by was received by in this regard, favour of the plaintiff and on this receipt the above noted cheque has been received back by the p thereof, he defendant N money from the plaintiff. In compliance o agreement to sell dated 17.6.2004, the plaintiff on 24.6.2005 made a payment of Rs.1,68,500/ for the purpose of execution of sale deed and stamp papers of R and handed over these stamp papers to the plaintiff so that the sale deed of the suit land agreed to be sold could be scribed on these stamp papers. After purchase of these stamp papers, the sale deed scribed on these stamp papers to execute the sale deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff terms and conditions of the agr 4. for the purpose of getting his presence recorded in the office of Joint Sub Registrar, A papers. On the same day to execute the sale deed of the suit land in to get his presence recorded in the office of Joint Sub Registrar Ahmedgarh, 5123 of 2018 -6- delivered by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff at the ti registration of the sale deed of the suit land. returned by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff and the am was received by defendant No.1 from the plaintiff in cash on 23.9.2004 and in this regard, defendant No.1 had executed a receipt dated 23.9.2004 in favour of the plaintiff and on this receipt, defendant N ve noted cheque has been received back by the p he has received Rs.1,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff. As such, defendant No.1 had received a total amount of Rs.4,00,000/ money from the plaintiff. In compliance o agreement to sell dated 17.6.2004, the plaintiff on 24.6.2005 made a payment of Rs.1,68,500/- to defendant No.1 for the purpose of execution of sale deed and pers of Rs.1,68,500/- for execution of the sale deed of the suit land and handed over these stamp papers to the plaintiff so that the sale deed of the suit land agreed to be sold could be scribed on these stamp papers. After purchase of these stamp papers, defendant the sale deed scribed on these stamp papers to execute the sale deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 17.6.2004. On 15.7.2005, the plaintiff purchased a stamp paper of Rs.15/ for the purpose of getting his presence recorded in the office of Joint Sub Ahmedgarh and the plaintiff got typed an aff papers. On the same day, defendant No.1 again met the plaintiff and agreed to execute the sale deed of the suit land in to get his presence recorded in the office of Joint Sub Registrar Ahmedgarh, .1 to the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed of the suit land. Later on, the cheque was o.1 to the plaintiff and the amount of Rs.1,00,000/ o.1 from the plaintiff in cash on 23.9.2004 and o.1 had executed a receipt dated 23.9.2004 in defendant No.1 himself wrote that ve noted cheque has been received back by the plaintiff and in lieu in cash from the plaintiff. As such, received a total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff. In compliance of the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 17.6.2004, the plaintiff on 24.6.2005 made a defendant No.1 for purchasing the stamp paper for the purpose of execution of sale deed and defendant No.1 purchased for execution of the sale deed of the suit land and handed over these stamp papers to the plaintiff so that the sale deed of the suit land agreed to be sold could be scribed on these stamp papers. After No.1 told the plaintiff not to get the sale deed scribed on these stamp papers as he showed his unwillingness to execute the sale deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff in terms of eement to sell dated 17.6.2004. On 15.7.2005, the plaintiff purchased a stamp paper of Rs.15/ for the purpose of getting his presence recorded in the office of Joint Sub and the plaintiff got typed an affidavit on these stamp again met the plaintiff and agreed to execute the sale deed of the suit land in his favour and requested him not to get his presence recorded in the office of Joint Sub Registrar Ahmedgarh, e of execution and he cheque was ount of Rs.1,00,000/- o.1 from the plaintiff in cash on 23.9.2004 and o.1 had executed a receipt dated 23.9.2004 in o.1 himself wrote that laintiff and in lieu in cash from the plaintiff. As such, as earnest f the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell dated 17.6.2004, the plaintiff on 24.6.2005 made a for purchasing the stamp paper o.1 purchased for execution of the sale deed of the suit land and handed over these stamp papers to the plaintiff so that the sale deed of the suit land agreed to be sold could be scribed on these stamp papers. After o.1 told the plaintiff not to get showed his unwillingness in terms of On 15.7.2005, the plaintiff purchased a stamp paper of Rs.15/- for the purpose of getting his presence recorded in the office of Joint Sub idavit on these stamp again met the plaintiff and agreed not to get his presence recorded in the office of Joint Sub Registrar Ahmedgarh, PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.5123 upon which, the plaintiff did not present the affidavit before th Registrar, Ahmedgarh. the sale deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. plaintiff came to know that defenda agreement to sell dated 17.6 21.8.2006 of land measuring 4 bighas 2 biswas 13 biswas out of the suit la measuring 12 bighas 8 biswas in favour of the defendants deed no.945 dated 21.8.2006 of land measuring 4 bighas 2 biswas 13 out of the suit land measuring 12 bighas 8 biswas favour of defendants No.2 to 5 and sale deed N measuring 4 bighas 2 biswas 14 biswas out of the suit land measuring 12 bighas 8 biswas thereby, defendant No.1 defendant N defendant N collusive, ineffective in the eyes of law and have no effect on the rights of the plaintiff and the said sale d present suit. 5. the suit by stating that the agreement to sell in question was in fact a security for loan of Rs.3 lakhs month. The plaintiff paid Rs.1 lakh in cash on 10.06.2004 and issued two cheques bearing No.427445 bank, Alamgir, cheque No.577485 dated 24.06.2004 for Rs.1 lakh drawn on ICICI Bank, Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana. It was further stated that No.577485 dated 24.06.2004 for Rs.1 lakh drawn on ICICI Bank was 5123 of 2018 -7- upon which, the plaintiff did not present the affidavit before th Registrar, Ahmedgarh. However, defendant No.1 the sale deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. came to know that defendant N agreement to sell dated 17.6.2004, executed 21.8.2006 of land measuring 4 bighas 2 biswas 13 biswas out of the suit la measuring 12 bighas 8 biswas in favour of the defendants deed no.945 dated 21.8.2006 of land measuring 4 bighas 2 biswas 13 out of the suit land measuring 12 bighas 8 biswas defendants No.2 to 5 and sale deed N measuring 4 bighas 2 biswas 14 biswas out of the suit land measuring 12 bighas 8 biswas was executed in favour of the defendant No.6 to 8. Meaning thereby, defendant No.1 has transferred the entire suit l defendant Nos. 2 to 8. Thus, sale deeds N defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 8 are illegal, collusive, ineffective in the eyes of law and have no effect on the rights of the plaintiff and the said sale deeds are liable to be set aside. Hence, the present suit. On notice, defendant No.1 filed written statement and contested e suit by stating that the agreement to sell in question was in fact a security for loan of Rs.3 lakhs, which he took from the plaintiff on interest @2% per month. The plaintiff paid Rs.1 lakh in cash on 10.06.2004 and issued two bearing No.427445 dated 16.06.2004 for Rs.1 lakh drawn on UCO bank, Alamgir, cheque No.577485 dated 24.06.2004 for Rs.1 lakh drawn on ICICI Bank, Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana. It was further stated that No.577485 dated 24.06.2004 for Rs.1 lakh drawn on ICICI Bank was upon which, the plaintiff did not present the affidavit before the Joint Sub However, defendant No.1 again refused to execute the sale deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the nt No.1 in order to frustrate the executed sale deed No.944 dated 21.8.2006 of land measuring 4 bighas 2 biswas 13 biswas out of the suit lan measuring 12 bighas 8 biswas in favour of the defendants No.2 and 3, sale deed no.945 dated 21.8.2006 of land measuring 4 bighas 2 biswas 13 biswas out of the suit land measuring 12 bighas 8 biswas was executed by him in defendants No.2 to 5 and sale deed No.946 dated 21.8.2006 of land measuring 4 bighas 2 biswas 14 biswas out of the suit land measuring 12 in favour of the defendant No.6 to 8. Meaning has transferred the entire suit land in favour of Thus, sale deeds No.944, 945 and 946 executed by o.2 to 8 are illegal, null and void, collusive, ineffective in the eyes of law and have no effect on the rights of eeds are liable to be set aside. Hence, the On notice, defendant No.1 filed written statement and contested e suit by stating that the agreement to sell in question was in fact a security , which he took from the plaintiff on interest @2% per month. The plaintiff paid Rs.1 lakh in cash on 10.06.2004 and issued two dated 16.06.2004 for Rs.1 lakh drawn on UCO bank, Alamgir, cheque No.577485 dated 24.06.2004 for Rs.1 lakh drawn on ICICI Bank, Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana. It was further stated that Cheque No.577485 dated 24.06.2004 for Rs.1 lakh drawn on ICICI Bank was e Joint Sub refused to execute Thereafter, the in order to frustrate the o.944 dated nd o.2 and 3, sale biswas in o.946 dated 21.8.2006 of land measuring 4 bighas 2 biswas 14 biswas out of the suit land measuring 12 in favour of the defendant No.6 to 8. Meaning and in favour of 946 executed by null and void, collusive, ineffective in the eyes of law and have no effect on the rights of eeds are liable to be set aside. Hence, the On notice, defendant No.1 filed written statement and contested e suit by stating that the agreement to sell in question was in fact a security , which he took from the plaintiff on interest @2% per month. The plaintiff paid Rs.1 lakh in cash on 10.06.2004 and issued two dated 16.06.2004 for Rs.1 lakh drawn on UCO bank, Alamgir, cheque No.577485 dated 24.06.2004 for Rs.1 lakh drawn on Cheque No.577485 dated 24.06.2004 for Rs.1 lakh drawn on ICICI Bank was PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.5123 dishonoured by the bank authorities for want of sufficient funds, on which, plaintiff paid Rs.1 lakh in cash on 23.09.2004 and took back the above stated cheque. The alleged agreement to sell was merely a paper transaction and there was no intention to act the loan of Rs.3 lakh plaintiff to return the agreement to sell but he refused to do so with a fide intention. 6. nine issues including relief his evidence and tendered documents Ex.P1 to P8; whereas defendant himself appeared in the witness box Jagroop Singh. 7. the parties, that the plaintiff was held entitled to recovery of Rs.4 lakhs already received by defendant from the date of the judgment till actual realization of entire decretal amount. The plaintiff went into appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial Court decree dated 22.03.2018 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance defendant No.1 within 90 days after deducting Rs.4 lakhs as earnest money already paid was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months from the passing of decree. Defendants No.2 to 8 were also directed to join defendant No.1 in execution of the sale deed 5123 of 2018 -8- shonoured by the bank authorities for want of sufficient funds, on which, plaintiff paid Rs.1 lakh in cash on 23.09.2004 and took back the above stated cheque. The alleged agreement to sell was merely a paper transaction and there was no intention to act upon the same. Defendant No.1 had returned the loan of Rs.3 lakhs along with interest of Rs.1,10,000/ plaintiff to return the agreement to sell but he refused to do so with a intention. On the basis of pleadings, the learned issues including relief. Plaintiff himself appeared as PW1 and closed his evidence and tendered documents Ex.P1 to P8; whereas defendant himself appeared in the witness box as DW1 Jagroop Singh. On appreciation of documentary and oral evidence led by both the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit that the plaintiff was held entitled to recovery of Rs.4 lakhs already received by defendant No.1 from him as earnest money with interest @6% per annum from the date of the judgment till actual realization of entire decretal amount. The plaintiff went into appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and the learned 1st Appellate Cour decree dated 22.03.2018 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract on payment of balance sale consideration to defendant No.1 within 90 days after deducting Rs.4 lakhs as earnest money already paid and after issuing notice to him. On doing so, defendant No.1 was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months from the passing of decree. Defendants No.2 to 8 were also directed defendant No.1 in execution of the sale deed shonoured by the bank authorities for want of sufficient funds, on which, plaintiff paid Rs.1 lakh in cash on 23.09.2004 and took back the above stated cheque. The alleged agreement to sell was merely a paper transaction and upon the same. Defendant No.1 had returned along with interest of Rs.1,10,000/-. He asked the plaintiff to return the agreement to sell but he refused to do so with a mala the learned trial Court had framed . Plaintiff himself appeared as PW1 and closed his evidence and tendered documents Ex.P1 to P8; whereas defendant as DW1 and also examined DW2 On appreciation of documentary and oral evidence led by both decreed the suit in alternative to the effect that the plaintiff was held entitled to recovery of Rs.4 lakhs already received rnest money with interest @6% per annum from the date of the judgment till actual realization of entire decretal amount. The plaintiff went into appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific of contract on payment of balance sale consideration to defendant No.1 within 90 days after deducting Rs.4 lakhs as earnest money issuing notice to him. On doing so, defendant No.1 was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months from the passing of decree. Defendants No.2 to 8 were also directed defendant No.1 in execution of the sale deed and delivery of shonoured by the bank authorities for want of sufficient funds, on which, plaintiff paid Rs.1 lakh in cash on 23.09.2004 and took back the above stated cheque. The alleged agreement to sell was merely a paper transaction and upon the same. Defendant No.1 had returned . He asked the mala trial Court had framed . Plaintiff himself appeared as PW1 and closed his evidence and tendered documents Ex.P1 to P8; whereas defendant and also examined DW2 On appreciation of documentary and oral evidence led by both in alternative to the effect that the plaintiff was held entitled to recovery of Rs.4 lakhs already received rnest money with interest @6% per annum from the date of the judgment till actual realization of entire decretal amount. The plaintiff went into appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of t vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.2018 decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific of contract on payment of balance sale consideration to defendant No.1 within 90 days after deducting Rs.4 lakhs as earnest money issuing notice to him. On doing so, defendant No.1 was directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months from the passing of decree. Defendants No.2 to 8 were also directed and delivery of PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.5123 possession as per agreement to sell, failing which, the plaintiff was held entitled to get the intended relief through the process of law. Aggrieved against the same, defendant No.1 has approached this Court by way of present regular seco 8. the agreement to sell dated 17.06.2004 Ex.P2 by respondent No.1 the purpose of interest @ 2% per month aforesaid loan was paid by defendant No.1 as he paid Rs.2 lakhs to the plaintiff on 20.01.2006 and further Rs.1,30,000/ amount and Rs.1,10,000/ Jagroop Singh. mere a paper transaction was on the plaintiff, which he failed to discharge and thus, both the Courts below have gravely erred in holding that the agreement to sell was duly proved. has failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as per the provisions of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act as there was no cogent evidence brought on record to show that the plaint sufficient funds available of his contention Benches of Delhi High Court in RFA No.322 of 2017 on 14.01. 9. specific performance in every case and Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act empowers the Court to decline the relief of specific performance where the 5123 of 2018 -9- possession as per agreement to sell, failing which, the plaintiff was held entitled to get the intended relief through the process of law. Aggrieved against the same, defendant No.1 has approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant the agreement to sell dated 17.06.2004 Ex.P2 by respondent No.1-plaintiff to sell the suit property, rather the purpose of offering security for the loan 2% per month taken by defendant No.1 from the plaintiff loan was paid by defendant No.1 as he paid Rs.2 lakhs to the plaintiff on 20.01.2006 and further Rs.1,30,000/ amount and Rs.1,10,000/- towards interest on 03.04.2006 in the presence of Jagroop Singh. The onus to prove that the alleged agreement to sell was not mere a paper transaction was on the plaintiff, which he failed to discharge both the Courts below have gravely erred in holding that the agreement to sell was duly proved. It is further has failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as per the provisions of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act as there was no cogent evidence brought on record to show that the plaint sufficient funds available with him at the relevant point of time. In support contention, he relies upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Benches of Delhi High Court in Rajender Kumar Vs. Rama Bala Gupta RFA No.322 of 2017 on 14.01.2019. It is further submitted that it is not mandatory to grant relief of specific performance in every case and Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act empowers the Court to decline the relief of specific performance where the possession as per agreement to sell, failing which, the plaintiff was held entitled to get the intended relief through the process of law. Aggrieved against the same, defendant No.1 has approached this Court by way of Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 submits that the agreement to sell dated 17.06.2004 Ex.P2 was not executed as claimed to sell the suit property, rather it was created for for the loan amounting to Rs.3 lakhs on taken by defendant No.1 from the plaintiff. The loan was paid by defendant No.1 as he paid Rs.2 lakhs to the plaintiff on 20.01.2006 and further Rs.1,30,000/-, towards the principal towards interest on 03.04.2006 in the presence of The onus to prove that the alleged agreement to sell was not mere a paper transaction was on the plaintiff, which he failed to discharge both the Courts below have gravely erred in holding that the further submitted that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as per the provisions of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act as there was no cogent evidence brought on record to show that the plaintiff had with him at the relevant point of time. In support , he relies upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Rajender Kumar Vs. Rama Bala Gupta in it is not mandatory to grant relief of specific performance in every case and Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act empowers the Court to decline the relief of specific performance where the possession as per agreement to sell, failing which, the plaintiff was held entitled to get the intended relief through the process of law. Aggrieved against the same, defendant No.1 has approached this Court by way of submits that executed as claimed it was created for Rs.3 lakhs on . The loan was paid by defendant No.1 as he paid Rs.2 lakhs to the ards the principal towards interest on 03.04.2006 in the presence of The onus to prove that the alleged agreement to sell was not mere a paper transaction was on the plaintiff, which he failed to discharge both the Courts below have gravely erred in holding that the submitted that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as per the provisions of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act as iff had with him at the relevant point of time. In support , he relies upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate in it is not mandatory to grant relief of specific performance in every case and Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act empowers the Court to decline the relief of specific performance where the PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.5123 enforcement of the contrac confer an unfair advantage upon the plaintiff. In support thereof placed upon the judgment Municipal Corporation Vs. Jaykumar Babulal Jain AIR 2018 CC 3 Madras High Court in Appeal Suit No.261 of 2013 decided on 15.09.2023. placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon Parswanath Saha to contend that the Court is not bound to grant the relief of specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so and hardship of the defendant may be one of the grounds, which may be taken into consi for exercising its discretion by the Court in refusing to grant a decree for specific performance of contract. 10. submits that once the agreement to sell dated 17.06.2004 has been p the same was admitted by appellant Appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1 plaintiff and thus, the judgment passed by the learned 1 does not require any i 11. the subsequent purchasers, learned counsel for the appellant to execute the sale deed was 15.07.2005 whereas the suit was filed on 09.05.2007 and therefore, in the absence of any plausible explanation with respect to filing the suit after such a long time, the plaintiff was not entitled for specific perf 5123 of 2018 -10- enforcement of the contract would result in confer an unfair advantage upon the plaintiff. In support thereof placed upon the judgments passed by Gujarat High Court in Municipal Corporation Vs. Jaykumar Babulal Jain AIR 2018 CC 3 Madras High Court in Manimegalai Vs. Sithisamona and others Appeal Suit No.261 of 2013 decided on 15.09.2023. placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon Parswanath Saha Vs. Bandhana Modak (Das) and anr to contend that the Court is not bound to grant the relief of specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so and hardship of the defendant may be one of the grounds, which may be taken into consi for exercising its discretion by the Court in refusing to grant a decree for specific performance of contract. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that once the agreement to sell dated 17.06.2004 has been p the same was admitted by appellant-defendant No.1 himself, the learned 1 Appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1 plaintiff and thus, the judgment passed by the learned 1 does not require any interference in the instant regular second appeal. Learned counsels appearing for respondents No.2 to 8, who are the subsequent purchasers, apart from reiterating the contentions made by learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed was 15.07.2005 whereas the suit was filed on 09.05.2007 and therefore, in the absence of any plausible explanation with respect to filing the suit after such a long time, the plaintiff was not entitled for specific performance and the suit ought to have been dismissed. In t would result in hardship to the defendant or confer an unfair advantage upon the plaintiff. In support thereof, reliance is Gujarat High Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Jaykumar Babulal Jain AIR 2018 CC 3043 and Manimegalai Vs. Sithisamona and others passed in Appeal Suit No.261 of 2013 decided on 15.09.2023. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vs. Bandhana Modak (Das) and anr AIR 2025 SC 280 to contend that the Court is not bound to grant the relief of specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so and hardship of the defendant may be one of the grounds, which may be taken into consideration for exercising its discretion by the Court in refusing to grant a decree for Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff submits that once the agreement to sell dated 17.06.2004 has been proved, as defendant No.1 himself, the learned 1 Appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1 plaintiff and thus, the judgment passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court nterference in the instant regular second appeal. Learned counsels appearing for respondents No.2 to 8, who are apart from reiterating the contentions made by defendant No.1 submit that the target date to execute the sale deed was 15.07.2005 whereas the suit was filed on 09.05.2007 and therefore, in the absence of any plausible explanation with respect to filing the suit after such a long time, the plaintiff was not entitled ormance and the suit ought to have been dismissed. In to the defendant or reliance is Ahmedabad and passed in Further reliance is ble Supreme Court in AIR 2025 SC 280 to contend that the Court is not bound to grant the relief of specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so and hardship of the deration for exercising its discretion by the Court in refusing to grant a decree for plaintiff roved, as defendant No.1 himself, the learned 1st Appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of respondent No.1- Appellate Court Learned counsels appearing for respondents No.2 to 8, who are apart from reiterating the contentions made by target date to execute the sale deed was 15.07.2005 whereas the suit was filed on 09.05.2007 and therefore, in the absence of any plausible explanation with respect to filing the suit after such a long time, the plaintiff was not entitled ormance and the suit ought to have been dismissed. In PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.5123 support of aforesaid contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon others AIR 2024 SC 3017 specific performance, readiness and willingness on the part of the to be proved right from the date of execution of contract till passing of the decree and not prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract throughout consideration amount. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by th (D) by LRs and others AIR 2020 SC 930. 12. the paper book with their able assistance 13. and the target date for execution of the sale deed as fixed Though the execution of the aforesaid agreement to sell was not denied by the appellant document was a the loan taken by him from the plaintif agreement to sell was admitted loan taken by defendant No.1 was back the agreement to sell kept as security despite repeated reque pretext or the other. disputed by defendant No.1 but the dispute is raised qua the purpose which, the said agreement to sell was executed. 5123 of 2018 -11- support of aforesaid contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Vs. Anand Kumar and AIR 2024 SC 3017. It is further contended that in order to seek specific performance, readiness and willingness on the part of the to be proved right from the date of execution of contract till passing of the decree and not up to the target date. The plaintiff prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract throughout as he failed to prove that he had means to generate the consideration amount. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.S. Venkatesh Vs. A.S.C. Murthy (D) by LRs and others AIR 2020 SC 930. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book with their able assistance as well as the case laws cited. The agreement to sell in question was executed on 17.06.2004 and the target date for execution of the sale deed as fixed Though the execution of the aforesaid agreement to sell was not denied by the appellant-defendant No.1 but a case was set up that the aforesaid document was a mere paper transaction, which was created the loan taken by him from the plaintiff, meaning thereby, the execution of agreement to sell was admitted. It was further contended that loan taken by defendant No.1 was repaid to the plaintiff but back the agreement to sell kept as security despite repeated reque pretext or the other. Thus, the execution of the agreement to sell is not disputed by defendant No.1 but the dispute is raised qua the purpose the said agreement to sell was executed. support of aforesaid contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed Rajesh Kumar Vs. Anand Kumar and It is further contended that in order to seek specific performance, readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to be proved right from the date of execution of contract till passing of the up to the target date. The plaintiff in the present case did not prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as he failed to prove that he had means to generate the consideration amount. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment C.S. Venkatesh Vs. A.S.C. Murthy I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused as well as the case laws cited. ement to sell in question was executed on 17.06.2004 and the target date for execution of the sale deed as fixed was 15.07.2005. Though the execution of the aforesaid agreement to sell was not denied by defendant No.1 but a case was set up that the aforesaid paper transaction, which was created as security for , meaning thereby, the execution of . It was further contended that though the paid to the plaintiff but he did not return back the agreement to sell kept as security despite repeated requests on one Thus, the execution of the agreement to sell is not disputed by defendant No.1 but the dispute is raised qua the purpose, for the said agreement to sell was executed. support of aforesaid contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed Rajesh Kumar Vs. Anand Kumar and It is further contended that in order to seek is to be proved right from the date of execution of contract till passing of the in the present case did not prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as he failed to prove that he had means to generate the consideration amount. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment C.S. Venkatesh Vs. A.S.C. Murthy I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused ement to sell in question was executed on 17.06.2004 as 15.07.2005. Though the execution of the aforesaid agreement to sell was not denied by defendant No.1 but a case was set up that the aforesaid as security for , meaning thereby, the execution of the he did not return sts on one Thus, the execution of the agreement to sell is not for PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.5123 14. returned the amount, if at all it was a loan transaction, as no receipt was produced on record. It is not acceptable from a prudent man, who though gave receipts while obtaining the loan but did not obtain receipts while returning the allegedly returned stated in his cross obtained by defendant No.1 from the plaintiff. Even in the receipt Ex.P3, which was obtained by the plaintiff from defendant No. taking back the cheque drawn on ICICI Bank Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana and in lieu of that Rs.1 lakh had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff with respect to 12 bighas 8 biswas of land. On the said receipt, defendant No.1 signed the endorsement that the cheque of ICICI Bank has been cancelled and Rs.1 lakh has been paid in cash to him. and obtained by fraud or was created for a different purpose than the one alleged is heavily on the person, who t present case, defendant No.1 has miserably failed to prove tha agreement to sell as alleged by the plaintiff was created as a security for the loan, which he had taken from the plaintiff. Court, both the learned Courts below have rightly held that execution of agreement to sell date 15. well as respondents No.2 to 8 qua readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, there is no dispute to the settled position of law that readines willingness has to be proved from the date of execution of the sell till the date of decree. 5123 of 2018 -12- First of all, defendant No.1 has failed t returned the amount, if at all it was a loan transaction, as no receipt was produced on record. It is not acceptable from a prudent man, who though gave receipts while obtaining the loan but did not obtain receipts while returning the same. Even DW-2 in whose presence the loan amount was returned stated in his cross-examination that no receipt was by defendant No.1 from the plaintiff. Even in the receipt Ex.P3, which was obtained by the plaintiff from defendant No. taking back the cheque drawn on ICICI Bank Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana and in lieu of that Rs.1 lakh was given in cash, it was stated that had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff with respect to 12 biswas of land. On the said receipt, defendant No.1 signed the endorsement that the cheque of ICICI Bank has been cancelled and Rs.1 lakh has been paid in cash to him. The burden to prove that a document is sham and obtained by fraud or was created for a different purpose than the one alleged is heavily on the person, who takes present case, defendant No.1 has miserably failed to prove tha agreement to sell as alleged by the plaintiff was created as a security for the loan, which he had taken from the plaintiff. Court, both the learned Courts below have rightly held that execution of agreement to sell dated 24.06.2004 was duly proved by the plaintiff. As regards the argument raised by appellant well as respondents No.2 to 8 qua readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, there is no dispute to the settled position of law that readines willingness has to be proved from the date of execution of the sell till the date of decree. In the case in hand, plaintiff had made a payment First of all, defendant No.1 has failed to prove that he had returned the amount, if at all it was a loan transaction, as no receipt was produced on record. It is not acceptable from a prudent man, who though gave receipts while obtaining the loan but did not obtain receipts while 2 in whose presence the loan amount was examination that no receipt was by defendant No.1 from the plaintiff. Even in the receipt Ex.P3, which was obtained by the plaintiff from defendant No.1 at the time of taking back the cheque drawn on ICICI Bank Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana and in , it was stated that defendant No.1 had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff with respect to 12 biswas of land. On the said receipt, defendant No.1 signed the endorsement that the cheque of ICICI Bank has been cancelled and Rs.1 lakh The burden to prove that a document is sham and obtained by fraud or was created for a different purpose than the one akes such a plea. However, in the present case, defendant No.1 has miserably failed to prove that the agreement to sell as alleged by the plaintiff was created as a security for the loan, which he had taken from the plaintiff. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, both the learned Courts below have rightly held that execution of d 24.06.2004 was duly proved by the plaintiff. As regards the argument raised by appellant-defendant No.1 as well as respondents No.2 to 8 qua readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, there is no dispute to the settled position of law that readiness and willingness has to be proved from the date of execution of the agreement to In the case in hand, plaintiff had made a payment o prove that he had returned the amount, if at all it was a loan transaction, as no receipt was produced on record. It is not acceptable from a prudent man, who though gave receipts while obtaining the loan but did not obtain receipts while 2 in whose presence the loan amount was examination that no receipt was by defendant No.1 from the plaintiff. Even in the receipt Ex.P3, 1 at the time of taking back the cheque drawn on ICICI Bank Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana and in defendant No.1 had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff with respect to 12 biswas of land. On the said receipt, defendant No.1 signed the endorsement that the cheque of ICICI Bank has been cancelled and Rs.1 lakh The burden to prove that a document is sham and obtained by fraud or was created for a different purpose than the one such a plea. However, in the t the agreement to sell as alleged by the plaintiff was created as a security for the Thus, in the opinion of this Court, both the learned Courts below have rightly held that execution of defendant No.1 as well as respondents No.2 to 8 qua readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, s and to In the case in hand, plaintiff had made a payment PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.5123 of Rs.1,68,500/ purpose of execution No.1 and handed over to the plaintiff. The said stamp papers were even attached with the plaint, meaning thereby, plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. plaintiff also purchased stamp paper of Rs.15/ presence recorded in the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Ahmedgarh. the conduct of the plaintiff shows that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 16. defendant No.1 and respondents No.2 to 8, brought on record to prove that the plaintiff had means to generate the balance consideration plaintiff has categorically stated money for the expenses of sale deed has always been ready with the plaintiff and the same is available till today that the balance sale consideration and money for the expenses of sale deed has always been ready with him and the same are ready now. law that the averments and conduct rather than requiring continuous physical possession of the funds. ready and willing to perform regarding the payment of t establish that not necessary that of suit till the date of the decree 5123 of 2018 -13- 1,68,500/- to defendant No.1 to purchase purpose of execution of sale deed, which were duly purchased by defendant No.1 and handed over to the plaintiff. The said stamp papers were even attached with the plaint, meaning thereby, plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Even on the target plaintiff also purchased stamp paper of Rs.15/ presence recorded in the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Ahmedgarh. the conduct of the plaintiff shows that he was ready and willing to perform part of the contract. As regards the contention of learned counsels for the appellant defendant No.1 and respondents No.2 to 8, brought on record to prove that the plaintiff had means to generate the balance consideration, has also no force. In paragraph 14 of the plaint, the plaintiff has categorically stated that the balance sale consideration and money for the expenses of sale deed has always been ready with the plaintiff and the same is available till today. Further in para 14C, again he reiterated the balance sale consideration and money for the expenses of sale deed has always been ready with him and the same are ready now. the vendee has to demonstrate financial capability throu averments and conduct rather than requiring continuous physical possession of the funds. The vendee must explicitly state in ready and willing to perform his contractual obligations, particularly regarding the payment of the sale price. establish that he had the capacity to pay the balance sale consideration. It is not necessary that he should always carry the money with of suit till the date of the decree. It is also int to defendant No.1 to purchase the stamp papers for the of sale deed, which were duly purchased by defendant No.1 and handed over to the plaintiff. The said stamp papers were even attached with the plaint, meaning thereby, plaintiff was ready and willing to Even on the target date i.e. 15.07.2005, plaintiff also purchased stamp paper of Rs.15/- for the purpose of getting his presence recorded in the office of Joint Sub Registrar, Ahmedgarh. Thus, the conduct of the plaintiff shows that he was ready and willing to perform As regards the contention of learned counsels for the appellant defendant No.1 and respondents No.2 to 8, that there was no evidence brought on record to prove that the plaintiff had means to generate the In paragraph 14 of the plaint, the that the balance sale consideration and money for the expenses of sale deed has always been ready with the plaintiff Further in para 14C, again he reiterated the balance sale consideration and money for the expenses of sale deed has always been ready with him and the same are ready now. It is settled to demonstrate financial capability through averments and conduct rather than requiring continuous physical possession The vendee must explicitly state in his legal pleadings that he is contractual obligations, particularly It is sufficient for purchaser to had the capacity to pay the balance sale consideration. It is should always carry the money with him from the date . It is also interesting to note that on the one for the of sale deed, which were duly purchased by defendant No.1 and handed over to the plaintiff. The said stamp papers were even attached with the plaint, meaning thereby, plaintiff was ready and willing to date i.e. 15.07.2005, for the purpose of getting his Thus, the conduct of the plaintiff shows that he was ready and willing to perform As regards the contention of learned counsels for the appellant- there was no evidence brought on record to prove that the plaintiff had means to generate the In paragraph 14 of the plaint, the that the balance sale consideration and money for the expenses of sale deed has always been ready with the plaintiff Further in para 14C, again he reiterated the balance sale consideration and money for the expenses of sale deed It is settled gh averments and conduct rather than requiring continuous physical possession he is contractual obligations, particularly to had the capacity to pay the balance sale consideration. It is from the date eresting to note that on the one PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.5123 hand appellant from the respondent No.1 nothing but a security for the said loan challenging his financial capacity with respect to availability of funds for payment of balance sale consideration. 17. defendant No.1 ground of hardship of the defendant while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in is also devoid of merit, as in the said case, the Ho held that the issue of hardship would come into play if it is established by cogent evidence that unable to foresee the hardship at the time of entering into the contract. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the plea of hardship taken by legal representatives of the seller property was the only residential property and the performance of agreement would render them homeless. Even th Hon’ble Supreme Court and the sale deed was ordered to be executed on payment of an amount of Rs.20 lakhs. In the present case, it cannot be presumed that the appellant that may be caused to him while alienating the property in favour of respondents No.2 to 8, knowing fully agreement to sell qua the suit property in favour of respondent No.1 18. specific performance despite the fact that the execution of the agreement to sell in his favour has been established and proved 5123 of 2018 -14- appellant-defendant No.1 had set up a case that he borrowed money from the respondent No.1-plaintiff and the alleged agreement to sell was nothing but a security for the said loan and on the other hand, he is also lenging his financial capacity with respect to availability of funds for payment of balance sale consideration. The contention raised by learned counsel for appellant No.1 with regard to denial of relief of specific performance on the ground of hardship of the defendant while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in is also devoid of merit, as in the said case, the Ho held that the issue of hardship would come into play if it is established by cogent evidence that the person, who executed the agreement of sale was unable to foresee the hardship at the time of entering into the contract. In the ase before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the plea of hardship taken by legal representatives of the seller-Late Prabha Ranjan Das was that the property was the only residential property and the performance of agreement would render them homeless. Even the said plea was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the sale deed was ordered to be executed on payment of an amount of Rs.20 lakhs. In the present case, it cannot be presumed that the appellant-defendant No.1 could not foresee the hardship be caused to him while alienating the property in favour of respondents No.2 to 8, knowing fully well that he ha agreement to sell qua the suit property in favour of respondent No.1 The plaintiff cannot be punished specific performance despite the fact that the execution of the agreement to sell in his favour has been established and proved defendant No.1 had set up a case that he borrowed money and the alleged agreement to sell was and on the other hand, he is also lenging his financial capacity with respect to availability of funds for The contention raised by learned counsel for appellant with regard to denial of relief of specific performance on the ground of hardship of the defendant while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parswanath Saha’s case (supra) is also devoid of merit, as in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the issue of hardship would come into play if it is established by person, who executed the agreement of sale was unable to foresee the hardship at the time of entering into the contract. In the ase before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the plea of hardship taken by legal Late Prabha Ranjan Das was that the suit property was the only residential property and the performance of agreement e said plea was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the sale deed was ordered to be executed on payment of an amount of Rs.20 lakhs. In the present case, it cannot be defendant No.1 could not foresee the hardship be caused to him while alienating the property in favour of that he had already entered into an agreement to sell qua the suit property in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot be punished by refusing the relief of specific performance despite the fact that the execution of the agreement to sell in his favour has been established and proved; and that he is found to be defendant No.1 had set up a case that he borrowed money and the alleged agreement to sell was and on the other hand, he is also lenging his financial capacity with respect to availability of funds for The contention raised by learned counsel for appellant- with regard to denial of relief of specific performance on the ground of hardship of the defendant while placing reliance upon the (supra) n’ble Supreme Court has held that the issue of hardship would come into play if it is established by person, who executed the agreement of sale was unable to foresee the hardship at the time of entering into the contract. In the ase before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the plea of hardship taken by legal suit property was the only residential property and the performance of agreement e said plea was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the sale deed was ordered to be executed on payment of an amount of Rs.20 lakhs. In the present case, it cannot be defendant No.1 could not foresee the hardship be caused to him while alienating the property in favour of already entered into an plaintiff. by refusing the relief of specific performance despite the fact that the execution of the agreement to and that he is found to be PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.5123 always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Not to gran decree of specific performance despite the execution of the agreement to sell is proved; part sale consideration is proved and the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract would encourage the dishonesty. In such a sit plaintiff rather sell. 19. 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 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. 20. and perversity Court and the same dismissed. 21. September Pankaj* 5123 of 2018 -15- always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Not to gran decree of specific performance despite the execution of the agreement to sell is proved; part sale consideration is proved and the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract would encourage the dishonesty. In such a situation, the balance should tilt in favour of the rather than in favour of the defendant 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 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. As an upshot of above discussion, and perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned 1 and the same is upheld. Consequen Order dated 18.12.2023 stands vacated. Pending misc. application(s), if (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL September 15, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Not to grant the decree of specific performance despite the execution of the agreement to sell is proved; part sale consideration is proved and the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract would encourage the uation, the balance should tilt in favour of the than in favour of the defendant-executant of the agreement to 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 As an upshot of above discussion, this Court finds no illegality judgment and decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate ntly, the regular second appeal Order dated 18.12.2023 stands vacated. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No t the decree of specific performance despite the execution of the agreement to sell is proved; part sale consideration is proved and the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract would encourage the uation, the balance should tilt in favour of the cutant of the agreement to 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 High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of no illegality Appellate is AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.26 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh