Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep And Others vs Krishan Kumar on 27 November, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-3254-2023 (O&M)
Reserved on : 30.10.2025
Pronounced on : 27.11.2025
Judgment uploaded on : 27.11.2025
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the
full judgment is pronounced: Full
Kuldeep and Others ....Appellants
VERSUS
Krishan Kumar ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Dr. Vikas Rohal, Advocate for the appellants.
ALKA SARIN, J.
CM-11656-C-2023
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The
delay of 26 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.
RSA-3254-2023 (O&M)
2. The present appeal has had been filed by the plaintiff-appellants
challenging concurrent findings returned by the Trial Court vide judgment and
decree dated 02.08.2019 and the First Appellate Court vide judgment and
decree dated 02.05.2023.
3. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
appellants herein filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of
agreement to sell dated 05.01.2015 with consequential relief of permanent
injunction. It was the case set up by the plaintiff-appellants that the defendant-
respondent herein had entered into an agreement to sell dated 05.01.2015 with
1 of 6
them qua a plot measuring 196 sq. yards comprised in Khasra Nos.20//1, 2,
16//24/2, 25, 17//21, 22, 23, 21//4, 5 situated at village Saundhpur, Tehsil and
District Panipat. Vide the agreement, it was agreed that the defendant-
respondent would sell his property measuring 196 sq. yards for a total sale
consideration of ₹9,50,000/- out of which ₹2,00,000/- was paid as earnest
money and the balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of
execution of the sale deed i.e. 15.06.2015. The defendant-respondent was to
perform his part of the contract as per the oral terms and conditions by getting
the suit property demarcated. The plaintiff-appellants requested the
defendant-respondent numerous times to get the land demarcated, however,
since the defendant-respondent failed to do so, the plaintiff-appellants made
an application for demarcation before the Tehsildar, Panipat by moving an
application dated 13.05.2015 and also requested the defendant-respondent to
remain present at the spot. On 21.05.2015, Rajesh Khurana, Halka Kanoongo
visited the suit plot and demarcated the same, but the defendant-respondent
allegedly remained absent. After the demarcation the plaintiff-appellants
came to know that about 60 sq. yards out of the land measuring 196 sq. yards,
which was the subject matter of the agreement, belonged to the Canal
Department as it stood acquired. It was further the case set up that the plaintiff-
appellants sent a legal notice dated 25.05.2015 cancelling the said agreement
and asking the defendant-respondent to pay ₹4,00,000/- as double the advance
payment. Reply was sent to the legal notice wherein all the averments were
denied. It was further the case set up in the plaint that despite the legal notice,
the plaintiff-appellants made arrangement for ₹7,52,341/- for registration of
the sale deed and remained present in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Panipat
2 of 6
on 15.06.2015 with the balance sale consideration and stamp charges etc. and
got their presence marked, however, the defendant-respondent did not
concede to the request of the plaintiff-appellants. It is further the case that the
plaintiff-appellants thereafter continued their efforts to settle the matter
amicably and the plaintiff-appellants also moved an application dated
21.12.2015 for demarcation by computerized GPS system to clarify the
position on the spot. On 25.12.2015 intensive demarcation was got conducted.
It was further averred that the defendant-respondent sold a plot comprising of
the khasra numbers which were absolutely different from the plot at the spot.
The suit was filed averring therein that the plaintiff-appellants were always
ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The defendant-
respondent filed his written statement raising various preliminary objections
qua maintainability, cause of action and locus standi. It was further the case
set up that the plaintiff-appellants did not approach the Court with clean
hands. It was further the stand taken that no part of the suit land was ever
acquired by the Canal Department as alleged. The agreement was admitted. It
was further the case that Krishan Kumar son of Hawa Singh was the owner of
the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 09.03.2007 and he had not been
impleaded as a party. It was further the stand that on the targeted date the
defendant-respondent remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
however, the plaintiff-appellants did not turn up. It was further the case that
no demarcation was ever conducted at the instance of the plaintiff-appellants
in the presence of the defendant-respondent. Replication was not filed.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed :
3 of 6
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific
performance on the grounds as averred in the plaint ?
OPP
2. If issue No.1 is decided in affirmative than whether the
plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent
injunction as averred in the plaint ? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in
the present form ? OPD
4. Relief.
5. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.08.2019
dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the
plaintiff-appellants which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and
decree dated 02.05.2023. Hence, the present regular second appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants would contend that
the suit land itself was not identifiable as such the agreement could not be
executed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has further contended
that fraud has been played upon the plaintiff-appellants. It has further been
contended that the plaintiff-appellants were always ready and willing to
perform their part of the contract and that they remained present on the
targeted date for execution of the sale deed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-
appellants has further contended that undue reliance has been placed upon the
legal notice dated 25.05.2015 (Ex.P4) whereby the plaintiff-appellants had
cancelled the agreement to sell to hold that the plaintiff-appellants were not
ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. It has further been
contended that vide legal notice dated 05.06.2015 (Ex.P9), the defendant-
4 of 6
respondent refused to cancel the agreement and refund the amount and
therefore the plaintiff-appellants remained present in the office of Sub-
Registrar for registration of the sale deed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants and
perused the record.
8. In the present case both the Courts concurrently found that the
plaintiff-appellants had issued a legal notice dated 25.05.2015 (Ex.P4)
cancelling the agreement to sell. Despite having sent the legal notice it was
the stand taken that since the defendant-respondent refused to accede to the
demand of the plaintiff-appellants therefore the plaintiff-appellants remained
present in the office of the Sub-Registrar for registration of the sale deed. The
plaintiff-appellants seem to have taken different stands at different times. It
was earlier the case that the land was not complete as part of the land had been
acquired by the Canal Department. Thereafter the stand taken was that the
agreement was cancelled. Subsequently, the stand taken was that the plot was
not identifiable. Keeping in view the divergent stands taken by the plaintiff-
appellants, it cannot be held that the plaintiff-appellants were ever ready and
willing to perform their part of the contract. Both the Courts concurrently
found that the plaintiff-appellants were not ready and willing to perform their
part of the contract. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has not been
able to show or explain as to why different stands were taken by the plaintiff-
appellants at different times. The stand taken by the plaintiff-appellants that
the land was not complete was belied by Rajesh Khurana, Kanoongo who
appeared as PW5 and stated that he had conducted the demarcation and the
land was complete on the spot. Further still, it has been noticed by the First
5 of 6
Appellate Court that DW1 Krishan Kumar (defendant-respondent herein) had
stated that the land as agreed was complete and that he was ready to sell the
same and that he remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar with the
original owner to get the sale deed registered and he was also carried with him
all the documents pertaining to the registration of the sale deed. The presence
of the defendant-respondent was acknowledged by none other than the
plaintiff-appellant himself in his cross examination. Learned counsel for the
plaintiff-appellants has not been able to point out to any reliable and cogent
evidence to show that the plaintiff-appellants were ready and willing to
perform their part of the contract. In the absence of the same, no fault can be
found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts.
9. In view of the above, no question of law, much less any
substantial question of law, arises in the present case. The appeal, being
devoid of any merits, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
27.11.2025 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
6 of 6
