[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ved Parkash Deceased Through Lrs. vs Vijay Kumar And Others on 29 April, 2026
RSA-1612-2026 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(131) RSA-1612-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision:29.04.2026
VED PARKASH DECEASED THROUGH LRs
... Appellant(s)
Versus
VIJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS
... Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate
for the appellant(s).
****
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as
"RSA") has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated
29.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar
at Jagadhri, whereby the appeal instituted by the respondents was allowed
and the judgment and decree rendered by the learned trial Court were set
aside.
2. A succinct exposition of the material facts reveals that the
appellant-plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of an
agreement to sell dated 26.01.2012, pertaining to land measuring 14.35
marlas, agreed to be sold at the rate of ₹1,00,000/- per marla, for a total
sale consideration of ₹9,00,000/-, out of which a sum of ₹5,00,000/- was
paid as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement. The sale
deed was stipulated to be executed on or before 30.06.2012. It was pleaded
that the plaintiff remained ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract, whereas defendants No.1 to 3 failed to honour their obligations,
thereby necessitating the institution of the suit.
3. Upon issuance of notice, defendants No.1 and 2 entered
appearance and contested the suit, categorically denying the execution of
the alleged agreement to sell. It was contended that a loan of ₹50,000/-
had been obtained from the plaintiff, and that their signatures, along with
those of defendant No.3, were procured on blank papers by way of
security, which were subsequently misused and fabricated into the
purported agreement to sell.
3.1. Defendant No.4, on the other hand, set up an independent
claim, asserting himself to be a bona fide purchaser for value of the share
of defendant No.3 by virtue of an agreement to sell dated 09.10.2012.
4. On the basis of the rival pleadings and submissions of the
parties, the learned trial Court, upon a careful and comprehensive
consideration thereof, framed the following issues for adjudication so as to
effectively determine the controversies involved:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent
injunction, as prayed for, on the grounds mentioned in the plaint?
OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance
of agreement dated 26.01.2012, as prayed for, on the grounds
mentioned in the plaint?OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?
OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from
filing the present suit against the defendants? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?
OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands
and has concealed the true and material facts from the court?OPD
8. Relief.
5. Both parties were afforded full and adequate opportunity to
adduce evidence in support of their respective stands. Upon conclusion of
trial and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial
Court partly decreed the suit for specific performance, albeit restricted to
land measuring 9 marlas as against the total claim of 14.35 marlas.
However, the appeal preferred by the respondent-defendant came to be
allowed by the learned First Appellate Court, and the judgment and decree
of the learned trial Court were set aside.
5.1. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by
the learned First Appellate Court, the appellant-plaintiff has instituted the
present RSA.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at considerable
length and have meticulously perused the record of the case with his able
assistance.
7. The learned First Appellate Court has duly appreciated the
pleadings and the evidence on record and has rightly concluded that the
agreement to sell (Ex.P1) is vague, uncertain, and incapable of
enforcement by way of specific performance. The property sought to be
conveyed is not identifiable, as the agreement lacks essential particulars
such as precise description, area, boundaries, or plot identification. No site
plan forms part of the agreement, thereby rendering the subject matter
indeterminate.
7.1. Furthermore, the inconsistency in the recitals relating to
consideration has been correctly noticed, inasmuch as the agreement
stipulates a rate of ₹1,00,000/- per marla, while the total sale consideration
is recorded as ₹9,00,000/- for land measuring 14.35 marlas, which is
inherently incongruous.
7.2. The learned First Appellate Court has, thus, rightly held that
the agreement is incapable of specific performance, and that the learned
trial Court erred in effectively re-writing the contract by restricting the
decree to 9 marlas, which amounts to substituting the terms of the
agreement an exercise impermissible in law.
7.3. No illegality, perversity, or material irregularity can be
discerned in the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court.
Consequently, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed.
8. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of by necessary
implication. No further orders are required in that regard.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
29.04.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
