25.07.2025 Paramjit Kau jit Kaur and another v. Veerpal
Case Details
RSA-1421- -2024 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 111 RSA-1421-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.07.2025 Paramjit Kau jit Kaur and another .…Appellants Versus Veerpal ....Respondent CORAM: H M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate fo cate for the appellants. NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. 1. The present second appeal has al has been filed by the defendants against the t the judgment and decrees passed low passed by both the Courts below whereby the by the suit for specific performance nent rmance, possession and permanent injunction tion instituted by the respondent- the -plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial d trial Court for specific performanc cree rmance vide judgment and decree dated 18.04. 18.04.2018; whereas the appeal filed
Legal Reasoning
l filed by the defendant-appellants was partly a artly allowed by the learned Lower A ent wer Appellate Court vide judgment and decree d ecree dated 26.02.2024 and the appell nd appellants were directed ‘to refund the earnest m est money of ₹6,00,000/-to the plain .5 plaintiff along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum nnum from the date of agreement til nd nt till passing of this judgment and further @ 6% @ 6% per annum till realization of th of the amount’. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be atus fter be referred to as per their status before the le the learned trial Court i.e. the appel o as appellants are being referred to as ‘defendants’ dants’, whereas the respondent as ‘pla ‘plaintiff’. 3. Shorn of un-necessary details, d by etails, the short argument raised by learned coun d counsel for the appellants is that te that the learned Lower Appellate RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.31 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1421- -2024 (O&M) -2- Court could could not have granted the relief of y of lief of refund of earnest money of ₹6,00,000/- - to the plaintiff-respondent as, n tive t as, no such prayer for alternative relief was m was made by the plaintiff in his nsel his Civil Suit. Learned counsel contends tha ds that therefore, the earnest money d had oney deposited by the plaintiff had to be forfeite orfeited and no direction could have b ts to have been issued to the appellants to refund the sa the same. It is argued that it is well e rson well established law that no person can be gran e granted the relief which has not the s not been sought by him in the pleadings. In ngs. In the present case in the Civil S t he ivil Suit filed by the respondent he has not soug ught the refund of earnest money ning money along with interest, meaning thereby that y that he has waived his right of refun f the refund, therefore, the finding of the Ld. First Ap irst Appellate Court, ordering the ref long the refund of earnest money along with interest nterest is illegal and arbitrary. In sup rned support of his contention, learned counsel has el has relied upon judgment of the H .R. f the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.R. Suresh vs. R vs. R. Poornima and others, Law Fi w Finder Doc Id # 2725902. 4. It is further submitted that the the hat the earnest money paid by the plaintiff was ff was liable to the forfeited also fo the also for the reason that it was the plaintiff who ff who had not come present before th strar fore the office of the Sub Registrar to get the s the sale deed executed from defend ntiff defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff himself had lf had violated the terms and condition ated nditions of Agreement to Sell dated 02.09.2013 2013 (Ex. P-1). Accordingly, no suc nest no such relief of refund of earnest money could could have been granted to the plai it is e plaintiff. On the other hand, it is proved on r on record that the appellants were g to were always ready and willing to perform thei m their part of contract and execute th f the cute the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent dent. Accordingly, the appellants rem oint ts remained present before the Joint Sub Registr egistrar on 30.05.2014 to execute the ecute the Sale Deed but it is the RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.31 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1421- -2024 (O&M) -3- respondent dent who was not present. It is the It is accordingly prayed that the judgments and decrees dated 18.04.2018 ated of the trial Court; and dated 26.02.2024 2024, passed by the ld. lower Appellat and ppellate Court may be set aside; and suit of the pl the plaintiff be also dismissed. 5. No other argument has been een raised by learned counsel for appellants. . I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. 6. I find no merit whatsoever in th er in the submissions advanced on behalf of th of the appellant-defendants. Brief fa rief facts of the present case are that the app e appellant-defendants had entered tered into an Agreement to Sell dated 02.09. 02.09.2013 (Ex. P-1) with the respond espondent plaintiff for selling their share in the in the suit property as fully detailed in iled in the Head Note of the plaint for a total sa total sale consideration of ₹20,00,000 00,000/-. It is an admitted fact on record that th that the plaintiff had paid ₹6,00,000/ ,000/- as earnest money. The date for executio ecution of the sale deed was fixed on ixed on 15.11.2013; thereafter the date of execu f execution of sale deed was moved to ved to 30.05.2014. It was pleaded in the plaint plaint that on the said date i.e. on 30.0 n 30.05.2014, the plaintiff had got marked his p d his present in the Tehsil Office wher e whereas the defendants were not present in th t in the office of Sub Registrar, Barnal Barnala. 7. Learned trial Court vide ju de judgment and decree dated 18.04.2018, 2018, had decreed the suit of the plai he plaintiff in toto, in view of the fact that the at the plaintiff had duly proved the A Agreement to Sell (Ex. P-1) by examining t ning the attesting witnesses PW-2 a 2 and PW-3, namely, Charan Singh and N and Nishan Singh, respectively, who , who had deposed regarding the execution of tion of Agreement to Sell and the term he terms and conditions contained RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.31 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1421- -2024 (O&M) -4- therein. PW . PW-2 and PW-3 specifically depos deposed that they have seen the Agreement t ment to Sell which bore their signatu ignatures and the defendants have received ear ed earnest money of ₹6,00,000/- in th in their presence. What is more, the defendan fendants in their written statement had ent had not denied their signatures upon the Ag the Agreement to Sell in question. Adm Admittedly, no plea of fraud or coercion wa on was taken by the defendants. Rat s. Rather, it was admitted by the defendants t ants that they had affixed their sig eir signatures/thumb impressions upon the Ag the Agreement to Sell in question; and and it was further admitted that they had rec ad received the earnest money of ₹ ₹6,00,000/-. Defendant No. 1 had specific ecifically admitted her signatures and res and thumb impressions of her mother and r and had also admitted that they had y had received the earnest money. It is my con y considered view that in face of thi of this categoric admission made by the appel appellants that they had received ear ed earnest money, no error can be found in the in the impugned judgment of the learn e learned 1st Appellate Court. 8. Furthermore, except for an or an oral assertion that the defendants w ants were ready and willing to perf o perform the contract and were present in t t in the office of Sub Registrar, B trar, Barnala on 30.05.2014, the defendants d ants did not lead any reliable evide evidence to prove the said fact. Defendants h dants have produced their affidavits of vits of attendance Ex. D-1 and Ex. D-2. Howev owever, it is recorded therein that the hat they had come to the office of Sub Registra egistrar, Barnala with incomplete docu te documents. This is mentioned in the affidavit fidavit before the Sub Registrar, Barn , Barnala. As such, it is clear that the defendan fendants were not ready and willing t illing to perform the contract. For this reason, ason, as well, no error can be found in und in the judgment of the ld. 1st Appellate Co late Court. RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.31 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1421- -2024 (O&M) -5- 9. From the above facts, it is clea is clear that the Agreement to Sell (Ex. P-1) sta 1) stands duly proved; receipt of ea t of earnest money of ₹6,00,000/- has been ad en admitted by the defendants; and and defendants were unable to prove their r their readiness and willingness. In view of these admitted facts, the plaintiff aintiff cannot be denied refund of th d of the earnest money. In these peculiar and ar and particular circumstances, the s, the appellants can derive no benefit from t from the relied upon judgment of nt of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.R. Suresh Suresh’s case (supra), as the facts o facts of the said case are entirely different fro nt from the facts of the present case t case in as much as, in the said case, there w there was no admission of the defend defendant of having received the earnest mone t money. 10. It may also be noted that while t while upholding the judgment of the learned t rned trial Court in all aspects, the lear he learned Lower Appellate Court has reversed versed the finding of the leaned trial C trial Court in respect of readiness and willingn illingness of the plaintiff to perform erform his contract. It is for this reason that that the learned 1st Appellate Cour Court has declined to grant the relief of spec of specific performance to the plaintif laintiff. However, in doing so, the learned 1st d 1st Appellate Court has ignored nored that the plaintiff had also produced his ced his affidavit of attendance dated 3 ated 30.05.2014 (Ex. P-3). During the course ourse of examination, it has been been deposed by PW-3-Nishan Singh/margi /marginal witness of the Agreement ment to Sell in question that the plaintiff had ff had deposited the money with the S the Stamp Vendor for purchasing the Stamp Pa amp Papers, but he could tell the name name of the Stamp Vendor. 11. It has also to be seen that in h at in holding that the plaintiff had failed to p to prove his readiness and willin willingness, the learned lower RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.31 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1421- -2024 (O&M) -6- Appellate C late Court, has only opined that ‘ld ‘ld. Trial court has failed to appreciate t ate that there is no material on re n record to substantiate that on 30.05.2014 14 the respondent/ plaintiff was was ready with balance sale consideratio ration of Rs.14,00,000/-. The finding dings of ld. trial court are liable to be revers versed and no relief for specific per performance can be granted in favour of the f the respondent/ plaintiff’. It is my v is my view that that the above said reasoning/fin ing/finding of the learned 1st Appe Appellate Court is erroneous in view of the f the following findings of the learne learned trial court as contained in para-No. 21 o. 21 of the judgment and decree date e dated 18.04.2018, as under: - “21. The next question which hich comes under consideration is whether the agreement by d by defendants No. 1 and 2 with plaintiff the agreement Ex.P1. P1. Moreover, even the facts, in the present case, speaks for the r themselves. The defendants No. 1 and 2 had entered into the the agreement to sell with the plaintiff for a total sale conside nsideration of Rs. 20,00,000/- on 02.09.2013, and the same ha has been held to be a valid agreement. Not only this, the c the conduct of defendants No. 1 and 2 is also to be considered. red. These defendants before the date fixed for execution of s of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff has not sent any notic notice for execution. Moreover, during the trial of the sui suit the plaintiff moved an application for execution o n of agreement to sell but defendants refused to execute cute the sale deed in reply in favour of the plaintiff. The defe defendants have taken plea that one is that they are ready to exe o execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and they remain ained present on 30.05.2014 in the office of Sub registrar at at Dhanaula for execution but plaintiff did not turn up and se d second thing that during trial of the suit the plaintiff moved a ved an application for execution of agreement to sell but defend efendants refused to execute the RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.31 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-1421- -2024 (O&M) -7- sale deed in reply in favour of t of the plaintiff. So now where is the stand of the defendants.” (Emphasis added) 12. Accordingly, the learned trial C trial Court, had observed that ‘the circumstanc tances clearly shows that the de e defendants are intentionally avoiding ex execution of agreement’. A peru perusal of the judgment of the learned 1st d 1st Appellate Court shows that no hat no cogent reasons have been given in resp in respect of the above findings of the of the learned trial court. 13. Accordingly, in the peculiar fac liar facts and circumstances of the present case t case, particularly in view of the of the admission made by the defendants admitting receipt of earnest m nest money, it is my clear and considered v ered view that it will not serve the end the ends of Justice if the impugned judgments an ents and decrees are set aside 14. 15.
Decision
In view of the above, present ap sent appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any als any also stand(s) disposed of. 2025 25.07.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.31 10:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.