Dismissed¶44

Sanjiv Kumar @ Birbal v. Ram Rakha Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Sept 2025RSA/3801/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sanjiv Kumar @ Birbal v Ram Rakha Singh; RSA-3801-2019 (O&M); High Court of Punjab and Haryana; Harkesh Manuja J.; specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011; readiness and willingness; Article 54 Schedule II Limitation Act 1963; suit filed 24.12.2014 within limitation; earnest money Rs. 5,00,000/- forfeiture; refund declined; concurrent findings upheld; Village Thamangarh Tehsil Maur Bathinda; Talwandi Sabo; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application CM-10265-C-2019 for condonation of 65 days' delay in refiling the appeal allowed; no substantive relief to the appellant in the main appeal, which is dismissed, and pending applications disposed of. ¶44

Sanjiv Kumar @ Birbal Vs Ram Rakha Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the Courts below erred in non-suiting the appellant-plaintiff and dismissing his suit for possession by way of specific performance despite the respondent-defendant's admission of the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 and payment of earnest money, the suit having been filed within the prescribed three-year period of limitation. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

A concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that the appellant-plaintiff could not establish his readiness and willingness to perform in terms of the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 calls for no interference, notwithstanding the admission of execution of the agreement and payment of earnest money.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The suit was filed only on 24.12.2014, i.e. just 7 days before the expiry of the 3-year limitation period envisaged under Article 54 of Schedule II, Limitation Act, 1963, the target date under the agreement being 31.12.2011.

¶39

Key takeaways

Between 31.12.2011 and 24.12.2014 no notice was ever served by the appellant-plaintiff upon the respondent-defendant calling upon him to execute the sale deed.ratio¶39
The appellant-plaintiff was found to be false about having remained present before the Office of the Sub-Registrar on the target date 31.12.2011, that day being a public holiday with no occasion for him to be present for execution of the sale deed.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Harkesh Manuja, J., oral), 08.09.2025 - CM-10265-C-2019 in/and RSA-3801-2019 (O&M): Condonation of 65 days' delay in refiling allowed; main appeal by the purchaser under an agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 (land at Village Thamangarh, Tehsil Maur, District Bathinda; consideration Rs. 8,70,750/-; earnest money Rs. 5,00,000/-; target date 31.12.2011) dismissed. Upholding concurrent findings of the Courts below, the Court held that the appellant-plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness: the suit was filed on 24.12.2014, barely 7 days before expiry of the three-year period under Article 54 of Schedule II, Limitation Act, 1963; no notice was served between 31.12.2011 and 24.12.2014; and the plaintiff's claim of presence at the Sub-Registrar's office on the target date was found false, that day being a public holiday. Decline of refund of earnest money in accordance with the agreement's terms (forfeiture entitlement recorded per Ex.P-1) was sustained; no illegality or perversity found and re-appreciation held impermissible.

¶1

CM-10265-C-2019 in/and RSA-3801-2019 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CM-10265-C-2019 in/and RSA-3801-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 08, 2025

¶5

SANJIV KUMAR @ BIRBAL ......Applicant/Appellan t Versus RAM RAKHA SINGH ........Respondent

¶6

......Applicant/Appellan t

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶8

Present: Mr. Ishmeet Singh, Advocate fo r the applicant-appellant.

¶9

¶10

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

CM-10265-C-2019

¶12

Thi s is an application seeking condonation of delay of 6 5 days in refiling t he appeal.

¶13

For the reasons mentioned i n the application which i s supported by a n affidavit, the same is allo w ed and delay of 65 days i n refiling the app e al is hereby condoned. MAIN CASE

¶14

By way of present appeal, c hallenge has been laid t o judgments and decrees dated 06.02.2018 a n d 05.10.2018 passed by th e Courts below whereby, a suit for possession by way of specifi c performance in the alternate of recovery an d permanent injunction filed a t the instance of appellant-plaintiff stands dis m issed. 2. Bri e fly stating, the appellant-plaintiff entered into agreemen t to sell dated 2 7 .05.2011 with respondent-d e fendant qua land measurin g 5 kanals and 8 marlas comprised in Khewat No.93/75min Khataun i No.237 bearin g Khasra No.43/2 (24-0) and l and measuring 13 kanal an d TEJWINDER SINGH15 marlas comprised in Khewat No.92/75 m in Khatauni No.236 bearin g 2025.09.11 00:28 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶15

CM-10265-C-2019 in/and RSA-3801-2019 (O&M)

¶16

¶17

Khasra Nos.64/2/2(13-15) comprised in Khewat No.22 Khatauni No.63/a situated within revenue limits of Village Thamangarh Tehsil, Maur, District Bathinda. It was further pleaded that the total sale consideration was Rs. 8,70,750/- out of which a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was paid as earnest money whereas the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed on 31.12.2011 being the target date. The appellant-plaintiff pleaded that since the respondent-defendant despite repeated requests failed to execute the sale deed hence, the suit for possession by way of specific performance; in the alternate of recovery of earnest money as well as grant of permanent injunction, alienating the respondent-defendant was filed.

¶18

Upon notice, respondent-defendant filed the written statement and admitted the execution of agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 besides having received earnest money. It was however, pleaded that the appellant-plaintiff did not choose to come forward for the purpose of execution of the sale deed despite repeated requests been made from the side of respondent-defendant thus, failed to establish his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement dated 27.05.2011 and hence, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

¶19

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were

¶20

framed by learned trial Court on 28.07.2015:-

¶21

1. “Whether plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011? OPP

¶22

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 as prayed for? OPP

¶23

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

¶24

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD

¶25

5. Whether plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Courts? OPD

¶26

6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

¶27

TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.11 00:28 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶28

CM-10265-C-2019 in/and RSA-3801-2019 (O&M)

¶29

¶30

7. Relief.”

¶31

The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.02.2018 dismissed the suit filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff while holding that he failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 and thus, was neither entitled for grant of decree for possession by way of specific performance nor even in the alternate for recovery. It was also recorded that in terms of agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 (Ex.P-1), respondentdefendant was entitled to forfeit the earnest money. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed in toto.

¶32

Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2018, the appellant-plaintiff filed first appeal, however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 05.10.2018 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. .Division), Talwandi Sabo Bathinda, hence the present appeal.

¶33

Impugning the aforementioned judgment and decrees, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that once the execution of the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 as well as the payment of earnest money was admitted by the respondent-defendant, the Courts below went wrong while non-suiting the appellant-plaintiff although, the suit for possession by way of specific performance was filed by him within the prescribed period of limitation i.e. 3 years. He also submits that in the given facts, learned Courts below acted illegally while declining the relief claimed by the appellant-plaintiff with respect to refund of earnest money paid under the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 and thus, the same were liable to be set aside to that extent at least.

¶34

TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.11 00:28 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶35

CM-10265-C-2019 in/and RSA-3801-2019 (O&M)

¶36

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff.

¶38

In the present case, though the execution of the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011 besides the payment of earnest money amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- has been admitted by the respondent-defendant, however, a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts below to the effect that the appellant-plaintiff could not establish his readiness and willingness to perform in terms of agreement to sell dated 27.05.2011, hence no interference is called for.

¶39

From the facts and the evidence available on record, it can be seen that target date under agreement to sell dated 26.05.2011 was 31.12.2011 whereas, the suit was filed at the instance of appellantplaintiff only on 24.12.2014 i.e. just 7 days before the expiry of 3 years limitation period envisaged under Article 54 of Schedule II, Limitation Act, 1963. During this period i.e. between 31.12.2011 and 24.12.2014, no notice was ever served upon respondent-defendant by the appellantplaintiff calling upon him to get the sale deed executed. Even the appellant-plaintiff was found to be false about he having remained present before the Office of Sub-Registrar on the target deed i.e. 31.12.2011 as the same was a public holiday; there being no occasion for appellant-plaintiff to have been remained present there for the purpose of execution of sale deed.

¶40

In such circumstances, evidently, the willingness on the part of the appellant-plaintiff to perform his obligation under the agreement to sell dated 27.05.2000 was never established on record. Accordingly no TEJWINDER SINGHinterference is called for , especially, when even the relief about refund of 2025.09.11 00:28 I agree to specified portions of this document

¶41

CM-10265-C-2019 in/and RSA-3801-2019 (O&M)

¶42

¶43

earnest money was even declined by the Courts below in accordance with terms of the agreement in question.

¶44

Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, there being no overlooking of the material available on record, re-appreciation of pleadings and evidence being impermissible, the present appeal being devoid of merits is thus, dismissed.

¶45

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶46

08.09.2025 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶47

TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.11 00:28 I agree to specified portions of this document

Sanjiv Kumar @ Birbal v. Ram Rakha Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjiv Kumar @ Birbal v. Ram Rakha Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaideep Singh and Others Vs Mahip Singh Chadha and Another

Gaushala Talwandi Bhai Vs Collector Land Acquisition and Another

Mehar Singh Vs Pb Govt.

Yashpal and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Yashpal and Others

Pankaj Alais Aman Sharma Vs Rajinder Pal Sharma and Others