Second appeal by plaintiff seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell. Both courts below had dismissed the suit; this court found the agreement and payment of earnest money unproven and the suit time-barred, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page 1 of 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 119
Date of decision: 28.07.2025
RSA-95-2022(O&M)
Jasbir Kaur
...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Kuldeep Kaur & Others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:Mr. Parampreet Singh Paul, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Pratap, Advocate for the appellant.
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent
judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 18.05.2015, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.
the learned Courts below were in patent error in non-suiting the plaintiff as it failed to take into account the fact that the Agreement stood proven in accordance with law. Execution of the Agreement is proved by the statement of plaintiff Jasbir Kaur and attesting witness Sant Singh/Lambardar, of the Agreement who stated that the rate of land to be sold was Rs.78000/- per
SUNENA 2025.07.30 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 2 of 7
acre but inadvertently, it was written as Rs.7,80,000/-. It is submitted that even readiness and willingness of the appellant/plaintiff to execute the Sale Deed was proved by cogent evidence led by the plaintiff. It is contended that in these circumstances, there was no cause or occasion for the Courts below to dismiss the Civil Suit.
SUNENA 2025.07.30 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 3 of 7
same deed was not executed. Then the suit was filed within three years and if it is taken that the land was released on 29.11.2010 then the suit is within the period of limitation i.e. 3 years: The period of limitation is to be taken 3 years from the date of refusal by the defendants after serving the notice given by the plaintiff. Admittedly the defendants were given the notice by the plaintiff and defendants did not execute the Sale Deed. The defendants have not led any evidence to show that the land was released from attachment earlier to 29.11.2010. Learned counsel accordingly prays for setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below.
SUNENA 2025.07.30 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 4 of 7
another Rs.2 lakh on 23.10.2006; and a further amount of Rs.50,000/- was received by defendant No.4 on behalf of his father Harpal Singh from the plaintiff. In this way, total amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff. It is averred that it was stipulated in the Agreement that the land measuring 8 kanal 11 marla is attached by the Court, and Sale Deed would be executed within one month of release of land from attachment. It was averred that now the land had been released from attachment on 29.11.2010. The plaintiff had been always ready and willing to execute the Sale Deed by making payments of balance sale consideration. The plaintiff had even sent legal notice dated 24.12.2010 calling upon the defendants to appear in the Tehsil Office on 04.01.2011. As none appeared on behalf of the defendants, another legal notice dated 13.01.2011 was served upon them for execution of Sale Deed on 21.01.2011. However, as none appeared, present suit was filed on 29.03.2011.
SUNENA 2025.07.30 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 5 of 7
immediately got it released from attachment. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Defendant No.3 was proceeded against ex parte. Defendant No.5 had filed a separate written statement averring that he was bona fide purchaser of the suit property to the extent of 4 kanal 19 marla which he had purchased from defendants No.1 to 3 vide registered Sale Deed dated 17.06.2011. Mutation regarding the same had been sanctioned. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
SUNENA 2025.07.30 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 6 of 7
signatures of the defendants. Except Sant Singh Lambardar PW3, no attesting witness was examined. Even deposition of Sant Singh was not reliable as he had stated that he did not know the name of Scribe; that he did not know whether the Scribe had signed the Agreement; that he did not remember where he had signed the Agreement. PW3 had expressed ignorance about material facts regarding the execution of the Agreement in question and had given evasive replies which cast shadow of doubt on the execution of the said Agreement. Clearly, therefore, assertion of the plaintiff that the Agreement stood proved, is incorrect.
SUNENA 2025.07.30 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Page 7 of 7
nor from the record, regarding attachment of the suit property. Although in the Jamabandi (Ex.P4), there is some reference of report No.317 dated 18.04.2002, however, it is not clear as to in which case, by which order, on which date, property had been attached. Not only did this cast a shadow of doubt on the Agreement itself, the same also put the suit of the plaintiff beyond limitation. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property stood released from attachment on 29.11.2010, however, admittedly, no documentary or oral evidence has been brought on record by the plaintiff or even by the defendants to show either order of attachment or order of release. In this view of the matter, I have no doubt in holding that the suit of the plaintiff was rightly held to be barred by limitation as admittedly the Agreement to Sell is dated 18.05.2005; whereas the instant suit has been instituted on 29.03.2011.
28.07.2025 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
SUNENA 2025.07.30 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Agreement to Sell dated 18.05.2005 was proven by the plaintiff.
Whether the suit filed on 29.03.2011 was barred by limitation despite alleged release of the property from attachment on 29.11.2010.
Jasbir Kaur
Kuldeep Kaur
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
