Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shriya @ Sariya And Ors vs Satbir Singh on 12 January, 2026
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
RSA-10-2026 (O&M)
137 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM-58-C-2026 in/and
RSA-10-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 12.01.2026
Smt. Shriya @ Sariya & ors. ....Appellants
Versus
Satbir Singh ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
*****
Present :- Mr. Ritender Rathee, Advocate for the appellants.
*****
PANKAJ JAIN, J.(ORAL)
CM-58-C-2026 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 775 days in filing the present appeal.
For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicants-appellants have shown sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Application is allowed. Delay of 775 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Main case 1 Appellants-defendants are in second appeal. For convenience, parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellants as defendants and the respondent as plaintiff. POOJA SHARMA 2026.01.23 09:57 Page 1 of 7 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-10-2026 (O&M) 2 Plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.09.2004 pertaining to a plot measuring 100 sq. yards as detailed out in the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'). As per the plaintiff, Kaptan, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants executed agreement to sell dated 16.09.2004 in his favour. Kaptan agreed to sell suit property in his favour for a total sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-. Full and final payment was made by the plaintiff to vendor Kaptan on the same day. Kaptan agreed to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff on his asking. Kaptan died on 14.06.2000 leaving behind defendants as his legal heirs. Mutation qua suit property was sanctioned in favour of defendants. Plaintiff issued legal notice dated 13.11.2014, calling upon the defendants to execute sale deed in his favour on 26.11.2014. Plaintiff claims to have remained present in the office of Sub Registrar on the appointed date. After the defendants failed to execute the sale deed in his favour, the plaintiff instituted the present suit on 22.12.2014. 3 Suit was contested by the defendants by filing joint written statement. Execution of agreement to sell by their predecessor-in-interest, Kaptan was denied. It was claimed that the same is a result of fraud played by plaintiff upon Kaptan. Defendants denied possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The defendants claimed to have constructed a residential house over the plot. As per defendant, the suit property was gifted by the Gram Panchayat of village Devru to Kaptan vide registered gift deed No.6594 dated 11.03.1994. As per the relevant regulations/rules, the donee is bound by the conditions of the gift and cannot alienate the same for a period of 20 years from the date of gift. The agreement to sell propounded POOJA SHARMA 2026.01.23 09:57 Page 2 of 7 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-10-2026 (O&M) by the plaintiff dated 16.09.2004 being in violation of the terms of the gift is illegal and not binding on the rights of the defendants. 4 Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by the Court of the First Instance framing following issues :-
" 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
1. (a) whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance? OPP (additional issue framed vide order dated 13.9.2018)
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the court? OPD
5. Relief."
5 After analyzing evidence threadbare, the Court of First Instance found that the plaintiff successfully proved execution of agreement to sell and receipt (Ex.P23 and P24). As per the terms of the agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff, entire sale consideration stands paid to Kaptan. The agreement to sell being open-ended, time was not the essence of the same. The plaintiff proved service of the legal notice upon the defendants and filed the suit thereafter. Thus, the suit is well within the period of limitation. The Court accordingly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff, holding him entitled to main relief of specific performance. 6 The aforesaid findings stand affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.
POOJA SHARMA 2026.01.23 09:57 Page 3 of 7 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-10-2026 (O&M) 7 Counsel appearing for the defendants has assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below. The main plank of the argument raised by the counsel for the defendants is that the agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff, being in teeth of the terms and conditions of the gift, the same is illegal and cannot be acted upon. The same shall lead to the resumption of the property. He thus claims that the Courts below erred in decreeing specific performance of an agreement to sell which could not have been executed in the light of terms of gift deed, executed by Gram Panchayat in favour of Kaptan.
8 I have heard learned counsel for the defendants and have carefully gone through records of the case.
9 Both the Courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff successfully proved execution of agreement to sell (Ex.P23 ) and payment of earnest money acknowledged by Kaptan vide receipt (Ex.P24). The specific performance is being resisted claiming that the agreement to sell is void ab- initio being in teeth of terms of gift deed on the basis of which Kaptan became owner of the property.
10 Rule 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, 'the 1961 Act') reads as under :-
"13A Penalties and procedure:- (1) No person shall unless entitled or authorised so to do, by law or by an instrument or by order executed or issued by a competent authority under law, enter into the possession of any land vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act or having lawfully entered into possession of such land ; unlawfully remain in possession thereof, on or after the expiry of the term of such lawful possession, if any.POOJA SHARMA 2026.01.23 09:57 Page 4 of 7 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-10-2026 (O&M) (2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall, notwithstanding any thing contained in any other law, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
(3) Any person who abets an offence punishable under this Act, shall be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
(3) (3) Notwithstanding, anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, an offence under this Act, shall be cognigable."
11 The issue as to whether agreement to sell amounts to transfer and thus violation of condition of gift/allotment prohibiting transfer was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Vithal Kadam Vs. Sunil Baburaoi Kadam, (2018) 2 SCC 82 observing as under :-
"17. So far as the plea relating to validity and enforceability of the agreement in question is concerned, it was rightly held by the High Court to which we concur that the agreement in question is not hit by Section 48 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act inasmuch as the agreement to sell in itself does not create any interest in the land nor does it amount to sale under Section 54 of the T.P. Act. It only enables the intending buyer to claim specific performance of such agreement on proving its terms. In other words, there lies a distinction between an agreement to sell, and sale."
12 In view of aforesaid proposition of law, this Court finds that agreement to sell does not amount to violation of any condition imposing prohibition on transfer as mere execution of agreement to sell does not amount to transfer.
POOJA SHARMA 2026.01.23 09:57 Page 5 of 7 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-10-2026 (O&M) 13 The agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff is an open- ended agreement whereby the executant thereof namely Kaptan after receiving the entire sale consideration agreed to execute sale deed as and when asked by the vendee i.e. plaintiff. The gift deed executed by Gram Panchayat in favour of Kaptan is dated 11.03.1994. Thus, on 11.03.2014 i.e. on expiry of 20 years of the gift deed, Kaptan became eligible to transfer the property. It is thereafter that the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 22.12.2014. In the considered opinion of this Court, even if Kaptan is held to be ineligible to transfer the property on the date he executed agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff, because of subsequent perfection of his title by efflux of time, plaintiff- the transferee can always enforce the contract of transfer.
14 Reliance can be placed upon Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short, 'the 1882 Act') which reads as under :-
"43. Transfer by unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest in property transferred.--Where a person 3 [fraudulently or] erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists.
Nothing in this section shall impair the right of transferees in good faith for consideration without notice of the existence of the said option.
Illustration A, a Hindu who has separated from his father B, sells to C three fields, X, Y and Z, representing that A is authorised to transfer the same. Of these fields Z does not belong to A, it having been retained by B on the partition; but on B's dying A as heir obtains Z.C, not having rescinded the contract of sale, may require A to deliver Z to him ."POOJA SHARMA 2026.01.23 09:57 Page 6 of 7 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-10-2026 (O&M) 15 The situation contemplated in the present case is fully covered by the illustration appended to Section 43 of the 1882 Act, this Court finds that the Courts below rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 16 Finding no merits in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed.
( PANKAJ JAIN )
12.01.2026 JUDGE
Pooja Sharma-I
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
POOJA SHARMA
2026.01.23 09:57 Page 7 of 7
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document