• Call Us+91 7388255933
  • Email Uslawgiconivisam@gmail.com
LaWGiCo
  • Home
  • Law Updates
    • PIL is not maintainable in service matters: Supreme Court
  • About Us
  • Features
  • FAQ
  • Contact Us
Login Register

Punjab and Haryana High Court – Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell Upheld; Plea of Hardship Rejected

Punjab and Haryana High Court – Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell Upheld; Plea of Hardship Rejected

Case Name: Rashmi Rani v. Kuldeep Bansal

Citation: RSA No. 2246 of 2014

Date of Judgment: 6 January 2020

Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, upholding concurrent findings granting specific performance of an agreement to sell. The Court held that once execution of the agreement and receipt of substantial earnest money stood proved, the defendant could not avoid performance by raising a plea of hardship. The discretionary relief of specific performance had been rightly exercised by the courts below.

Summary: The plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 10.02.2001 regarding a residential house measuring 4 marlas. The sale consideration was fixed at ₹2,60,000, out of which ₹2,00,000 was paid as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed by 31.07.2002, but the defendant failed to perform. The suit was filed on 04.09.2002.

The defendant denied execution of the agreement, alleging forgery, and claimed hardship as it was her only residential house, mortgaged to a bank. Both the trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit for specific performance, finding that the agreement was duly proved and the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part.

In second appeal, the defendant argued that compensation in lieu of performance should have been awarded, relying on A.C. Arulappan v. Ahalya Naik (AIR 2001 SC 2783) and Nanjappan v. Ramasamy (2015) 14 SCC 341. The High Court distinguished these cases, observing that in the present case the agreement to sell was proved, the plaintiff had approached the court promptly, and no equitable ground disentitling him from relief existed.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decree for specific performance. However, the Court directed that the plaintiff shall deposit the balance consideration of ₹60,000 with interest at 12% per annum from 04.09.2002 (date of suit) within two months, if not already deposited.

Click here to Read/Download the Order

If You Need Any Help Contact LaWGiCo

+91 7388255933

Contact us today!

image

Whether you’re a litigant, a legal counsel, or a corporation — LaWGiCo bridges the gap between law and accessibility.

Quick Links

  • Home
  • Features
  • FAQ
  • Law Updates
  • Contact Us

Resources

  • About us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Contact us

268 GR FLR HIMSHIKHA COLONY PANCHKULA C.R.P.F. Pinjore Panchkula Haryana India 134104

+91 7388255933

lawgiconivisam@gmail.com

Open Time

Opening Day:
Monday - Friday: 8am to 6pm
Saturday: 9am to 5pm

Vacation:
All Sunday's

Copyright © 2025 LaWGiCo | All Rights Reserved

Design by: H T Logics PVT. LTD