Oral Agreement Upheld, ₹50 Lakh Compensation Imposed: P&H High Court Enforces Property Deal Despite Delay, Rejects ₹1.6 Crore Claim

Case Name: Deepak Bhardwaj (through LRs) v. M/s J.V. Builders Private Ltd. and Others

Date of Judgment: 17.04.2026

Citation: RSA No. 1243 of 2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu

Held: The High Court held that an oral agreement to sell is legally enforceable when proved by cogent evidence, and where readiness and willingness of the purchaser is established, a decree for specific performance can be granted. The Court further held that delay in litigation can be equitably balanced by awarding monetary compensation to the seller.

Summary: The dispute arose out of an oral agreement to sell dated 11.03.2007 concerning agricultural land in Jhajjar. The plaintiffs asserted that the total sale consideration was ₹30 lakh, which was fully paid through multiple cheques, and that the defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite their readiness and presence before the Sub-Registrar.

The defendant, on the other hand, disputed the terms of the agreement, claiming that the actual sale consideration was ₹1.6 crore and that the plaintiffs had failed to pay the balance amount within time, resulting in forfeiture of earnest money.

The trial court declined specific performance and granted only refund of ₹15 lakh with interest. However, the first appellate court reversed this finding and granted a decree for specific performance, directing execution of the sale deed upon payment of ₹15 lakh balance consideration along with ₹50 lakh compensation to account for delay and escalation in property value.

Before the High Court, the principal issues revolved around the actual sale consideration, limitation, readiness and willingness, and validity of an oral agreement. The Court, after detailed appreciation of evidence, found that the defendant failed to prove the inflated claim of ₹1.6 crore and that documentary as well as oral evidence supported the plaintiffs’ version of ₹30 lakh consideration.

The Court also noted that a substantial portion of the consideration had been paid and that the plaintiffs had demonstrated readiness and willingness by appearing before the Sub-Registrar with stamp papers. It rejected the argument of limitation, holding that the suit filed in 2011 was within the prescribed period from the agreed target date of 31.12.2008.

Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that oral agreements to sell are valid and enforceable in law, and that absence of a written document does not defeat a claim if supported by reliable evidence.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and upheld the decree of specific performance granted by the first appellate court. It confirmed that the plaintiffs were entitled to execution of the sale deed on payment of ₹15 lakh as balance consideration along with ₹50 lakh as compensation to the legal representatives of the original owner. The Court held that such compensation adequately balanced equities arising from delay and rise in property prices, and found no ground for interference in second appellate jurisdiction.