Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

RFA No. 234 of 2013

Reserved on: 03.03.2026

Date of decision: 31.03.2026

________________________________________________

Kaushalya Devi. …..Appellant.

Versus

Suini (since deceased through her LRs). ……Respondent.

________________________________________________

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

1

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the appellant: Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior

Advocate, with Mr. Karan

Sharma, Advocate.

For respondents No. 1(a),

1(b), 1(d) & 1(e): Mr. Mohammad Aamir,

Advocate.

For respondents No. 1(c)(i)

& 1(c)(ii): Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate,

vice Mr. Vipin Bhatia, Advocate.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

The instant appeal has been preferred by

appellant-Smt. Kaushalya Devi, who was plaintiff before the

learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”)

under Section 96 CPC, against judgment, dated 02.01.2013,

passed by learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P.

(hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”), whereby

1

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

2

civil suit filed by her was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a

suit before the learned Trial Court seeking decree of specific

performance of agreement, dated 17.07.2008, directing the

defendant-Smt. Suini to execute the sale deed of the land

comprised in khata/khatauni No. 1 min/5, kitas 14, to the

extent of 1/5

th

share, which comes to 5-13 bighas, out of total

28-6 bighas, situated in Mauza Mangoti, pargana Basal,

Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as

“the suit land”) in her favour on receipt of balance sale

consideration with consequential relief of permanent

prohibitory injunction. Alternatively, the plaintiff sought refund

of earnest money of Rs.8,00,000/- alongwith interest from

the defendant.

2(a). As per the plaintiff, the defendant was owner-in-

possession of the land comprised in khata/khatauni No. 1

min/4, kitas 14, to the extent of 1/5

th

share, which comes to

5-13 bighas, out of total 28-6 bighas, situated in Mauza

Mangoti, pargana Basal, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P.

On 17.07.2008, the defendant entered into an agreement

with the plaintiff to sell the suit land to her for a total

consideration of Rs.11,00,000/-, out of which defendant had

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

3

received Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff, as earnest money,

and the balance was agreed to be paid at the time of

execution and registration of the sale deed, which was to be

executed, as and when revenue papers were completed by

the defendant. As per the plaintiff, defendant had executed

general power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff on

21.07.2008 qua the suit land alongwith an affidavit

undertaking therein not to revoke/cancel the said general

power of attorney, but the defendant cancelled/revoked the

said power of attorney without any legal basis. Despite the

repeated requests of the plaintiff, the defendant did not

execute the sale-deed and avoided it on one pretext of other.

Thus, the defendant failed to perform her part of the

agreement and ultimately plaintiff was compelled to issue her

notice, dated 01.12.2008, to execute sale-deed in the office

of Sub Registrar, Kasauli, District Solan, on 23.12.2008. On

23.12.2008 the plaintiff, alongwith the balance sale

consideration amount, went to the aforesaid office, but the

defendant did not turn up to execute the sale deed.

2(b). The defendant contested the suit by filing written

statement admitting that she was owner-in-possession of the

suit land, but she denied that she entered into an agreement

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

4

with the plaintiff for sale of the suit land for Rs.11,00,000/-.

The defendant also denied that the plaintiff had paid her

Rs.8,00,000/- and balance of Rs.3,00,000/- was agreed to be

paid to her at the time of the execution of the sale-deed. She

also denied execution of general power of attorney by her

and the execution of any affidavit in favour of the plaintiff. As

per the defendant, the alleged agreement of sale was forged

and fabricated, which was never executed by her and the

same had been manipulated and fabricated by the plaintiff

alongwith her husband Prem Singh, Shyam Sunder and

Prem Singh, who was son of defendant, had active

connivance with the plaintiff. Defendant was 75 years old

lady, illiterate, innocent and rustic villager and the plaintiff

alongwith with her husband and Shyam Sunder had formed

a group and associated with the property dealer for grabbing

the property.

2(c). The defendant also averred that the plaintiff

alongwith her husband and Shyam Sunder approached and

roped in Prem Singh, one of the sons of the defendant in

their group, who approached and advised her to get her

properties in village Mangoti partitioned and persuaded her

to appoint him her attorney and the defendant, being an

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

5

innocent lady totally dependent upon her son, agreed to

appoint Prem Singh as her attorney qua her property. On

21.07.2008 said Prem Singh, in collusion with the plaintiff

and her husband Prem Singh and their other associates,

prepared some documents under the pretext of general

power of attorney and, as per their plan, obtained the

signatures of the defendant on several papers and

documents.

2(d). Later on, Bhag Singh, eldest son of the

defendant, visited her and she told him that she had

appointed Prem Singh as her attorney, on which Bhag Singh

became suspicious and made inquiry from Prem Singh and

came to know about the evil plan and fraudulent tactics of

the plaintiff and others. Bhag Singh alongwith the defendant

immediately went to Tehsil Office, Kasauli and got

cancelled/revoked her general power of attorney, dated

21.07.2008. As per the defendant, as the alleged agreement

was forged and fabricated document, the same was not

binding upon her and no agreement for sale was executed

by her in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, no question of

execution of sale-deed arose. Defendant further averred that

she could not sell and plaintiff could not purchase the suit

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

6

land owing to specific legal bar on sale of the suit property,

including her (defendant’s) share for a period of ten years,

i.e., from the year 2006, as such there was no question of

her entering into an agreement with the plaintiff. Lastly, the

defendant sought dismissal of the suit.

3. The plaintiff filed replication, wherein she refuted

the stand taken by the defendant and reiterated her claim.

On 05.11.2009 and 12.10.2012 the learned Trial Court

framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a

decree of specific performance of the

contract/agreement dated 17.07.2008?

OPP

1-A Whether the plaintiff is entitled for

recovery of the earnest money in

alternative? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a

decree of permanent prohibitory

injunction as prayed for? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable?

OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of

action to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the plaint is not properly

verified? OPD

6. Relief.”

4. After deciding issues No. 1, 1(A) and 2 against

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

7

the plaintiff, issues No. 3 and 4 in favour of the defendant

and issue No. 5 against the defendant, the suit of the plaintiff

was dismissed with costs.

5. The plaintiff feeling aggrieved with the impugned

judgment preferred the instant appeal under Section 96 of

CPC for setting aside judgment and decree, dated

02.01.2013, passed by the learned Trial Court, with a prayer

to quash and set-aside the same while allowing the instant

appeal.

6. The instant appeal was admitted for hearing on

02.04.2013.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

contended that the learned Trial Court had erred in holding

that the agreement, dated 17.07.2008, has not been proved

on record. He further contended that there is not an iota of

evidence, oral as well as documentary, which may show that

the agreement was entered in a forged manner and the

same was fabricated. He also contended that the

Power of Attorney Ex. PW-1/D, executed by the defendant in

favour of the plaintiff has been duly registered before the

competent authority and it cannot be said to be fabricated in

any manner whatsoever. He further contended that there is

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

8

no evidence on record that Prem Singh, son of the

defendant, had used undue influence at the time of the

execution of the documents.

8. On the other hand learned counsel/vice counsel

for respondents No. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(e) and respondents No.

1(c)(i) and 1(c)(ii) supported the impugned judgment and

decree passed by the learned Trial Court. They contended

that the impugned judgment and decree are the result of

proper appreciation of facts and law and the same does not

need any interference.

9. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel and

learned counsel/vice counsel for the respective parties and

carefully scrutinized the entire records.

10. The first question which arises for consideration

before this Court is as to whether the plaintiff has established

that defendant had entered into an agreement to sell with

her, whereby she had agreed to sell the suit land in her

favour for a sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- and out of

which the defendant had received Rs.8,00,000/- from her as

earnest money and the balance amount was agreed to be

paid at the time of the execution and registration of the sale

deed. It is an admitted fact that the defendant is the owner-

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

9

in-possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/5

th

share,

which fact is also established on perusal of the copy of

jamabandi for the year 2004-2005, Ex. PW-1/B. The plea of

the defendant is that the agreement dated 21.07.2008 is

forged and fabricated document, which has been procured

by the plaintiff in connivance with her husband, witnesses as

well as Prem Singh, who is the son of the defendant.

Although, the plaintiff herself has not appeared in the

witness-box, but her husband had appeared in the witness-

box as PW-1, being her power of attorney. In his deposition

before the Court he categorically stated that the defendant

had agreed to execute agreement, Ex.PW-1/C in favour of

the plaintiff for the sale of suit land for a consideration of

Rs.11,00,000/- and thereafter the defendant had also

executed power of attorney, Ex. PW-1/D, in favour of the

plaintiff on 21.07.2008 alongwith affidavit, Ex.PW-1/N,

undertaking therein not to revoke the power of attorney, but

later on the power of attorney was revoked/cancelled by the

defendant.

11. The plaintiff had also examined Shri Shyam

Sunder, who appeared in the witness-box as PW-5. He

categorically deposed that on 17.07.2008 the defendant had

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

10

executed agreement, Ex. PW-1/C, in his presence for the

sale of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff for a

consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- out of which a sum of

Rs.8,00,000/- was paid to the defendant. He further

deposed that the contents of the agreement were read-over

and explained to the defendant by him and at that time Prem

Singh, who is the son of the defendant, was accompanying

her and thereafter the agreement was signed by the plaintiff

as well as by the defendant and the witnesses, including

himself. He was cross-examined at length by the defendant,

however, nothing favourable could be elicited from his

lengthy cross-examination.

12. On the other hand, defendant-Suini appeared in

the witness-box as DW-1 and she tendered in evidence her

affidavit, Ex.DW/1A, in which she had reiterated almost all

the averments as made by her in her written statement. She

was cross-examined at length and in her cross-examination,

she had not disputed the execution of the agreement as well

as other supporting documents and admitted her signatures

on the same but as per her version such signatures were

obtained from her by her son in connivance with the plaintiff,

her husband and Shyam Sunder under the pretext of

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

11

execution of power of attorney. However, there is no

evidence on record that Prem Singh, the son of the

defendant had used any undue influence at the time of the

execution of these documents. From her cross-examination

it appears that in order to wriggle out from the agreement,

she had improved her version by stating the facts which have

neither been pleaded nor have been proved. The perusal of

the record further reveals that the stamp paper was

purchased by the defendant herself and it was duly signed

before the vendor and she had not denied her signatures in

any manner.

13. Shri Bhag Singh, eldest son of the defendant,

appeared in the witness-box as DW-2 and filed his affidavit,

Ex. PDW-2/A, by way of evidence, in which he deposed that

in the first week of October, 2008 he was told by his mother

that his younger brother, Shri Prem Singh, had got executed

a power of attorney from her regarding her properties in

village Mangoti and thereafter it came to his notice that the

plaintiff and her associates in connivance with his brother

Shri Prem Singh has obtained the signatures of his mother at

Kasauli on 21.07.2008 on various papers and documents

under the pretext of power of attorney in favour of Shri Prem

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

12

Singh and later on had fabricated the alleged agreement

thereon, which is a forged, fabricated and manipulated

document.

14. DW-3 Shri Prem Dutt had filed his affidavit, Ex.

DW-3/A, by way of evidence, in which he has stated that on

21.07.2008 he had gone to Kasauli for his personal work

where he met the defendant, who was accompanied by her

younger son Prem Singh and they were going to Tehsil

Office, Kasauli and outside the Tehsil Office some persons

met his cousin brother Prem Singh. On being enquired, he

came to know that those persons were getting some

documents typed from the Document Writer sitting in the

Tehsil premises and signatures of Smt. Suini were obtained

by the aforesaid persons on several sheets of paper and in

his presence there was no discussion regarding any sale

agreement to be executed by the defendant.

15. I have gone through the statements of DW 2 as

well as DW-3 minutely and in my opinion no credence can be

attached to their testimonies, as from their cross-

examination, it is manifest that their statements are nothing

but based on falsehoods in order to help the defendant to

wriggle out from the agreement to sell.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

13

16. The perusal of agreement, Ex. PW-1/C, reveals

that it bears the signatures of the plaintiff as well as the

defendant and also the signatures of the witnesses, namely,

Shyam Sunder, Sant Ram as well as Prem Singh, who is

admittedly son of the defendant. Thus, from the perusal of

the entire evidence on record it has been duly proved that

defendant had executed agreement to sell on 17.07.2008

with the plaintiff, whereby she had agreed to sell the suit land

in favour of the defendant for a consideration of

Rs.11,00,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- was

received by her as earnest money and the balance sale

consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of the

execution of the sale deed.

17. Now, the next question which arises for

consideration is as to whether the power of attorney Ex.PW-

1/D, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff is

forged document, as alleged by the defendant.

18. So far as the execution of power of attorney is

concerned, in the case reported as State of Rajasthan v.

Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77, the Hon’ble Apex Court

held as follows :

“13. A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by

Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

14

power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act

for the principal in one transaction or a series of

transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal

generally conferring necessary authority upon another

person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the

principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a

right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things

done by him and subject to the limitations contained in

the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the

donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a

document of convenience.

14. Besides the Contract Act, the Powers-of-Attorney Act,

1882 deals with the subject. Section 1-A of the Powers-

of-Attorney Act defines power of attorney to include

any instruments empowering a specified person to act

for and in the name of the person executing it. Section 2

of the said Act reads, thus:

“2. Execution under power of attorney.—The donee

of a power of attorney may, if he thinks fit,

execute or do any instrument or thing in and with

his own name and signature, and his own seal,

where sealing is required, by the authority of the

donor of the power; and every instrument and

thing so executed and done, shall be as effectual

in law as if it had been executed or done by the

donee of the power in the name, and with the

signature and seal, of the donor thereof.

This section applies to powers of attorney created

by instruments executed either before or after

this Act comes into force.”

Execution of a deed of power of attorney, therefore, is

valid in law and subject to the provisions of the Act is

not compulsorily registerable.”

19. In so far as the registration of a document and

the three essential steps with respect to the same are

concerned, it would be appropriate to refer to the case titled

as Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. v. S.P.

Velayutham, (2022) 8 SCC 210, relevant paras of which

read as under:

“53. Actually, the registration of a document comprises of

three essential steps among others.

They are:

(i) execution of the document, by the

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

15

executants signing or affixing his left hand

thumb impression;

(ii) presenting the document for registration

and admitting to the registering authority

the execution of such document; and

(iii) the act of registration of the document.

54. In cases where a suit for title is filed, with or without the

relief of declaration that the registered document is null

and void, what gets challenged, is a combination of all

the aforesaid three steps in the process of execution

and registration. The first of the aforesaid three steps

may be challenged in a suit for declaration that the

registered document is null and void, either on the

ground that the executant did not have a valid title to

pass on or on the ground that what was found in the

document was not the signature of the executant or on

the ground that the signature of the executant was

obtained by fraud, coercion, etc. The second step of

presentation of the document and admitting the

execution of the same, may also be challenged on the

very same grounds hereinabove stated. Such

objections to the first and second of the aforesaid three

steps are substantial and they strike at the very root of

creation of the document. A challenge to the very

execution of a document, is a challenge to its very DNA

and any or illegality on the execution, is congenital in

nature. Therefore, such a challenge, by its very nature,

has to be made only before the civil court and certainly

not before the writ court.

55. The third step, namely, the act of registration, is

something that the registering authority is called upon

to do statutorily. While the executant of the document

and the person claiming under the document (claimant)

are the only actors involved in the first two steps, the

registering officer is the actor in the third step. Apart

from the third step which is wholly in the domain of the

registering authority, he may also have a role to play in

the second step when a document is presented for

registration and the execution thereof is admitted. The

role that is assigned to the Registrar in the second step

is that of verification of the identity of the person

presenting the document for registration.

56. Thus, the first two steps in the process of registration

are substantial in nature, with the parties to the

document playing the role of the lead actors and the

registering authority playing a guest role in the second

step. The third step is procedural in nature where the

registering authority is the lead actor.

57. In suits for declaration of title and/or suits for

declaration that a registered document is null and void,

all the aforesaid three steps which comprise the entire

process of execution and registration come under

challenge. If a party questions the very execution of a

document or the right and title of a person to execute a

document and present it for registration, his remedy

will only be to go to the civil court.”

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

16

20. The power of attorney in the case at hand is duly

registered, therefore, one is guided by the settled legal

principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the

same is registered, as held by the apex Court in Prem Singh

v. Birbal 2006 (5) SCC 353. The relevant portion of the said

decision reads as below:

“27. There is a presumption that a registered document

is validly executed. A registered document,

therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The

onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who

leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the

instant case, defendant 1 has not been able to

rebut the said presumption.”

21. With respect to the procedure prescribed for

proof of execution of document concerned, it would be

appropriate to refer to case titled as as Rattan Singh & ors.

v. Nirmal Gill & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 300, the relevant

portion of which reads as under:

“34. Be that as it may, before examining whether the plaintiff

discharged that onus and thus shifted it on the

defendants, one may take note of procedure prescribed

for proof of execution of document. In this regard,

reference to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for

short “the 1872 Act”) is imperative. The same is

reproduced hereunder:

“68. Proof of execution of document required by law

to be attested.—If a document is required by law

to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence

until one attesting witness at least has been

called for the purpose of proving its execution,

if there be an attesting witness alive, and

subject to the process of the Court and capable

of giving evidence:

Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an

attesting witness in proof of the execution of

any document, not being a will, which has been

registered in accordance with the provisions of

the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908),

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

17

unless its execution by the person by whom it

purports to have been executed is specifically

denied.”

22. In the case at hand, the plaintiff has duly proved

the execution of Power of attorney by the defendant in her

favour and its due registration. Shri Devender Kumar

Sharma, Document Writer, appeared in the witness-box as

PW-2 and deposed that the power of attorney, Ex. PW-1/D,

was prepared by him at the instance of the defendant Suini.

He further deposed that he had read-over and explained the

contents of Ex. PW-1/D to the defendant and only thereafter

she had appended her signatures on the same on

21.07.2008. He also deposed that the witnesses as well as

the identifier had also appended their signatures on the

same, the entry of which has been reflected in the register

produced by him at serial no. 427, dated 21.07.2008. He

further deposed that on the register also the defendant had

appended her signatures. He was cross-examined at length

by the defendant, however, nothing favourable could be

elicited from his lengthy cross-examination.PW-3 Shri

Yogender Kumar, the then Sub Registrar, Kasauli, deposed

that he got registered, power of attorney, Ex. PW-1/D, which

had been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

18

in his presence. He further deposed that the contents of

power of attorney were read-over and explained by him to

the defendant and only thereafter he had registered the

same. He also identified the signatures of the defendant on

power of attorney, Ex. PW-1/D. He was also cross-examined

at length by the defendant, however, nothing favourable

could be elicited from his lengthy cross-examination. Shri

Deepak Kumar, the then Registration Clerk, appeared in the

witness-box as PW-4 and deposed that power of attorney,

Ex. PW-1/D, was correct as per the record produced by him.

The onus was upon the defendant to prove that the Power of

Attorney, Ex. PW-1/D, executed by her was a forged

document. However, no cogent and satisfactory evidence

has been led by the defendant to prove that Power of

Attorney, Ex. PW-1/D, executed by her is a forged document.

23. The perusal of power of attorney, Ex. PW-1/D,

shows that it was executed by the defendant in favour of the

plaintiff on 21.07.2008 and the same was prepared by PW-2

Shri Devender Kumar Sharma and signed by the defendant

after its contents were read-over and explained by the

Document Writer, Shri Devender Kumar Sharma, to her.

Further, entry qua power of attorney had been duly reflected

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

19

in the register of the Document Writer and the witnesses as

well as the identifier have also signed the same in presence

of Shri Devender Kumar Sharma. Thereafter, it was

registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Kasauli, in presence

of the Sub Registrar and the contents of the same were

read-over and explained by the Sub Registrar to the

defendant. The perusal of the power of attorney further

reveals that at the time of its execution, photograph had

been clicked in the office of Sub Registrar in which the

defendant alongwith plaintiff as well as the witnesses, i.e.,

Prem Singh and Prem Dutt are visible alonwith their finger

prints and signatures and the same have been attested by

the Sub Registrar. Therefore, in view of the entire evidence

on record, the plaintiff has duly proved that Power of Attorney

was duly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff

and the contents of the power of attorney were read over and

explained to the defendant and only thereafter she had put

her signatures on the same and after that it was duly

registered in the office of Sub Registrar. Therefore, in the

absence of any satisfactory evidence on record, it does not

lie in the mouth of the defendant to say that power of

attorney, Ex. PW-1/D, is a fabricated document.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

20

24. Now, the next question which arises for

consideration after before this Court is whether the plaintiff is

entitled for specific performance of the agreement, dated

17.07.2008 or not. The perusal of the material on record

reveals that the agreement, Ex. PW-1/C, is unenforceable,

being forbidden by law. Copy of jamabandi, Ex. PW-1/B,

demonstrates that proprietary rights, qua the suit land, were

conferred upon the defendant under the provisions of the

H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, during December,

2006, as there is a note in the aforesaid jamabandi that the

suit land cannot be alienated for a period of 10 (ten) years

upto 2016 in any manner, whatsoever. As per Section 113 of

the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, it has been

provided that no land in respect of which proprietary rights

have been acquired under this Chapter shall be transferred

by sale, mortgage, gift or otherwise during a period of ten

years by a person from the date he acquires proprietary

rights. For the sake of ready reference Section 113 of the

H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act is extracted hereunder:

“113. Bar of transfer of ownership rights:- No land in

respect of which proprietary rights have been acquired

under this Chapter shall be transferred by sale,

mortgage, gift or otherwise during a period of ten years

by a person from the date he acquires proprietary

rights.”

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

21

[Provided that nothing contained in sub-section (1)

shall apply to the transfer of land made for a productive

purpose with the prior permission of the State

Government in a prescribed manner:]

Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall

apply to the land mortgaged with the Co-operative

Societies established under the Himachal Pradesh Co-

operative Societies Act, 1968, (3 of 1969), or with a

[Bank].

(2) Any transfer of land made in contravention of sub-

section (1) shall be void and no registering authority

shall register any document evidencing such transfer

under the Indian Registration Act, 1908.”

25. Thus, there is a specific bar for sale of the suit

land in respect of which proprietary rights have been

acquired for 10 years. Therefore, in view of the provisions of

Section 113 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act,

agreement, Ex.PW-1/C, has been executed in violation of

Section 113 of the aforesaid Act, as the suit land could not

have been alienated upto the year 2016 by the plaintiff in any

manner, whatsoever. Since, the agreement has been

executed on 17.07.2008 within a period of two years from the

date of conferment of proprietary rights under the H.P.

Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, upon the defendant,

accordingly, said agreement, Ex. PW-1/C, being forbidden by

law cannot be said to be capable of being specifically

enforced.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

22

26. Now, the last question which arises for

consideration is as to what relief the plaintiff is entitled for.

As per my discussion supra, it has been proved on record

that agreement, Ex.PW-1/C, has been duly executed by the

defendant in favour of the plaintiff for the sale of the suit land

for a consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- and it has also been

proved on record that the defendant had received

Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff, as earnest money. Since the

agreement to sell dated 17.07.2008 cannot be specifically

enforced, being forbidden by law, the decree for specific

performance of the contract/agreement, dated 17.07.2008

cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiff. However, as it

has been proved on record that the defendant had received

earnest money in the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff

at the time of the execution of agreement, Ex. PW-1/C,

therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the refund of the same

alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of

the suit till its realization.

27. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove,

the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and

decree passed by the learned Trial Court are set-aside. The

plaintiff is held entitled to refund of the earnest money paid

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:9645 )

23

by her to the defendant, in the sum of Rs.8,00,000/-

alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of

the suit till its realization.

28. The appeal stands disposed of in the above

terms, so also pending application(s), if any.

( Sushil Kukreja )

Judge

31

st

March, 2026

(virender)