Col. Vikram Singh (deceased) through his Legal representatives Shri Gavinder Singh Atwal and Others(Not Applicable) vs Shrikant Krishan and ors(Not Applicable) Advocate - Jai Ram Sharma, ,Janesh Gupta,Sahil Dixit — RFA/7/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.
CNR: HPHC010052222025
Filing Number
RFA/4383/2025
Filing Date
31-Jan-2025
Registration No
RFA/7/2025
Registration Date
05-Feb-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja
Bench Type
Single
Judicial Branch
Civil Section
Decision Date
06-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 02-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Col. Vikram Singh (deceased) through his Legal representatives Shri Gavinder Singh Atwal and Others(Not Applicable)
Adv. Sumit Sood, ,Gautam Sood
-
2.Smt. Jagvinder Kaur Johal(Not Applicable)
-
3.Smt. Kajal Kehar(Not Applicable)
Respondent(s)
-
1.Shrikant Krishan and ors(Not Applicable) Advocate - Jai Ram Sharma, ,Janesh Gupta,Sahil Dixit
-
2.R-2. Shri Jagdish Chand (deceased)(Not Applicable)
-
3.R-2A. Shri Sandeep Gupta(Not Applicable)
-
4.R-2B. Shri Pankaj Mahajan(Not Applicable)
-
5.R-2C Mrs. Kiran Mahajan(Not Applicable)
-
6.R-2D. Mrs Renu Gupta(Not Applicable)
-
7.R-3 Smt. Saroj Devi(Not Applicable)
-
8.R-4 Shri Suresh Kumar alias Sudesh Kumar(Not Applicable)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil KukrejaView PDF
Summary: RFA No. 07/2025 - High Court of Himachal Pradesh The High Court dismissed the defendants' appeal and upheld the lower court's decree for specific performance of a 2007 agreement to sell 12 kanals of land. The court found the plaintiff proved his continuous readiness and willingness to perform through earnest money payments, bank statements, and demand drafts, satisfying Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The court also held the subsequent sale deeds to defendant No. 4 were sham transactions, as they showed drastically lower consideration (₹20 lakh vs. agreed ₹48 lakh) without documented payment proof, and rejected defendants' claims of plaintiff fraud or their lack of capacity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Mar-2026
—
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh
-
29-Dec-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF
-
26-Dec-2025
High Court Expedited Cases
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja
-
26-Nov-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil KukrejaView PDF
-
26-Nov-2025
—
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi
-
18-Sep-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander NegiView PDF
-
18-Sep-2025
—
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi
-
18-Aug-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander NegiView PDF
-
25-Jun-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander NegiView PDF
-
10-Mar-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander NegiView PDF
-
10-Mar-2025
Admission After Notice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi
-
24-Feb-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander NegiView PDF
-
24-Feb-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
05-Feb-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh KainthlaView PDF
-
31-Jan-2025
Case filed
Registration No. RFA/7/2025
Summary: RFA No. 07/2025 - High Court of Himachal Pradesh The High Court dismissed the defendants' appeal and upheld the lower court's decree for specific performance of a 2007 agreement to sell 12 kanals of land. The court found the plaintiff proved his continuous readiness and willingness to perform through earnest money payments, bank statements, and demand drafts, satisfying Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The court also held the subsequent sale deeds to defendant No. 4 were sham transactions, as they showed drastically lower consideration (₹20 lakh vs. agreed ₹48 lakh) without documented payment proof, and rejected defendants' claims of plaintiff fraud or their lack of capacity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts