(O&M) SARDARI LAL K.S.SIDHU, KANWALJIT SINGH vs BUTA RAM — RSA/979/2000

Case under No Acts Defined. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 04-Apr-2005

CNR: PHHC010458012000

Filing Number

RSA/979/2000

Filing Date

05-May-2000

Registration No

RSA/979/2000

Registration Date

05-May-5500

Judge

Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Coram

Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Bench Type

Single

Category

26 - RSA ( 496 )

Sub-Category

( 944 )

Judicial Branch

CIVIL II(RSA) BRANCH

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

No Acts Defined

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.(O&M) SARDARI LAL K.S.SIDHU, KANWALJIT SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BUTA RAM

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Virinder AggarwalView PDF

    Case Summary: RSA 979/2000 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower courts' decrees for specific performance of a land sale agreement. Instead, the court decreed recovery of Rs. 30,000 (the loan amount) with interest at 9% per annum from agreement execution until suit filing, plus 6% interest thereafter. Key Reasoning: The court found that the plaintiff unilaterally altered a material term of the agreement—changing the property description from Khasra 7R/18 to 9/18 without the defendant's consent—seriously impairing the document's authenticity and enforceability. Additionally, evidence showed the underlying transaction was a loan (not a genuine land sale), as the plaintiff himself admitted borrowing Rs. 30,000 and obtaining the agreement only after the defendant failed to repay, then using police pressure to enforce it. Since specific performance requires "clean hands," the plaintiff's material alteration of the contract made him ineligible for this equitable relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Jul-2018

    —

    Mr. Justice Dr. Shekher Dhawan

  4. 07-May-2018

    —

    Mr. Justice Arun Monga

  5. 08-Jan-2018

    —

    Mr. Justice Girish Agnihotri

  6. 11-Jul-2017

    —

    Mr. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu

  7. 09-Jan-2017

    —

    Mr. Justice T.H.B. Chalapathi

  8. 26-Aug-2016

    Mr. Justice Amit Rawal

  9. 04-Jul-2016

    —

    Mr. Justice Arun Monga

  10. 05-Jan-2016

    —

    Mr. Justice Arun Monga

  11. 10-Aug-2015

    —

    Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal

  12. 02-Mar-2015

    —

    Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal

  13. 05-Jan-2015

    —

    Mr. Justice Arun Monga

  14. 25-Sep-2014

    —

    Mr. Justice Arun Monga

  15. 01-Aug-2014

    —

    Mr. Justice S.C. Malte

  16. 30-Jun-2014

    —

    Mr Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg

  17. 08-Jan-2014

    —

    Mr. Justice S.C. Datta

  18. 01-Jul-2013

    —

    Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

  19. 07-Jan-2013

    —

    Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

  20. 02-Jul-2012

    —

    Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal

  21. 02-Jan-2012

    —

    Mr. Justice Krishna Murari

  22. 30-Sep-2011

    —

    Mr. Justice Jai Singh Sekhon

  23. 04-Jul-2011

    —

    Mr. Justice Jai Singh Sekhon

  24. 04-Jan-2011

    —

    Mr Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

  25. 28-Jun-2010

    —

    Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath

  26. 15-Sep-2005

    —

    Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh

  27. 08-Aug-2005

    —

    Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh

  28. 04-Apr-2005

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  29. 05-May-2000

    Case filed

    Registration No. RSA/979/2000

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RSA 979/2000 Court Decision: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower courts' decrees for specific performance of a land sale agreement. Instead, the court decreed recovery of Rs. 30,000 (the loan amount) with interest at 9% per annum from agreement execution until suit filing, plus 6% interest thereafter. Key Reasoning: The court found that the plaintiff unilaterally altered a material term of the agreement—changing the property description from Khasra 7R/18 to 9/18 without the defendant's consent—seriously impairing the document's authenticity and enforceability. Additionally, evidence showed the underlying transaction was a loan (not a genuine land sale), as the plaintiff himself admitted borrowing Rs. 30,000 and obtaining the agreement only after the defendant failed to repay, then using police pressure to enforce it. Since specific performance requires "clean hands," the plaintiff's material alteration of the contract made him ineligible for this equitable relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case