CS/18/2025 of M/S HAND CORNER STONE LLP Vs SANKALP GUPTA AND OTHERS on 4 August 2026

2026:HHC:33103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Suit No. 18 of 2025 Date of decision: 04.08.2026 M/S Hand Corner Stone LLP

...Plaintiff. Versus Sankalp Gupta and others

...Defendants.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the plaintiff : Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the defendants : Mr. Adarsh Kumar Vashisht, Advocate. Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral): The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for possession, by way of specific performance of the supplementary agreement dated 23rd April, 2022, executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.

2. As per the case set up by the plaintiff, father of defendant No. 1, Sankalp Gupta, namely, Alok Gupta, defendant No. 3, approached the plaintiff and offered them to sell the land owned and possessed by defendants No. 1 and 2, situated in Village Mohal Kothi, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. and further assured that all the requisite permissions shall be taken by him and other defendants.

3. The plaintiff agreed to purchase land of defendants No. 1 and 2, measuring 142 bighas 13 biswas, forming part of the land bearing Khata/Khatauni No. 25/43 and khasra Nos. 287, 290, situated in Mohal Kothi, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P., for developing a housing colony. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

-2- 2026:HHC:33103

4. As per the case set up by the plaintiff, the defendants had assured the plaintiff that they shall get the requisite permissions in order to do the needful. Subsequently, the plaintiff entered into multiple agreements to sell with the defendants in the following manner:- “(a) The Plaintiff through its authorized signatory Aditya Gupta entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 22.11.2021 with Defendant No. 1, Sankalp Gupta, Biswas, for purchasing land measuring 75 Bighas 13 Biswas, bearing Khata/Khatauni No. 25/43, Khasra No. 287, 290, situated at Mohal Kothi, Tehsil and District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The total sale consideration was Rs. 2,26,95,000/-, out of which Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was paid as earnest money at the time of entering into the agreement to sell. The balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. The Agreement to Sell dated 22.11.2021 is annexed herewith.

(b) The Plaintiff entered into another Agreement to Sell dated 09.02.2022 with Defendant No. 1, Sankalp Gupta for purchasing land measuring 40 Bighas, bearing Khata/Khatauni No. 25/43, Khasra No. 290, situated at Mohal Kothi, Tehsil and District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, for a total consideration of Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. An amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was paid as earnest money at the time of entering into the agreement to sell, and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. The Agreement to Sell dated 09.02.2022 is annexed herewith.

(c) The Plaintiff entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 09.02.2022 with Defendant No. 2, Vasu Bhardwaj, for purchasing land measuring 27 Bighas, bearing Khata/Khatauni No. 25/43, Khasra No. 290, situated at Mohal Kothi, Tehsil and District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The total sale consideration was Rs. 81,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 51,00,000/- was to be paid as earnest money before 15.02.2022. The remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. The Agreement to Sell dated 09.02.2022 is annexed herewith.”

-3- 2026:HHC:33103

5. According to the plaintiff, the Supplementary Agreement to Sell dated 23rd April, 2022, acknowledging the various part-payments made to defendants No. 1 and 2, as well as a joint perusal of the entries in the agreements, reveals that on the asking of the defendants, the plaintiff paid various amounts over and above the initial advance money to defendants No. 1 and 2.

6. As per plaintiff, they were surprised and shocked when the defendants issued legal notice dated 15th November, 2024 to the plaintiff through their counsel, demanding that the plaintiff shall execute the sale deed in their favour on or before 17th December, 2024, in furtherance of the Supplementary Agreement to sell dated 23rd April, 2022 entered into with both the defendants.

7. Plaintiff contends, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreements dated 21st November, 2021 and 9th February, 2022, as well as the Supplementary Agreement to Sell dated 23rd April, 2022. It has been alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff came to know that the defendants are in talks with other persons for the sale of the suit land, and that the suit land may be transferred to third party without fulfilling their obligations under the agreement to sell. Therefore, under such circumstances, the present suit has been filed for possession by way of specific performance of the Supplementary Agreement to Sell dated 23rd April, 2022, executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, with further prayer for -4- 2026:HHC:33103 mandatory and permanent injunction, and in alternative, decree for recovery of 3,70,00,000/- (Rs. Three Crores Seventy Lakhs) has ₹

been sought in the present proceedings.

8. The said suit came to be resisted by filing comprehensive written statement on behalf of the defendants, whereby all the averments as made in the plaint have been specifically refuted and denied. As per defendants, since the present plaintiff is non- agriculturists, therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, it is debarred from purchasing the suit land in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

9. It is heartening to note that during the pendency of the suit, the parties have entered into compromise, and for placing on record the said compromise deed, OMP No. 796 of 2026 has been filed alongwith compromise which has been entered into between the parties. It has been stipulated in the application that the matter stands amicably settled between the parties, and the original compromise deed has been annexed as Exhibit C-1. As per the terms and conditions of the compromise, the parties have mutually agreed to terminate and cancel the agreements forming the subject matter of the present litigation. The defendants have agreed to refund/return the amounts received from the plaintiff, and in consideration thereof, the plaintiff has agreed to withdraw the instant Civil Suit.

-5- 2026:HHC:33103

10. As per the averments made in the application, the compromise has been executed voluntarily by the parties out of their own free will, without any pressure, coercion, or undue influence exercised upon them from any quarter. The compromise deed has been duly signed by both parties, and the same is duly acknowledged by the respective counsel for the parties.

11. In view of the compromise deed (Exhibit C-1), OMP No. 796 of 2026 is allowed, and in terms of the settlement amicably arrived at between the parties, the suit stands decided, having been compromised.

12. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the requisite Court fee affixed on the plaint may be refunded to the plaintiff. The requisite Court fee, as permissible under the law, is ordered to be refunded to the plaintiff as per the prevailing Rules.

13. Therefore, in view of the compromise inter se the parties, the present suit stands disposed of as having been compromised. The compromise deed Exhibit C-1 shall form part of the decree, and decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge August 4, 2026. (Nisha)