Daljit Singh initiated the suit on December 24, 1992, seeking specific performance of a sale agreement for approximately 79 Kanals and 9 marlas of land at a price of Rs. 80,000 per acre. He paid an earnest deposit of Rs. 40,000, with the remainder due at the execution of the sale deed by November 30, 1992. According to Singh, he was prepared with the balance payment and relevant expenses but was met with non-compliance from defendant No. 1, Janraj Singh, who failed to appear for the deed's execution.

Defendant No. 1 initially denied the existence of the agreement but later sold the land to defendant No. 2 on January 8, 1993, shortly after Singh’s suit was filed. Defendant No. 2 claimed to be a bona fide purchaser, arguing that the agreement was fabricated and asserting that he had no knowledge of the prior agreement between Singh and Janraj Singh.

The Trial Court ruled in favor of Singh on the existence of the agreement but denied specific performance, citing that defendant No. 2 was now the rightful owner following the execution of the sale deed. Instead, the court allowed Singh to recover his earnest money.

The First Appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court's ruling but suggested that the agreement may have involved fraud and collusion. However, it did not directly challenge the findings related to the refund of the earnest money.

In a pivotal move, the High Court overturned these decisions, emphasizing that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 during the pendency of the suit was invalidated by the doctrine of lis pendens. The court found that defendant No. 2 could not be considered a bona fide purchaser since he likely had knowledge of the existing agreement due to the close ties between the parties and the timing of the transactions.

The High Court's ruling was grounded in the doctrine of lis pendens, which asserts that any transfer of property during the pendency of litigation does not affect the rights of the parties involved in the suit. This principle ensures that pending litigation remains unaffected by subsequent transactions, protecting the interests of the original parties.

Moreover, the High Court underscored that since the defendants did not contest the Trial Court’s finding on the agreement's validity through a cross-appeal or objection, that finding stood uncontested.

The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming Daljit Singh’s right to specific performance of the agreement. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to legal protocols in property transactions, particularly in situations where prior agreements exist. It also serves as a cautionary tale for prospective buyers about the risks involved in acquiring property with pending litigation, as well as the impermanence of rights in light of established legal doctrines.

In this landmark case, the court reaffirmed the principle that the sanctity of contractual agreements must be respected, particularly when backed by demonstrated readiness to perform as stipulated. The appeal by defendant No. 2 was dismissed, with no costs awarded, marking a definitive victory for Singh in his pursuit of justice.