RSA No.2898 of IN THE 205 Shamsher Singh Harpal Singh CORAM : HON Present: Mr. for t Mr. Ms. for t *** AMARINDER S 1. The defendants challe below whereby performance of a on the grounds th forged and fabric not have been spe 2. For original status be 3. The seeking possessi agreement to se of 1997 (O&M) -1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH RSA Date Singh and another Versus HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. S.S. Slar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. G.S. Punia, Senior Advocate wi Ms. Manleen Kaur, Advocate for the respondent. ***** DER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The present regular second appeal h challenging the judgments and decre ereby the suit of the plaintiff for ce of agreement to sell dated 13.12.19 unds that the aforesaid agreement to se fabricated and that the land in dispu een specifically enforced. For the sake of convenience, partie tus before the learned trial Court. The brief facts of the case are tha ossession of the suit land by way to sell dated 13.12.1989. In the al NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH RSA No.2898 of 1997 (O&M) Date of Decision:11.03.2026 ... Appellants ... Respondent MARINDER SINGH GREWAL ate with RAL) peal has been filed by the appellants decrees passed by the learned Courts for possession by way of specific .12.1989 has been decreed, primarily nt to sell relied upon by the plaintiff is dispute being joint property, it could parties are being referred to by their are that the plaintiff instituted a suit way of specific performance of an the alternative, the plaintiff claimed dent llants- Courts pecific marily ntiff is could y their a suit of an laimed PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.19 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2898 of recovery of Rs.6 plaintiff also pra alienating the sui were owners in plaintiff @Rs.10 favour of the plai received a sum o sale consideration of the sale deed. executed on or &16.12.1990 we office of the Sub appeared before balance sale con The plaintiff rem before the Sub R part of the contr Registrar for exe registered legal n deed. In reply, t The plaintiff sho failed to perform instituted the pre 4. Upo filing a written s of 1997 (O&M) -2- Rs.62,500/- as refund of earnest m so prayed for permanent injunction r the suit property. The case set up by th rs in possession of the suit land and Rs.10,000/- per bigha vide agreeme he plaintiff. At the time of execution o sum of Rs.43,500/- as earnest money eration was agreed to be paid at the tim deed. It was agreed between the par on or before 15.12.1990. The plai were a gazette holiday and a Sun e Sub Registrar remained closed on sa efore the office of the Sub Registrar le consideration for the execution an iff remained present throughout the d Sub Registrar evidencing his readines contract. However, the defendants f for execution of the sale deed. Subs legal notice upon the defendants callin ply, the defendants demanded inspec iff showed them the original agreem rform their part of the contract. Left w he present suit. Upon notice, the defendants appea ritten statement. They denied the exe est money along with damages. The ction restraining the defendants from p by the plaintiff is that the defendants d and agreed to sell the same to the reement to sell dated 13.12.1989 in ution of the agreement, the defendants money from the plaintiff. The balance t the time of execution and registration he parties that the sale deed would be plaintiff pleaded that 15.12.1990 a Sunday respectively and thus, the on said dates. Therefore, the plaintiff gistrar on 17.12.1990 along with the ion and registration of the sale deed. t the day and also swore an affidavit adiness and willingness to perform his dants failed to appear before the Sub Subsequently, the plaintiff served a calling upon them to execute the sale inspection of the original agreement. greement as well, yet the defendants Left with no other option, the plaintiff appeared and contested the suit by he execution of the agreement to sell s. The s from ndants to the in ndants alance tration uld be 2.1990 the laintiff ith the deed. fidavit rm his e Sub rved a he sale ement. ndants laintiff uit by to sell PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.19 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2898 of dated 13.12.1989 fraud and misrep had financial dea had taken a loan a writing in the f the loan. Similar brother Paramjit the plaintiff again sell by way of s dated 13.12.198 misrepresentation parties. Another joint property of not be specifica dismissal of the s 5. The plaint and denyin 6. On framed as many well as documen the suit while ho proved. Aggriev defendants prefe learned Appellat the findings of th of 1997 (O&M) -3- 2.1989 and alleged that the same is for misrepresentation. It was pleaded that ial dealings with the plaintiff. Accordin a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff n the form of an agreement to sell was imilarly, it was alleged that on 14.12 jit Singh had taken a loan of Rs.60 f again obtained a writing from them y of security. The defendants conten 2.1989 was also obtained by the p ntation and that no sale transaction other plea raised by the defendants rty of several co-sharers, and therefo ecifically enforced. On these groun f the suit. The plaintiff filed replication reitera denying the allegations contained in th On the basis of pleadings of the many as nine issues including relief. cumentary evidence brought on record hile holding that the agreement to se ggrieved by the judgment and decree preferred an appeal before the lea pellate Court re-appreciated the entir s of the learned trial Court. forged, fabricated and the result of ed that the defendants and their father ccording to the defendants, their father laintiff on 20.02.1987, and at that time ell was obtained merely as security for 14.12.1987, the defendants and their Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff and that m in the shape of an agreement to contended that the alleged agreement the plaintiff by playing fraud and ction was ever intended between the dants was that the suit property was therefore the alleged agreement could grounds, the defendants prayed for reiterating the averments made in the d in the written statement. f the parties, the learned trial Court relief. After appreciating the oral as record, the learned trial Court decree t to sell dated 13.12.1989 stood duly decree of the learned trial Court, the he learned 1st Appellate Court. The e entire evidence and concurred with sult of father father at time ity for d their nd that ent to ement d and the ty was could ed for in the Court oral as ecreed d duly rt, the The d with PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.19 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2898 of 7. Still second appeal be 8. Lear below have com overlooking the to sell dated 13.1 reality, the appel their signatures w repayment of th appellants had b and a writing o Mohinder Singh sale deed to be e appellants along indicating an agr of ₹60,000/- was agricultural impl on 10.12.1989. T stipulating execu 9. It is as a money len agreements to s repayment. In s judgment of a Co vs. Krishan Kum of 1997 (O&M) -4- Still dissatisfied, the defendants h eal before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants e committed a grave error in dec g the material fact that no considerati d 13.12.1989, was ever paid to the ap appellants used to obtain loans from tures were taken on various document of the loan amount. It is further had borrowed a sum of ₹50,000/- fro ting of the same date was executed, Singh had agreed to sell land measuri o be executed on or before 15.12.198 along with their brother Paramjit S an agreement to sell land at the rate of was shown to have been advanced f l implement. As per this document, th . Thereafter, yet another writing d execution of the sale deed by 15.12.19 It is further contended that in essen ey lender, and it was his consisten s to sell while advancing loans, me . In support of this submission, rel f a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kumar (deceased) through LRs 20 ants have filed the present regular ellants submits that both the Courts n decreeing the suit by completely ideration, as alleged in the agreement the appellants. It is contended that, in from the plaintiff, and in lieu thereof, uments as collateral security to ensure urther argued that the father of the from the plaintiff on 20.02.1987, ecuted, wherein it was recorded that easuring 12 bighas 8 biswas, with the 2.1987. Similarly, on 14.12.1987, the mjit Singh executed another writin rate of ₹10,000/- per bigha, and a sum nced for payment of installments of an ent, the sale deed was to be executed riting dated 13.12.1989 was obtained, .12.1990. essence, the plaintiff was functioning nsistent modus operandi to execute ns, merely as collateral security for n, reliance has been placed on the ourt in Harvinder Singh and another 2023 NCPHHC 118685, wherein, egular Courts pletely ement hat, in ereof, ensure of the .1987, d that ith the 87, the riting a sum s of an ecuted tained, ioning xecute ity for on the ther herein, PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.19 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2898 of upon finding tha sell as security performance gran of the amount al and circumstanc Section 20 of the is not bound to underlying motiv process of the C unfair advantage judgment of the 2328. 10. It is execution of the half years in filin appellants-defend year 1987, the pr the agreement to i.e. Rs.10,000/- merely a collater where the agreem only inadequate b such an agreemen judgment passed Bhaskar Rambh of 1997 (O&M) -5- ng that the plaintiff was a money lend curity for loans, the decree for p ce granted by the learned Courts below unt along with interest. The Court m stances, particularly since the relief of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is di nd to grant such relief merely beca motive of the litigation must also b the Court is not used as an instrumen ntage upon the plaintiff. In this rega f the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Math It is further argued that no notice of the sale deed on or before 15.10.199 in filing the suit after alleged refusal defendants. Furthermore, in the agr the price of the land was mentioned ent to sell executed in the year 1989 a - per bigha. Meaning thereby, th ollateral security for loan transaction a agreement to sell was executed under quate but also reflects unconscionable reement is not to be granted. In this re assed by the Bombay High Court in ambhau Ghive and another 1992 ey lender who obtained agreements to for possession by way of specific below was modified to one for refund urt must carefully scrutinize all facts relief of specific performance under 3 is discretionary in nature. The Court because it is lawful to do so. The also be examined to ensure that the trument of oppression or to confer an is regard, reliance is placed upon the Mathew vs. Kuruvilla AIR 1987 SC notice was given by the plaintiff for 10.1990 and the plaintiff took two and efusal to execute the sale deed by the he agreement to sell executed in the ed as Rs.10,000/- per bigha and in 1989 also, the price mentioned is same by, the alleged agreement to sell was ction and not to be acted upon. Thus, under pressure for a consideration not onable nature, specific performance of this regard reliance is placed upon the rt in Lonkaran Kishorilal Paliwal Vs. 1992(3) BCR 211 as well as the ents to pecific refund l facts under Court . The at the fer an on the 7 SC iff for o and by the in the and in s same ll was Thus, on not nce of on the l Vs. as the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.19 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2898 of judgment passed others 2021 (8) M 11. On assisted by Ms. M contends that th appellants-defend money. It is sub proved on record deed writer. It mutually destruc the same docume to sell and alleg fabrication; whil Ex.P1 but conte repayment of a l learned Courts b and no interferen 12. I ha book as well as th 13. The the testimony of appellants-defend plaintiff at the rat earnest money. H over and explain of 1997 (O&M) -6- assed by the Madras High Court in (8) MLJ 40. On the other hand, Mr. G.S. Pu Ms. Manleen Kaur, Advocate appear that the agreement to sell (Ex.P1) defendants upon receipt of a consid is submitted that the execution of t record through the testimony of the It is further argued that the app estructive and inconsistent pleas, there ocument. On the one hand, they deny d allege that the document in quest ; while on the other hand, they ad contend that it was executed mere of a loan allegedly advanced by the urts below have rightly decreed the rference of this Court is required in th I have heard learned counsel for th ll as the case laws cited with their able The agreement to sell (Ex.P1) stand ny of the attesting witness, PW1, wh defendants had agreed to sell the su rate of ₹10,000/- per bigha and had ney. He further stated that the conte ained to the appellants-defendants, rt in Sellathal Vs. Lakshmi Asari and .S. Punia, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent, x.P1) was validly executed by the consideration of ₹43,500/- as earnest n of the said agreement stands duly f the marginal witness as well as the he appellants-defendants have taken s, thereby approbating and reprobating deny having executed any agreement question is the result of fraud and y admit execution of the agreement, merely as a collateral security for y the respondent-plaintiff. Thus, the d the suit of the respondent-plaintiff d in the instant regular second appeal. for the parties and perused the paper eir able assistance. stands duly proved on record through 1, who categorically deposed that the the suit property to the respondent nd had received a sum of ₹43,500/- as contents of the agreement were read dants, and after admitting the same to i and ocate, ndent, y the arnest s duly as the taken bating ement d and ement, ity for us, the laintiff peal. paper rough the ndent– as e read ame to PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.19 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2898 of be correct, they a PW-2, Pawan Ku of the plaintiff document after a papers used for No.2, whose sign credence to its du civil proceedings evidence of a hi cannot be susta assertions. In the execution of the fraud and fabrica asserting that th collateral securi respondent–plain act upon the sam that the agreemen Court. 14. In th successfully esta contract. He rem as evidenced by was a holiday a defendants failed of 1997 (O&M) -7- they appended their signatures thereto an Kumar Goyal, a regular deed writ intiff by deposing that the appella after acknowledging its contents to be d for the execution of the agreemen se signatures appear on the reverse si o its due execution. It is well settled t edings, are required to be proved by f a high degree, akin to the standard sustained merely on the basis of the present case, the appellants–def of the agreement to sell and alleged fabrication. However, they subsequent that the agreement, though execute security for repayment of a loan plaintiff, and that there was no inten e same. Thus, both the learned Court reement to sell, Ex.P1 was validly exe In the considered opinion of this Co ly established his readiness and willin e remained present in the office of th ed by affidavit Ex.PW-3/A, since the liday and 16.12.1990 fell on a Sun failed to appear. Thereafter, the res thereto. The agreement was scribed by d writer, who also supported the case ppellants-defendants had signed the to be correct. Additionally, the stamp eement were purchased by defendant erse side of the same, further lending ttled that allegations of fraud, even in ved by clear, cogent and convincing andard applied in criminal cases, and is of suspicion, conjectures or bald defendants initially denied the very leged that the same was a product of equently took a contradictory stand by xecuted, was merely intended as a loan allegedly advanced by the intention on the part of the parties to Courts below have rendered a finding ly executed, which is affirmed by this his Court, the respondent-plaintiff has willingness to perform his part of the e of the Sub Registrar on 17.12.1990, ce the stipulated date i.e. 15.12.1990 Sunday; however, the appellants the respondent-plaintiff also served a bed by e case ed the stamp endant ending ven in incing s, and r bald e very uct of and by as a y the ties to inding by this iff has of the .1990, 2.1990 llants- rved a PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.19 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2898 of registered notice the sale deed, bu agreement allege cogent evidence, mere entry from defendant No.2 h repayment of th appellants-defend stands by first d thereafter admit collateral securit same breath. 15. The defendants in H apply to the fact established that t sell had been exe practice. Howeve produce any cog plaintiff was eng to advance loan repayment thereo on behalf of the instrument of o respondent-plain of 1997 (O&M) -8- notice upon the appellants-defendants ed, but the same evoked no response allegedly executed as part of a loan dence, as no such document was ever p from the deed writer’s register exhibi No.2 himself deposed that the said a of the loan amount by his father to defendants have, thus, taken inconsi first denying the very execution of th admitting its execution while attem ecurity for repayment of a loan, there The judgment relied upon by lea Harvinder Singh (supra) is clearl e facts of the present case. In the sa that the plaintiff was a money lender en executed by various persons in his owever, in the present case, the appe y cogent or convincing evidence to d as engaged in money lending or that e loans and obtain agreements to thereof. Further, this Court finds no m of the appellants–defendants that the a of oppression intended to confer plaintiff, and that on this ground, th ndants, calling upon them to execute sponse. The plea regarding any prior a loan transaction is unsupported by ever produced on record, except for a exhibited as Ex.D11. On the contrary, said agreement stood cancelled upon ther to the respondent-plaintiff. The nconsistent and mutually destructive n of the agreement to sell, Ex.P1 and attempting to characterize it as a , thereby blowing hot and cold in the y learned counsel for the appellants clearly distinguishable and does not the said matter, it stood conclusively lender and that similar agreements to in his favour as a part of his lending e appellants-defendants have failed to e to demonstrate that the respondent r that his alleged modus operandi was ts to sell as collateral security for s no merit in the contention advanced t the agreement to sell, Ex.P1 was an onfer an unfair advantage upon the nd, the relief of specific performance xecute prior ted by t for a ntrary, upon The ructive and t as a in the llants- es not sively ents to ending iled to ndent– di was ty for anced as an n the mance PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.19 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.2898 of ought to have bee the same is also m to sell executed parties, acting in agreement. It wa Court observed consideration. Th present case. 16. In v Pankajakshi (De and others (2016 (2019) 17 SCC 7 Singh (dead) thr law are not req Haryana High C Section 41 of the 17. As a the concurrent fi the same are here 18. Pend March 11, 2026 Pankaj* of 1997 (O&M) -9- ve been declined. Insofar as reliance o s also misplaced. In that case, there ex cuted in favour of different parties, a ting in collusion, sought to frustrate . It was in those peculiar circumstan erved that the motive behind the liti ion. The said principle, however, has n In view of the judgments passed by i (Dead) through Legal Representa 2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur V CC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead ) through LRs and others (2023) SC ot required to be framed in second igh Court whose jurisdiction is ci of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. As an upshot of above, this Court fin rent findings of fact rendered by both re hereby upheld. Resultantly, the regu Pending application(s), if any, shall (AMARI , 2026 Whether speaking/reaso Whether reportable iance on Mathew (supra) is concerned, ere existed two competing agreements ties, and it was found that one set of ustrate the enforcement of the other umstances that the Hon’ble Supreme he litigation must also be taken into , has no application to the facts of the sed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in entatives and others Vs. Chandrika ur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurchara 3) SCC Online SC 875, questions of econd appeal before the Punjab and is circumscribed by provisions of ourt finds no illegality and infirmity in y both the learned Courts below and e regular second appeal is dismissed. , shall also stand disposed of. MARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE g/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No erned, ments set of other preme n into of the ourt in rika thers aran ons of b and ns of ity in and issed. PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.03.19 12:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh