RSA-1997-1996 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1997-1996 Date of Decision:30.07.2026 1. Judgment reserved on 06.07.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 30.07.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 31.07.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pro- nounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced. Full 5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judg- ment and reason thereof. Nil CHARAN KAUR .....APPELLANT VERSUS OM PARKASH AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Argued by:- Mr. Amit Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate Mr. Simranjit Singh Sidhu, Advocate and Mr. Parit Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kshitiz Goyal, Advocate Mr Shrey Sachdeva, Advocate and Ms. Meenakshi, Advocate for the respondents. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been instituted by the appellant/plaintiff (substituted as the legal representative of the original plaintiff Kashmira Singh, since deceased) against the judgment and decree dated 06.03.1996 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Karnal vide which the appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.31 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1997-1996 (O&M) -2- judgment and decree dated 10.09.1992 passed by the Court of Additional Se- nior Sub Judge, Karnal vide which the suit preferred by the plaintiff for dec- laration challenging the sale deed dated 21.02.1986 had been dismissed. 2. Case of the plaintiff is that he was owner in possession of land measuring 129 Kanals 6 Marlas situated at village Phusgarh, Karnal. He mortgaged the suit land with possession in favour of defendants for a consideration of Rs.32,000/- vide mortgage deed dated 18.03.1968 registered on 01.05.1968 for a period of 10 years. Thereafter, the plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell the said land to the defendants for a total consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- vide agreement dated 10.04.1972. In the agreement, it was incorporated that the plaintiff has received Rs.25,000/- as earnest money and besides this, payment of Rs.32,000/- on account of mortgage and Rs.6,000/- on account of improvements (kotha, tubewell and electric motor) total Rs.38,000/- were adjusted towards the sale consideration. Plaintiff alleged that he had only received Rs.15,000/- as earnest money and amount of Rs.25,000/- was wrongly recorded and that the cost of improvements were wrongly included. He further alleged that his thumb impressions on the agreement were obtained under the influence of liquor and the agreement was thus fabricated. Defendants subsequently obtained a decree for specific performance on 17.05.1976 from the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Karnal which was upheld by the High Court. Defendants then filed an execution petition and upon the plaintiff's refusal to execute the sale deed, the court appointed Shri Shiv Dayal, Clerk of the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Karnal as Local Commissioner, who executed the sale deed in favour of the defendants on 21.02.1986. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.31 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1997-1996 (O&M) -3- 3. By way of present suit, plaintiff has challenged the sale deed dated 21.02.1986 as illegal, null, and void on the grounds that the Local Commissioner had acted without obtaining an income tax clearance certificate required for sales exceeding Rs.50,000/-, that the stamp papers were short by Rs.12,150/- (having only purchased stamps worth Rs.1,600/-); that the sale deed was executed on 21.02.1986 instead of the Court scheduled date of 22.02.1986 and that the decree was executed without any notice having been issued to him. 4. Defendants in their joint written statement challenged the suit preliminarily on the grounds of maintainability, res judicata, limitation and that the same is an abuse of the process of Court. On merits, defendants admitted the mortgage deed dated 18.03.1968 and the agreement to sell dated 10.04.1972. They denied the allegations that the agreement was not genuinely executed and asserted that it was executed in a legal manner and the recorded earnest money was paid. They submitted that the sale deed was executed by the Local Commissioner on 21.02.1986 under the orders of the Court, strictly in accordance with the Indian Stamp Act and pursuant to the High Court’s directions in Civil Revision No.2855 of 1985 decided on 15.01.1986, which ordered execution without an income tax clearance certificate. They contended that the Court had fixed 22.02.1986 for submission of the Local Commissioner’s report, which shows that execution of sale deed on 21.02.1986 was proper and lacked any mala fides. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.31 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1997-1996 (O&M) -4- 5. Replication to the written statement was filed by the plaintiff, wherein he controverted the contents of the written statement and reasserted the pleas taken in the plaint. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 29.07.1988 by the learned Trial Court: “1. Whether the sale deed dated 21.02.1986 executed by the commission in favour of the defendants is null and void and illegal as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the suit is hit by principle of res judicata? OPD 3. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the suit has not been valued properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD 6. Relief.” 7. In support of his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW3, Shri Ram Bhagat Jain, District Treasurer as PW1, Om Pal, Clerk, Treasury Office, Karnal as PW2. On the other hand, defendants examined Om Parkash (defendant No. 1) as DW1 and closed their evidence. No evidence was led in rebuttal. 8. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on file, the learned Trial Court decided issues No.2, 3, 4, and 5 in favour of the plaintiff and issue No.1 against the plaintiff. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with no order as to costs on 10.09.1992. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the learned First Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court on issue No.1 and dismissed the appeal with costs vide judgment and decree dated 06.03.1996. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.31 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1997-1996 (O&M) -5- 9. Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts, the present regular second appeal has been instituted on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondents and have gone through the material on the file. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are illegal and based on conjectures and surmises. He argued that the sale deed was executed by the Local Commissioner on 21.02.1986 in direct violation of the Court’s directions, which required the deed to be executed on 22.02.1986. He next contended that the sale deed was invalid as it was executed without a mandatory income tax clearance certificate. He further contended that the sale deed was insufficiently stamped and that the Local Commissioner executed the deed without giving any prior notice to the plaintiff. Learned counsel prayed that the impugned judgments be set aside and the suit be decreed. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents- defendants argued that the concurrent findings of both the Courts are perfectly legal and valid. He submitted that the primary issues concerning the genuineness of the agreement to sell dated 10.04.1972 and the payment of earnest money had attained finality and present suit is hit by res judicata in view of the specific performance decree dated 17.05.1976. He further submitted that the High Court vide order dated 19.01.1985 (or 15.01.1986 in Civil Revision No.2855 of 1985) had specifically permitted the execution of the sale deed without an income tax clearance certificate. He contended that the deficiency in stamp duty, if any, was made good by depositing the required amount as ordered by the Collector, Karnal, which cannot be a VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.31 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1997-1996 (O&M) -6- ground to set aside a sale deed executed under the orders of the Court. He prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 12. After hearing the parties and on going through the record I am of the considered opinion that the suit in hand was not maintainable and finding on issue No.4 is liable to be reversed and appeal in hand is liable to be dismissed for the reason discussed hereinafter. 13. Case of the plaintiff is that he owned land measuring 129 kanal 6 marla situated in village Phusgarh, District Karnal which was mortgaged by him in favour of defendants for a consideration of Rs.32,000/- vide mortgage deed dated 18.03.1968 registered on 01.05.1968 for a period of 10 years. Thereafter, plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell dated 10.04.1972 of the said land in favour of defendants for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,10,000/-. It was incorporated in the agreement that plaintiff has received Rs.25,000/- as earnest money and besides this, payment of Rs.32,000/- made on account of mortgage and a sum of Rs.6,000/- spent on improvements were also adjusted out of the total sale consideration. However, plaintiff alleged that he had received only Rs.15,000/- as earnest money and the amount of Rs.25,000/- has been wrongly recorded and the cost of improvements were also wrongly included in the sale consideration. He also alleged that his thumb impressions were obtained under the influence of liquor on which the agreement was fabricated. Thereafter, defendants instituted a suit for specific performance in respect of the said agreement which was decreed by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Karnal and the said judgment and decree was upheld upto the High Court. During execution proceedings, plaintiff refused to execute the sale deed and thereafter, Court appointed Sh. Shiv Dayal, Clerk VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.31 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1997-1996 (O&M) -7- of Court as Local Commissioner to execute the sale deed in favour of defendants who was directed to submit his report on 22.02.1986. By way of present suit, plaintiff challenged the said sale deed executed by the Court appointed Local Commissioner as illegal, null and void on the grounds that Local Commissioner had acted without obtaining income tax clearance certificate which was required for sales exceeding Rs.50,000/- and that stamp papers were short by Rs.12,150/- and a sale deed was executed on 21.02.1986 instead of 22.02.1986, the Court scheduled date. It was alleged that the decree was executed without issuing notice to him. 14. In this manner, plaintiff by way of present suit has challenged the sale deed got executed by the Court to enforce the judgment and decree dated 17.05.1976 passed by the Court for specific performance of the agreement. For disposal of the present controversy, Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is reproduced as under:- “47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree. (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.” 15. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that all questions arising between the parties in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by way of a separate suit. The disputes raised by the plaintiff by way of present suit on the face of it relate to execution and satisfaction of the judgment and VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.31 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1997-1996 (O&M) -8- decree dated 17.05.1976 vide which suit for specific performance was decreed. The Court appointed Local Commissioner had executed the sale deed on the directions of the Court and thereafter, the execution petition was disposed of. All the questions raised by the plaintiff by way of a separate suit could have been raised only in the execution proceedings in terms of Section 47 of C.P.C. and the present suit was rather not maintainable. Resultantly, finding on issue No.4 is reversed and the same is decided in favour of defendants and it is held that suit in the present form was not maintainable. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the ap- peal and the same is ordered to be dismissed with costs. 16. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 30.07.2026 Vishal Vardhan Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.31 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document