RSA-1094-2000 IN TH 222
Krishan (since de Bhagwati Sharma CORAM: HON Present: Mr. for t
Mr. Mr. for t *** AMARINDER S 1. The judgment and de Judge (Senior Di whereby the suit filed by the plain dated 15.11.199 (hereinafter refer preferred by the the learned trial C 2. For of their status bef 2000 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR ince deceased through LRs) Versus
harma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAR Mr. Devansh Verma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate,
for the respondent.
***
DER SINGH GREWAL, J. The defendant is the appellant bef and decree dated 22.07.1997 passed ior Division), Karnal (hereinafter refe e suit for specific performance with co e plaintiff-respondent has been allow 1.1999 passed by the learned Ad r referred to as the learned 1st Appella y the defendant against the aforesaid trial Court, has been dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the pa tus before the trial court. UNJAB AND HARYANA
IGARH
RSA-1094-2000 (O&M) Reserved on: 28.04.2026
Pronounced on:18.05.2026 Uploaded on:19.05.2026
... Appellant
...Respondent
MARINDER SINGH GREWAL
nt before this Court, challenging th assed by the learned Additional Civi er referred to as the learned trial Court with consequential relief of possession allowed and the judgment and decre Additional District Judge, Karna ppellate Court) vide which the appea resaid judgment and decree passed by the parties shall be referred to in term 2026 ing the l Civil Court) ession, decree Karnal appeal ssed by n terms PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.19 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1094-2000 3. Succ defendant, who 85/677 share out Daha, Tehsil and land in favour of received ₹20,000 ₹45,170/-, with t months after pa consideration wa over 16 months partitioned in ter perform her part legal notices to e legal notice dated sale deed execut thereby waived having remainin registration charg sale deed, howev perform his part her Special Powe registered notice Sub Registrar, K deed in question, thereof, the said 2000 (O&M) -2- Succinctly, the facts of the case who was in possession of land mea re out of total land measuring 33 kan sil and District Karnal had entered in our of the plaintiff at a sale consider 20,000/- as earnest money. The tota with the stipulation that the sale deed ter partition of the land by metes ion was to be paid at the time of regist onths from the date of agreement, the in terms thereof, whereas, the plainti r part of the contract and repeatedly c es to execute and register the sale dee e dated 09.03.1992, the plaintiff clarifi ecuted and registered even without ived off the said condition. It was furt aining sale consideration amount al charges and other incidental expense owever, despite repeated requests an s part of the contract. Thereafter, on l Power of Attorney holder Shri Huka notice calling upon the defendant to re trar, Karnal on 21.05.1992 for execu estion, while waiving off the condition e said Special Power of Attorney h e case are that on 03.11.1989, th d measuring 4 kanals 5 marlas, being 33 kanals 17 marlas situated at villag red into an agreement to sell the said nsideration of ₹85,000/- per acre, and e total consideration amount came to le deed would be executed within two metes and bounds, and the balanc registration. However, despite lapse o , the defendant failed to get the land plaintiff remained ready and willing to edly called upon the defendant through le deed. Subsequently through anothe clarified that she was willing to get th ithout prior partition of the land and as further asserted that the plaintiff wa unt along with requisite stamp duty xpenses necessary for execution of th sts and notices, the defendant failed to r, on 06.05.1992, the plaintiff through i Hukam Chand Sharma again issued t to remain present before the office o execution and registration of the sal ndition of prior partition. In pursuanc rney holder appeared before the Sub 9, the , being village he said re, and ame to in two balance apse of he land lling to through another get the nd and was p duty, of the ailed to hrough ssued a ffice of he sale rsuance he Sub PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.19 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1094-2000 Registrar, Karna requisite stamp a Sub Registrar f defendant failed notice dated 27.0 was allegedly no the present suit 03.11.1989 and total sale consid 20,000/-. 4. Upo counsel and con averred that the that the plaintiff been filed with a and fabricated a properly valued execution of the measuring 4 kan amount towards e 09.03.1992 was the part of the pl false, frivolous an 2000 (O&M) -3- Karnal on 21.05.1992 along with the tamp and registration charges. He also trar for marking his presence thro failed to appear for execution of the sa d 27.07.1992 was sent to the defendan not accepted by the defendant. Con t suit seeking specific performanc and in the alternative prayed for pa consideration amount including alre Upon issuance of summons, the d d contested the suit by filing a wr at the suit was not maintainable in the aintiff had no locus standi to institute with a mala fide intention to grab the s ated agreement to sell. It was furthe alued for the purposes of court fee of the alleged agreement to sell date 4 kanals 5 marlas was categorically d ards earnest money. It was further co was received and that the present su the plaintiff to cheat him. On these pr lous and liable to be dismissed. ith the balance sale consideration and e also moved an application before th e throughout the day. However, th the sale deed. Thereafter, another lega fendant through registered post, which Consequently, the plaintiff instituted rmance of agreement to sell dated for payment of Rs.45,170/-, being th g already paid earnest money of R , the defendant appeared through hi a written statement, wherein it wa in the present form. It was submitted stitute the same, and that the suit had b the suit property by setting up a fals further pleaded that the suit was no rt fee and jurisdiction. On merits, th ll dated 03.11.1989 in respect of land cally denied, as was the receipt of an her contented that no legal notice dated sent suit was a result of an attempt on hese premises, the suit was stated to b on and ore the er, the er legal , which stituted dated ing the of Rs his it was bmitted uit had a false as not its, the of land of any e dated mpt on d to be PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.19 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1094-2000 5. The in the plaint we written statement 6. On th seven issues incl the parties led or Sharma, examin Sharma, an Advo the original spec favour of Shri deposed to have as PW4, Ram M Shri Megh Raj Krishan appeared 7. On appre it, the learned tri by defendant was second appeal. 8. Lear judgments and d illegality and m appreciation of f alleged agreemen had allegedly be through her husb 2000 (O&M) -4- The plaintiff thereafter filed replicat nt were reiterated and the objections tement were specifically denied and co On the basis of pleadings, learned tri es including relief. In order to substan led oral as well as documentary evide xamined five witnesses in support o Advocate and a Notary Public at Kar l special power of attorney dated 21. Hukam Chand, Shri Hukam Chan have witnessed execution of agreeme am Murti Sharma as PW 6, the two m Raj as PW5, the scribe of Ex.P-6. peared as DW1 and examined DW2 R appreciation of oral as well as docum ned trial Court decreed the suit of the nt was dismissed by the learned 1st Ap Learned counsel for the appellant and decrees passed by the learned Co and material irregularity, having be n of facts and evidence on record. I reement to sell Ex.P-6 was a forged y been procured by the respondent r husband, who was a retired senior p eplication wherein the averments mad ections raised by the defendant in th and controverted. ned trial Court had framed as many a ubstantiate their respective stands, both evidence. The plaintiff Smt. Bhagwat port of her case, including Shri J.P Karnal as PW 2, who proved Ex.P ted 21.9.1990, executed by plaintiff in Chand special attorney as PW3 who reement of sale Ex.P-6, Dinesh Kuma two marginal witnesses of Ex.P-6 and 6. On the other hand, defendant W2 Ram Sarup. documentary evidence produced befor of the plaintiff and the appeal preferred Appellate Court. Hence, the regula pellant contended that the impugned ned Courts below suffered from paten ing been rendered in complete mis ord. It was further submitted that th orged and fabricated document, which ondent by exercising undue influenc nior police officer, holding the rank o s made in the any as s, both agwati hri J.P. P-2 ntiff in 3 who Kumar 6 and endant- before eferred regular pugned patent e mis- hat the , which fluence rank of PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.19 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1094-2000 Deputy Inspecto execution of the set up by the resp itself raised seri upon a blank thu adjusted till the formation of lett space whatsoever alleged agreemen name of the vend of the alleged ag end of the docum 9. Lear signatures of th executant at the extreme left-han interpolation in t relief sought in sought specific agreement itself recitals of the s partition of the jo Since admittedly remained conting Contract Act an 2000 (O&M) -5- spector General of Police. Furthermo of the agreement as well as receipt of he respondent. Likewise, learned coun d serious suspicion inasmuch as it a nk thumb-marked paper and the conte ll the end of the page. It was further of letters became smaller towards th tsoever had been left blank at the end o reement doubtful and fabricated. Furt e vendee namely Bhagwati Sharma di ged agreement to sell and rather had b document by way of a note. Learned counsel further contend of the marginal witnesses, scribe at the bottom of the document, the hand side of the page, which cle on in the alleged agreement to sell. Fu ht in the suit, it was argued that tho ecific performance of agreement to itself was unenforceable in law. It the said agreement, the sale deed f the joint land and separation of the ittedly the land had not been partition contingent in nature within the mean ct and the contingency having no thermore, it was argued that even th eipt of earnest money had falsely been d counsel contended that the documen as it appeared to have been prepared contents thereof had unnaturally been further submitted that the writing and ards the end of the document and no e end of the page, thereby rendering th d. Furthermore, it was argued that th rma did not form part of the main body r had been mentioned separately at th ontended that instead of obtaining cribe and thumb impression of th t, the same had been obtained on th ch clearly reflected manipulation and ell. Furthermore, while referring to th at though the plaintiff-respondent had nt to sell Ex.P-6, however, the said w. It was contended that as per th deed was to be executed only afte f the share of the appellant therefrom artitioned till date, the alleged contrac meaning of Section 32 of the Indian ng not occurred, the suit itself wa ven the ly been cument repared ly been ng and and no ring the hat the in body y at the taining of the on the on and to the ent had he said per the y after refrom. ontract Indian lf was PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.19 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1094-2000 premature and n placed upon the j in Kirpal Dass V 10. Further respondent herse inference was lia placed upon the (2024) SCC Onl of this court inKu (2) RCR (civil) 7 person aged abo respondent, and t closely related to land in dispute whereas under th at the rate of Rs. Courts below had question, as the s for the year1992 ever been receive contingent in nat not been fulfille Consequently, th be set aside. Las sought, courts w 2000 (O&M) -6- and not maintainable. In support of t n the judgment rendered by the Divisi ss Vs. Manager, A.I.R. 1936 Sind 2 urthermore, learned counsel for t t herself had not stepped into the witne was liable to be drawn against her. n the judgment of supreme court in Online SC (981), Vidhyadhar v. M Kulwant Singh v. Chaman Lal an vil) 72. It was additionally contende ed about 80 years and had been d t, and that the marginal witnesses to th ated to the respondent. Likewise, it w spute at the relevant time was not le der the alleged agreement to sell, the of Rs.85,000/- per acre only. It was f ow had ignored the fact that the appell s the same stood recorded in the owne r1992-93 Ex.P-13. It was also argue received by the appellant and that the a in nature, the contingency i.e. partitio ulfilled, the present suit was premat tly, the findings recorded by the learn Lastly, it was argued that where al urts would have been well justified in rt of the said contention, reliance wa Division Bench of the Sind High Cour nd 26 (DB). for the appellant argued that th witness box and, therefore, an advers her. In support thereof, reliance wa rt in Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kuma v. Mankikrao 1999 (3) SCC 573and al and another v. Chaman Lal 2005 ntended that the appellant was an old been defrauded at the hands of th s to the alleged agreement to sell wer se, it was argued that the value of th not less than Rs.7,00,000/- per acre ll, the land had been agreed to be sold was further submitted that the learned appellant was not owner of the land in e ownership of Som Dutt in Jamaband argued that no sale consideration had t the alleged contract in question being partition of the land in question having premature and liable to be dismissed e learned Courts below were sought ere alternative relief for damages also ified in granting alternative decree fo ce was h Court at the adverse ce was umar and 2005 an old of the ll were of the r acre, be sold learned land in abandi on had n being having missed. to es also for PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.19 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1094-2000 damages, instead judgment render Jawal 1996 (4) Kumar Saini v. L v. Labhu Ram 19 id #2102009 and 11. Per judgments and d appreciation of e the present appea reasoned and c performance to th 12. I hav with their able as 13. Whi following substan "I. cont Con Agr of th perf part II. W entit and Pow 2000 (O&M) -7- instead of ordering specific perform rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court (4) SCC 593, as well as judgment i v. Laxmi Devi and others 2005 N m 1996 (1) RRR 509, Angrej Singh and Randhir Singh v. Jasdev Singh Per contra, learned counsel for the and decrees passed by the learned Co n of evidence and law, and thus, doe appeal. It was submitted that both the and concurrent findings of fact, ce to the respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the able assistance. While admitting the appeal on 13.08 substantial questions of laws:- "I. Whether the Agreement of Sal contingent contract as envisaged Contract Act as there is a condi Agreement that the Sale Deed woul of the partition of the suit land and performance of the above Agreem partition of the land in question is ef II. Whether in the present suit, th entitled to appear as a witness on b and whether in view of the provis Power of Attorney Holder is not en erformance. Reliance was placed on Court in Kashi Ram v. Om Prakash ment rendered by this court in Satish 5 NCPHHC 175464, Gurbax Singh Singh v. Surjit Kaur Law Finder do ingh 2019 (2) PLR 597. for the respondent contended that th ned Courts below are based on correc does not call for any interference in th the Courts below had returned well fact, granting the relief of specifi or the parties and examined the record 13.08.2007, this Court had framed th Sale in question is based upon ed under Section 32 of the India ondition incorporated in the abov ould be executed within two month and that the present suit for specifi eement to Sell is premature till th is effected? it, the Power of Attorney Holder i on behalf of the plaintiff-responden ovisions of Order 3, Rule 2 CPC ot entitled to appear as a witness o ced on akash atish Singh r doc hat the correct ence in d well- pecific record, ed the on a ndian bove onths ecific ll the er is ndent PC a ss on PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.19 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1094-2000 beha Har III. fabr the Agr in o IV. plai and the 1441 V. W wou Spec app VI. alter orde dow 14. It em specific perform alleging paymen readiness and wi the other hand, consideration, w maintainability. B and appreciating agreement to be d 2000 (O&M) -8- behalf of a party in view of the law Hari Narain and others, AIR 1998 R III. Whether the Agreement of S fabricated on the face of it as it do the plaintiff-respondent (alleged Agreement of Sale and the contents in order to forge the said Agreemen IV. Whether adverse inference is plaintiff-respondent as she has fail and has instead produced her Powe the law laid down in Vidhyadhar 1441? V. Whether the grant of specific per would be inequitable in view of p Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the su appellant who is presently about 90 VI. Whether the plaintiff-responde alternative relief of damages, it wo orders specific performance of the down in Kanshi Ram Vs. Om Parka It emerges from the record that th erformance on the basis of an agree ayment of ₹20,000/- as earnest mone nd willingness to perform her part of hand, denied the very execution of ion, while also setting up pleas o y. Both the learned Courts below ciating the evidence led by the part to be duly proved and enforceable. e law laid down in Ram Prasad Vs 998 Raj. 185? of Sale in question is forged an it does not even contain the name o ged vendee) in the body of th tents of the same have been squeez ment? e is liable to be taken against th failed to appear in the witness bo Power of Attorney Holder, in view o dhar Vs. Mankikrao, AIR 1999 SC performance of the alleged contrac of provisions of Section 20 of th e suit land is the only land with th t 90 years of age? ondent having himself claimed th t would be inequitable and unjust t the contract in view of the law lai arkash Jawal, 1996 SC 2150?" that the plaintiff instituted a suit fo agreement to sell dated 03.11.1989 t money and asserting her continuou part of the contract. The defendant, on ion of the agreement and receipt o leas of fraud, fabrication and non below, upon framing necessary issue e parties, have concurrently held th d Vs. and me of f the eezed t the s box ew of 9 SC tract f the th the d the ust to laid suit for 1.1989, tinuous ant, on eipt of d non- issues eld the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.19 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1094-2000 15. A c execution of the affirmed in his presence and rec who scribed the defendant upon consistent and c particular. More examination, adm well as in the reg in the written sta testimonies of PW PW-6 Ram Murt agreement to sel stands proved fr plaintiff to the d notices served up of complete deni below have rig misrepresentation this regard do no 16. The contingent upon there is nothing b the defendant to 2000 (O&M) -9- A closer scrutiny of the evidence of the agreement to sell (Ex.P-6). PW n his testimony that the defendant nd received a sum of ₹20,000/- as e ed the agreement to sell, identified upon the agreement to sell Ex.P-6. and could not be discredited in cro More importantly, the defendant, wh n, admitted his thumb impressions on the register of the Court. Even otherwis ten statement. The agreement to sell (E s of PW-3 Hukum Chand (Special Atto Murti Sharma (marginal witnesses to sell, Ex.P-6. The readiness and ved from the fact that registered noti the defendant, however, the defend ved upon him by the plaintiff. In the e denial of execution is rendered whol ve rightly observed that no mat ntation have been either pleaded or pr do not inspire confidence. The contention sought to be raised upon prior partition of the joint holdi thing brought on record to establish th ant to get the suit property partitioned idence on record establishes the du 6). PW-3 Hukum Chand categorically ndant executed the agreement in hi as earnest money. PW-5 Megh Raj ntified the thumb impression of th 6. Their statements have remained in cross-examination on any materia nt, while appearing as DW-1 in cross ns on Ex.P-6, the agreement to sell, a therwise, there is no plea of fraud taken sell (Ex.P-6) stands duly proved by th ial Attorney), PW-4 Dinesh Kumar and es), PW-5 Shri Megh Raj, scribe o and willingness of the plaintiff also d notices were repeatedly sent by th defendant never replied to any of th In the face of such admission, the ple d wholly untenable. The learned Court material particulars of fraud o d or proved, and the bald allegations in raised that the agreement to sell wa t holding does not merit acceptance, a lish that any efforts were ever made by itioned. Mere incorporation of a recita he due orically in his gh Raj, of the mained aterial cross- sell, as d taken by the and ribe of iff also by the of the he plea Courts ud or tions in ell was nce, as ade by recital PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.19 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1094-2000 regarding partiti contract within t 1872, particularl capable of perfor stipulation regar execution of the upon the defend land, thereby wai by PW-3 Hukum upon to remain 21.05.1992 for e said notice, the partition of the agreement. Rath Registrar, Karnal there throughout before the Sub R execution of the defendant clearly of his obligations the subsisting ag for execution of land in favour of the rights accrue fact stands duly 2000 (O&M) -10- partition would not ipso facto rend ithin the meaning of Sections 31 and icularly when the principal obligation performance. The conduct of the part regarding partition was never treate of the sale deed. After waiting for abo efendant to execute the sale deed ev by waiving off the said condition throu Hukum Chand, Special Attorney, wh main present before the office of for execution of the sale deed. Sign , the defendant neither replied there f the suit land was a condition pre . Rather, the defendant failed to appe Karnal on 21.05.1992, whereas PW-3 ghout the day and marked his pres Sub Registrar, Karnal. The repeated r of the agreement to sell and the p clearly establish that the defendant in gations under the agreement. Rather, d ing agreement to sell and the repeated ion of the sale deed, the defendant s of his son, namely Som Dutt, evi accrued in favour of the plaintiff unde duly proved from Ex.P-13, copy of J render the agreement a contingen 31 and 32 of the Indian Contract Act gations under the agreement remained he parties further demonstrates that th treated as a condition precedent fo or about 16 months, the plaintiff called eed even without partition of the sui n through notice dated 06.05.1992 sen ey, whereby the defendant was called ice of the Sub Registrar, Karnal on d. Significantly, despite receipt of th thereto nor raised any objection tha on precedent for performance of th o appear before the office of the Sub 3 Hukum Chand remained presen s presence by moving an application ated requests made by the plaintiff fo the persistent non-appearance of th ant intentionally avoided performanc ther, despite having full knowledge o epeated demands made by the plaintif dant subsequently transferred the sui tt, evidently with an intent to frustrat f under the agreement to sell. The said py of Jamabandi for the year 1994-95 tingent ct Act, mained that the ent for f called the suit 92 sent called nal on of the on that of the he Sub present lication tiff for of the rmance edge of laintiff the suit rustrate he said 95, PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.19 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1094-2000 and the same ha written statement 17. The adverse inference the witness box Chand, Special transaction, issue the Sub Registra application befor within his own testimonies of th settled propositio any transactions, he may be exam attorney-holder c acts done by the cases where the before this Court the appellant in Chaman Lal (sup 18. Furt appellant cannot evade the obligat clearly establishe her part of the co 2000 (O&M) -11- me has not even been specifically d tement regarding ownership and posse The further contention raised on ference is liable to be drawn against t s box also deserves to be rejected. In ecial Attorney of the plaintiff, ha , issued notices to the defendant, rema egistrar on the stipulated date and ma before the said authority. His testim own personal knowledge and sto s of the marginal witnesses and the scr position of law that if the attorney-hol ctions, in pursuance of the power of a e examined as a witness to prove older cannot depose or give evidence by the principal or transactions or d re the principal alone has personal kn Court. Therefore, the judgments rel nt in Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kuma (supra) are not applicable to the fac Furthermore, this Court is of th cannot be permitted to take shelter un obligations arising out of the agreemen ablishes that the respondent was alwa the contract, whereas the appellant ally disputed by the defendant in th possession of the suit land. d on behalf of the appellant that an ainst the plaintiff for not stepping into . In the present case, PW-3 Hukum iff, had actively participated in the t, remained present before the office o nd marked his presence by moving an mony was, thus, based upon fact nd stood duly corroborated by the the scribe of the agreement to sell. It i holder has done any act or handled er of attorney granted by the principal rove those acts or transactions. The dence in place of his principal for the s or dealings of the principal only in nal knowledge, which is not the case nts relied upon by learned counsel fo umar (supra) and Kulwant Singh v the facts of the case in hand. of the considered opinion that th lter under the plea of partition so as to reement to sell. The evidence on record always ready and willing to perform llant deliberately avoided execution o in the that an ng into Hukum in the ffice of ing an n facts by the It is andled incipal, The for the only in e case sel for gh v. at the o as to record erform tion of PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.19 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1094-2000 the sale deed and with an intention findings recorded agreement to sel interference. 19. Ther decree for specif judgment relied (supra), the respo appellant-seller h compensation. It Supreme Court, w specific perform alternative relief of the agreement seeking equity m adopted inconsis agreement to sel pleading that the namely partition Rather, during th property in favou fruits of the agre counsel for the 2000 (O&M) -12- ed and subsequently transferred the s tention to defeat the lawful rights of th corded by the learned Courts below to sell and readiness and willingnes There is no conflict with the settled specific performance of a contract is relied upon by learned counsel for the e respondent-buyer had specifically c eller had himself offered to pay a s ion. It was in those peculiar facts and ourt, while exercising its equitable jur erformance granted by the Courts relief in the nature of damages. More ement to sell stood admitted. It is e uity must himself do equity. In the pre consistent and evasive stands by disp to sell on allegations of fraud and fa hat the contract was contingent in n rtition of the land, was never sought ring the pendency of the suit, the ap favour of his son with an apparent e agreement. In such circumstances, r the appellant qua grant of alternati the suit property in favour of his son ts of the respondent. Consequently, th below regarding due execution of th ingness of the respondent call for no ettled proposition of law that grant of ract is not automatic. However, in th for the appellant in Kashi Ram’s cas ally claimed alternative relief and th ay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs by way o cts and circumstances that the Hon’bl ble jurisdiction, set aside the decree fo Courts below and instead awarded . Moreover, in the said case, execution It is equally well settled that a person he present case, however, the appellan y disputing the very execution of th and fabrication, while simultaneously t in nature. The alleged contingency ought to be fulfilled by the appellant the appellant further alienated the sui arent intent to defeat and frustrate th ances, the argument raised by learned lternative relief of damages in lieu o his son tly, the of the for no ant of a , in the case and the way of on’ble cree for warded ecution person pellant of the eously gency, pellant. the suit rate the learned lieu of PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.19 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA-1094-2000 specific performa outright rejection 20. In v questions of law Consequently, th is upheld and the 21. Mi May 18, 2026 Pankaj* 2000 (O&M) -13- rformance to the respondent is whol jection. In view of the aforesaid facts and of law framed by this Court are a tly, the concurrent finding rendered b nd the instant regular second appeal is Miscellaneous application(s), if any, (AMARI Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable wholly devoid of merit and deserve nd circumstances, the substantia are answered against the appellant ered by both the learned Courts below peal is dismissed. if any, also stand disposed of. MARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE ned : Yes/No : Yes/No eserves stantial pellant. below PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.05.19 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh