RSA-6130-2014 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 210 RSA-6130-2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.01.2026 Sa+sh Bansal and another ...Appellant(s) Vs. Suresh ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Akash Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J.L.Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present Second Appeal has been )led by the plain,-s; whereby suit )led by the appellants for possession by way of speci)c performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 02.09.2005 was although decreed by the learned Trial Court for speci)c performance; however the )rst appeal )led by the defendant/respondent was partly decreed by the learned First Appellate Court direc,ng the defendant to return the earnest amount of Rs.5 lacs alongwith interest of 7%. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint are that the defendant was owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 24K. Vide Agreement to Sell dated 02.09.2005, defendant had agreed to sell the suit land to the plain,- for a total sale considera,on of Rs.21,15,000/-. Rs.5 lacs was received by the defendant as earnest money vide Receipt dated 02.09.2005. The target date for execu,on of Sale Deed DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6130-2014 (O&M) - 2 - was set for 02.02.2006. It was pleaded that 02.02.2006 being a Sunday, plain,-s had duly reach oAce of Sub Registrar, Palwal alongwith balance sale considera,on on 01.02.2006 as well as on 03.02.2006. However, on both the dates, defendant did not turn up. Rather on 03.02.2006, defendant denied to get the Sale Deed executed despite request of the plain,-s. Hence, the present suit was )led on 27.07.2006 3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the par,es, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal had decreed the suit of the appellants for speci)c performance vide judgment and decree dated 18.01.2012 in the following terms: - “20. As a sequel to my above detailed discussion on the aforesaid issues, suit of the plains succeeds and same is hereby decreed with costs against the defendant. Defendant is directed to execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the suit land menoned in para no. 1 of the plaint in favour of plains on payment of balance sale consideraon as per terms of agreement to sell dated 2.9.05 within a period of two months posively from passing of this judgement, failing which plains would be at liberty to get the sale deed executed through the process of Court. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to the record room a(er due compliance.” 4. The Civil Appeal )led by the defendant was partly allowed by the learned Addi,onal District Judge, Palwal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 04.09.2014 as follows: - “45. As a follow-up of above discussion, the appeal in hand is partly allowed with no order as to cost. The defendant is DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6130-2014 (O&M) - 3 - directed to return the payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the plains along with interest of 7% from the date of 1ling of suit ll its realisaon. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. Copy of this order along with copy of judgment be sent back to the court concerned. Appeal 1le be consigned to records a(er due compliance.” 5. Hence, the present second appeal by the plain,-s. 6. It is inter alia submiGed by learned counsel for the appellants that learned First Appellate Court was in patent error in denying speci)c performance of Agreement to Sell to the appellants as there are concurrent )ndings of fact that the Agreement in ques,on was duly proved by the appellants by examining the marginal witnesses as well as the Scribe. The plain,-s had even proved their readiness and willingness to perform the contract. It is contended that in these circumstances, relief of speci)c performance could not have been denied to the appellants. 7. Learned counsel further submits that respondent/defendant in his wriGen statement had denied the Agreement as a sham document and had taken a plea of fraud. However, defendant had miserably failed to prove the said conten,on. 8. It is further submiGed by learned counsel for the appellants that the Agreement to Sell did not contemplate the non-compliance of the Agreement or the refund the earnest money upon non-execu,on of the sale deed. It is argued that once it was speci)cally agreed between the par,es that there would be no alterna,ve in the form of refund of earnest DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6130-2014 (O&M) - 4 - money, the relief of speci)c performance could not have been denied merely by direc,ng that the earnest money be refunded. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the Learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the mere increase in price cannot be a ground to deny the relief of speci)c performance. There is no evidence on record on the basis whereof the plea of unprecedented increase in the value of land could be determined. 10. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.09.2014 passed by learned Addi,onal District Palwal be set aside; and the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2012 passed by learned Addi,onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal be upheld. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/defendant vehemently opposes submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submits that judgment of the learned First Appellate Court su-ers from no error. It is submiGed that the Agreement in ques,on was a sham document, and that defendant had never entered into any Agreement to Sell in respect of the suit land with the plain,-s. Learned counsel contends that alleged signatures/thumb impressions of the defendant over the Agreement to Sell or on the separate Receipt dated 02.09.2005 are also denied. Thus, Agreement to Sell dated 02.09.2005 is a false, forged, fabricated and manipulated document which had been procured by the plain,-s in collusion with each other. Learned counsel submits that in actual fact, defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- from DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6130-2014 (O&M) - 5 - plain,- No.2 and in order to ensure repayment of said amount, plain,- No.2 had got executed an Agreement to Sell dated 09.08.2005 alongwith Receipt on the same date in the presence of the witnesses. It is submiGed that at the same ,me, plain,- No.2 had taken thumb impression and signatures of the defendant on some blank papers purportedly for using the same for some legal ac,on. However, the said papers were misused by the plain,-s in manufacturing the present Agreement to Sell dated 02.09.2005 and the Receipt. Learned counsel further submits that defendant had also proved on record that loan amount of Rs.2,10,000/- was duly repaid by the defendant to the plain,-s. It is submiGed that it was in this background and taking into account all these factors, learned First Appellate Court had partly allowed the appeal )led by the defendant. 12. Learned counsel further contends that in any event, speci)c performance of the instant Agreement to Sell cannot be granted to the appellants in view of the fact that appellants have failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform the contract. Even the )ndings of the learned Courts below that the Agreement to Sell stood duly proved, cannot be sustained as the aGes,ng witness-PW2 examined by the plain,-s is a nephew of the appellants. Thus, Agreement to Sell was not proved as required under Sec,on 68 of the Evidence Act. 13. Ld. counsel for the respondent lastly submits that discre,onary power has been correctly exercised by the ld. First Appellate Court; and this Court has limited power in Second Appeal to set the same aside. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be dismissed. DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6130-2014 (O&M) - 6 - 14. No other argument is made on behalf of ld. counsel for the par,es. I have heard ld. counsel and perused the case )le in detail. 15. AKer giving my thoughLul considera,on to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of both the par,es, I )nd merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. Both the Courts below have given concurrent )ndings of fact that the Agreement to Sell dated 02.09.2005 and the Receipt of the payment of Rs.5 lacs dated 02.09.2005 were duly proven on record. To prove the same, plain,-s had examined PW2 Indervesh, AGes,ng Witness, who iden,)ed his signature on the Agreement to Sell Ex.P1 and the Receipt Ex.P2. Plain,-s had also examined PW4 Sh. Danvir Singh Tewa,a, who had deposed that Agreement Ex.P1 and Receipt Ex.P2 were draKed by him. PW2 has categorically deposed that the Agreement and Receipt were draKed by PW4 on the instruc,ons of the defendant; that the Agreement was read over and contents of the same were explained to the par,es; whereaKer the par,es had aAxed their signatures and thumb impressions on the Agreement and the Receipt in the presence of the witnesses. Thus, the Agreement to Sell stood duly proven on record. 16. Conten,on of the respondent that the Agreement cannot be held to be proved as, aGes,ng witness/PW2 was interested witness, being nephew of the plain,-, is of no help to the respondent as admiGedly, the above )ndings have not been challenged by the respondent by way of any appeal. Moreover, the appellants had also examined PW4 to prove the DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6130-2014 (O&M) - 7 - Agreement. In any event, defendant led no evidence to disprove the Agreement in ques,on. 17. Furthermore, defendant has miserably failed to bear out his conten,on that the said Agreement is fraudulent. Rather, defendant has taken a di-erent plea that by execu,ng the previous Agreement dated 09.08.2005 Ex.D1 and its Receipt dated 09.08.2005 Ex.D2, signatures of the defendant were taken by the plain,-s on some blank papers. Defendant had examined DW1, DW2 and DW4 to prove the execu,on of the said Agreement dated 09.08.2005 Ex.D1 and the Receipt dated 09.08.2005 Ex.D2. However, it is to be seen that DW1, DW2 and DW4 have nowhere stated in their evidence that at the ,me of execu,on of Agreement dated 09.08.2005, plain,- No.2 had obtained signatures of the defendant on blank papers. Thus, defendant miserably failed to prove that the instant Agreement to Sell dated 02.09.2005 was a forged, fabricated and fraudulent document. 18. It has further been contended on behalf of the defendant that the appellants had failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform the contract either. However, the defendant is estopped from raising this plea as he has denied the very execu,on of the Agreement in ques,on. It is my clear view that having denied execu,on of the Agreement altogether and having set up a plea of fraud, the defendant is estopped from later ques,oning the plain,-’s readiness and willingness. Once the defence is that no Agreement was ever executed, the issue of readiness and willingness does not legi,mately arise. It is a seGled DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6130-2014 (O&M) - 8 - proposi,on of law that once the defence is of fraud or denial of execu,on, the plea of readiness and willingness becomes redundant. I am supported in my view by judgment of this Court in Sant Singh v. Amarjit Singh (Punjab and Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 671030, wherein it has been held that: “3. I am afraid, the aforemenoned submission of learned counsel for the appellant-defendant sans merit, for the simple reason that appellant-defendant in the wri6en statement denied the execuon of the agreement to sell. It is cardinal/se6led proposion of law that a person who denies the execuon and registraon of the sale deed, cannot be permi6ed to raise the plea of readiness and willingness. Reference invited to the judgment of Jora Singh v. Lakhwinder Kumar and others 2011(1) RCR (Civil) 130. (Emphasis supplied) 4. As far as, the hardship is concerned, the said plea is also fallacious, for the reason, that no such pleadings/averments have been taken in the wri6en statement. The stand taken by the appellant-defendant was that though he had signed the document, but Naresh Kumar, a6esng witness obtained his signatures on the blank paper, but the fact remains, that the signatures were not on the blank paper but on the stamp paper. The plea of defendant-appellant is also falsi1ed. It has also come on record that the defendant-appellant in cross examinaon admi6ed his signatures on the agreement to sell and he did not examine the document expert to disbelieve the plea of fraud much less his signatures. On the contrary, the DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6130-2014 (O&M) - 9 - respondent-plain has proved the readiness and willingness on 01.05.2006 as the target date was 1xed as 01.05.2006.” 19. Even otherwise, plain,-s had duly succeeded in proving their readiness and willingness. Plain,-s had duly brought on record their AAdavit of AGendance dated 01.02.2006 as Ex.P3 and 03.02.2006 as Ex.P4 in the oAce of Sub Registrar. Perusal of the said AAdavits showed that plain,-s had remained present before the Sub Registrar with balance sale considera,on on 01.02.2006 and 03.02.2003. 20. The above said )ndings have been duly upheld by the First Appellate Court in the judgment dated 04.09.2014, which read as under: - “29. I am afraid that defendant lacs in giving the complete detail of his 1rst transacon alleged to be a loan transacon of Rs. 2.10 lacs in respect of which the security document in the form of Ex.D2 and Ex.D2 were prepared and secondly when the witness of defendant does not depose in their oral evidence that his signatures were taken on blank papers at the me of wring of Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. His theory of fraud and misrepresentaon does not stand the proof of evidence. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 31. Having considered the ma6er in the above perspecve, I am le( with no doubt whatever that in the present case plain no.1 was, at all mes, ready and willing to perform his part of contract. On contrary, it is defendant who defaulted in the execuon of sale document. The insistence of the defendants on the story of alleged transacon of Rs. 2.10 lacs does not jusfy. As per to the above discussion, he did DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6130-2014 (O&M) - 10 - not perform his part of the contract within the spulated me.” 21. Despite upholding the )ndings of fact, learned First Appellate Court has disregarded all the above said facts and )ndings and has denied speci)c performance to the appellants and has only partly decreed the suit for the plain,-s for refund of earnest money for the reasons as contained in para 42 and 43 of the judgment dated 04.09.2014 which are as under:- “42. Queson of hardship was adjudicated in Prakash Chandra v. Narayan (SC) :2012(2) CivCC 709 Trial Court decreed the suit for speci1c performance. First appellate Court while concurring with it on all other issues with regard to the appellant's entled to relief for speci1c performance of contract, reversed the judgment on the ground that grant of relief for speci1c performance will cause hardship to the defendant within the meaning of Clause (b) of sub-secon (2) of Secon 20 of the Speci1c Relief Act and directed to pay the earnest money with interest Defence of hardship was not taken by the respondent that he would become landless if the relief for speci1c performance is granted. No such issue was framed by appellate Court. In absence of any material on record, the 1nding of the 1rst appellate court cannot be sustained. Appellant was held entled to the speci1c performance of agreement for sale. 43. In the case in hand, plain has proved his willingness and readiness to perform his part of the contract. However, the earnest money of Rs. 5,00,000/- paid by Ex. P2 is a nominal amount of total sale consideraon of Rs. 21,15,000/- as per the agreement to sell Ex.P1. Furthermore the proposed DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6130-2014 (O&M) - 11 - sale deed was to be executed on 2.2.2006. however, the present suit has been 1led only on 27.7.2006 a(er waing for more than 1ve months' which is again unexplained by the plain. Though, the suit was within limitaon but galloping prices raised and plain in not taking prompt acon on non performance of the agreement to sell is to be read against his own case. Resultantly, 1ndings recorded on issue no.1 by learned trial court is aCrmed but 1ndings of issue no.2 is reversed to the eect that plain is entled to the alternave relief i.e. decree of recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- paid by plains to defendant as earnest money at the me of execuon of agreement to sell Ex. P1 with interest @ 7% from the date of 1ling of suit ll its realisaon.” 22. I am in complete disagreement with the above said reasoning of the learned First Appellate Court. It is to be noted that while holding as above, the learned First Appellate Court has set up a case for the defendant which is beyond the pleadings in-as-much as in the wriGen statement, defendant has only taken a plea that the Agreement in ques,on is a sham document. As already noted above, defendant has led no evidence to substan,ate his pleading of forgery and fraudulence. Even no pleading or evidence has been made by the defendant to show any price escala,on in respect of the suit property. In these circumstances, learned First Appellate Court could not have set up a case in favour of the defendant beyond the pleaded case of the defendant. 23. Learned counsel for the respondent is unable to dispute or controvert the above said )ndings of the learned Trial Court. DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6130-2014 (O&M) - 12 - 24. In view of the above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed; and impugned judgment and decree dated 04.09.2014 passed by learned Addi,onal District Judge, Palwal is set aside; and the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2012 passed by learned Addi,onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal is restored. Resultantly, the suit of the plain,-s stands decreed. 25. Pending applica,ons, if any, stand disposed of. 20.01.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA) Divyanshi JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2026.01.23 14:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document