RSA No.4152 of 2014 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on 9th of April, 2026 Pronounced on 8th of July, 2026 Uploaded on 8th of July, 2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes RSA No.4152 of 2014 (O&M) Uma Bakshi ....Appellant Versus Satwant Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Varun Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent. PANKAJ JAIN, J. Defendant is in second appeal aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 2. For convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter are referred to as by their original position before the Court of the First Instance, i.e., the appellant as 'defendant' and the respondent as 'plaintiff'. 3. Plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance. As per plaintiff, defendant agreed to sell suit property, i.e., a residential plot measuring 500 Sq. Yards bearing No.15, Sector 25, DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.4152 of 2014 (O&M) 2 Panchkula in his favour for a total sale consideration of Rs.40,50,000/-. On the date of execution of agreement to sell, Rs.5,00,000/- was paid as earnest money. The parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 02.04.2005 or within ten days of grant of permission to the defendant to transfer the suit property by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, whichever is later. As per plaintiff, defendant failed to obtain permission for transfer of the plot. He was constrained to serve legal notice dated 28.11.2005, Exhibit PW2/A calling upon defendant to obtain permission for transfer of plot from the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula. After defendant failed to respond to the same, plaintiff filed present suit seeking decree of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. 3.1. Plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 21.02.2007 seeking amendment of the plaint. By way of proposed amendment, plaintiff sought incorporation of the relief of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 06.12.2004. The application filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Court of the First Instance on 16.05.2007. In revision filed by the plaintiff, High Court allowed the amendment vide order dated 15.09.2008. The plaintiff by way of present suit claims to have remained ready and willing to perform his part continuously and seeks decree of specific performance. 4. Defendant contested the suit denying execution of agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff. Defendant pleaded that she availed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. Defendant through her brother Dr. Shardaindu Sharma came in contact with Varinder Kumar Sharma. Varinder Kumar Sharma DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.4152 of 2014 (O&M) 3 introduced defendant to the plaintiff, who agreed to lend Rs.3,00,000/- to defendant as a friendly loan @ 18% interest per annum. On 06.12.2004 Satwant Singh paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant and made her sign five blank papers and on register on the pretext of preparing a loan agreement. Defendant further denied her ownership over the plot and thus claimed that she had no reason to enter into an agreement to sell. Defendant thus claimed that the plaintiff has propounded agreement to sell dated 06.12.2004 using those blank papers. It was further pleaded that the agreed date for execution of sale deed being 02.04.2005 and the amendment of plaint having been allowed on 15.09.2008, the suit for specific performance is barred by time. Defendant further pleaded that defendant offered to return an amount of Rs.5,43,000/- by way of demand draft dated 16.04.2009 to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff refused to accept the same. 5. Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by the Court of the First Instance framing following Issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is required for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from this court? OPD 5. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD 6. Relief.” 5.1. Vide order dated 14.11.2009 following additional issues were DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.4152 of 2014 (O&M) 4 framed by the Trial Court : “5-A. Whether defendant Smt. Uma Bakshi executed an agreement to sell dated 6.12.2004 with the plaintiff? OPP 5-B. Whether the defendant was the owner of the plot on 6.12.2004 when the alleged agreement to sell was shown to be executed? OPP 5-C. Whether plaintiff has fabricated and forged the agreement dated 6.12.2004 on the blank papers instead of preparing loan agreement of Rs.3 lacs? OPD 5-D. Whether an amount of Rs.3 lacs was taken as a friendly loan by the defendant in December, 2004 from the plaintiff and to discharge the same, defendant has deposited demand draft of Rs.5,43,000/- with interest in court in full and final discharge of the loan to the defendant? OPD 5-E. Whether the suit for specific performance is time barred and the required ad-valorem court fee on the amended plaint has been affixed on 13.2.2009 as such cannot be entertained? OPD” 5.2. One additional issue was also framed vide order dated 10.09.2011 as under: “5-F Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 6.12.2004? OPD” 6. While answering Issues No.1, 2, 5-A to 5-F, the Court of the First Instance held that the plaintiff successfully proved execution of agreement to sell by examining attesting witness namely Bharat Raj Singh, who appeared as PW4. In order to prove signatures of defendant, R.V. Vashista, Handwriting & Fingerprint Expert was examined as PW3. The Court further found that as per the agreement to sell, Exhibit P-1, the parties DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.4152 of 2014 (O&M) 5 agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 02.04.2005 or within ten days of the grant of permission to the defendant to transfer the suit property by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula, whichever is later. No permission was obtained by the defendant. Legal notice dated 28.11.2005, Exhibit PW2/A was served upon the defendant at the behest of the plaintiff asking her to obtain the requisite permission. Postal receipt to prove that the notice was sent by way of registered post has been proved on record as Exhibit PW2/B. Within 15 days, the present suit was filed on 13.12.2005 seeking decree of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. After defendant refused execution of agreement to sell, plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint. These facts show that the plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part. The Court of the First Instance accordingly, found plaintiff entitled for decree of specific performance. 7. In appeal preferred by defendant, the Lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the Court of the First Instance. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below. Mr. Jaggi submits that the Courts below erred in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff without there being any evidence to prove his readiness or willingness. He submits that as per the agreement to sell, the parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 02.04.2005. On the said date, neither the plaintiff appeared before the Sub Registrar nor he brought on record any proof to prove that he was ready to perform his part. Even legal notice dated 28.11.2005 was issued to the defendant asking her to obtain permission for transfer of the plot from DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.4152 of 2014 (O&M) 6 Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula. He submits that even after issuance of legal notice, plaintiff filed simpliciter suit for permanent injunction. The same was subsequently amended and converted into the suit for specific performance by moving an application on 21.02.2007 which was allowed in revision on 15.09.2008. Despite that, the amended plaint was filed only on 13.02.2009 when the ad valorem Court fee was tendered. He submits that from the conduct of the plaintiff, there is a serious cloud over his claim of being continuously ready and willing to perform his part which the Courts below wrongly ignored. 8.1. He has drawn attention of this Court to the testimony of plaintiff, who appeared as PW1. Mr. Jaggi submits that there is an admission on part of the plaintiff that defendant deposited a demand draft of Rs.5,43,000/- in favour of the plaintiff, but he refused to accept the same. Mr. Jaggi further submits that the entire case of the plaintiff is based upon falsehood. Plaintiff admitted that he never paid any income tax and that his income was not taxable. The earnest money alleged to have been paid to the defendant was never shown in Income Tax Return of the plaintiff. He refers to statement of Arvind Kumar, Assistant called from Income Tax Department by the defendant, as DW1 to prove the Income Tax Return of the plaintiff for the Assessment Year 2005-2006, Exhibit D1/A. Mr. Jaggi points out that for the Financial Year 2004-2005, income of the plaintiff was shown as Rs.96,422/- which was not taxable. He further refers to statement of DW-2 Mukesh Mehta son of Raghu Nath Rai Mehta, who proved demand notice, Exhibit D-7 claiming that he paid Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff through DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.4152 of 2014 (O&M) 7 Bharat Raj Singh, Property Dealer qua the present property claiming Satwant Singh Bedi i.e., the plaintiff to be owner of the suit property. He further submits that plaintiff filed another civil suit titled as 'Satwant Singh vs. Amar Singh' propounding agreement to sell qua house No.108, Sector 4, Panchkula whereby he agreed to purchase the same for an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- and claimed to have paid Rs.10,00,000/- as earnest money. Still another lis between Amar Singh Sodhi and the present plaintiff is pending consideration before this Court in RSA No.3464 of 2020. Mr. Jaggi thus submits that the conduct of the plaintiff does not merit decree of specific performance which is the discretionary relief. Rather the stand of the defendant is more plausible that the defendant availed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff and the blank papers signed by the defendant on the pretext of preparing a loan agreement have been misutilized propounding agreement to sell. He thus prays for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff. In support of his contention, Mr. Jaggi has placed reliance upon ratio of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ‘Sukhwinder Singh vs. Jagroop Singh and another’, 2020(1) RCR (Civil) 951. 9. Per contra, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that pure finding of fact has been returned by the Courts below which warrants no interference by this Court in Second Appeal as the same does not raise any question of law. He submits that appellant/defendant cannot seek re-appreciation of evidence in the second appeal. Mr. Bhan submits that the defendant does not dispute signatures in her written DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.4152 of 2014 (O&M) 8 statement, but while entering into the witness-box she denied the same. Receipt of money also stands admitted as she offered to pay back Rs.5,43,000/- by way of demand draft during the pendency of the suit. He submits that the parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 02.04.2005 or within 10 days of defendant obtaining permission to transfer the suit property from the Estate Officer, HUDA Panchkula, whichever is later. After defendant failed to obtain permission even upto November, 2005, plaintiff served a legal notice dated 28.11.2005 upon the defendant asking her to obtain permission for transfer of property from the Nodal Agency. Defendant having failed to respond to the same, the present suit was filed promptly. Defendant having denied execution of agreement to sell in her written statement, the suit was amended. Execution of agreement to sell stands proved by examining attesting witness as well as Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert. He submits that the stage for getting the attendance marked before the Sub Registrar never reached in the present case. He thus submits that the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record returning the concurrent findings of fact decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. 10. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case. 11. Plaintiff instituted suit seeking decree of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction on 13.12.2005. In the plaint, the plaintiff claimed that defendant executed agreement to sell dated 06.12.2004 in his favour and received earnest money of Rs.5,00,000/- out of the total sale consideration of DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.4152 of 2014 (O&M) 9 Rs.40,50,000/-. Plaintiff further claimed that as per Clause 3 & 4 of the agreement to sell, defendant was required to get the necessary permission to sell/transfer the property from Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula and to hand-over the same to M/s Anil Property Dealers Manimajra. The last date for execution of the sale deed is fixed on or before 02.04.2005 or within ten days of grant of permission to transfer by the Estate Officer, HUDA Panchkula, whichever is later, and that the parties shall present themselves in the office of concerned Sub Registrar as per time fixed between them. The plaintiff further pleaded that despite his repeated efforts defendant has failed to obtain permission and has rather informed the plaintiff that she has changed her mind and does not want to sell the property. Plaintiff claimed that he served legal notice dated 28.11.2005 calling upon the defendant to obtain permission and to execute sale deed in his favour. 11.1. Defendant filed written statement denying execution of agreement to sell. Rather she claimed that the money transaction between the parties was a loan transaction. Defendant availed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to return the same within a period of two years along with interest @ 18% per annum. She was made to sign blank papers at five places on the pretext of preparing a loan agreement. Those blank papers have been utilized for printing agreement to sell. 11.2. Plaintiff filed application seeking amendment of plaint on 16.11.2006 proposing to convert the suit into the suit seeking decree of specific performance. The application was initially declined vide order dated 16.05.2007, but was allowed in CR No.5185 of 2007 vide order dated DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.4152 of 2014 (O&M) 10 15.09.2008. 11.3. Plaintiff examined Bharat Raj Singh, the attesting witness to the agreement to sell as PW4 and Handwriting & Finger Print Expert, R.V. Vashista as PW3. After appreciating evidence on record, both the Courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff successfully proved execution of agreement to sell. Even before this Court, no serious dispute has been raised by counsel for the appellant qua the same. From the records, this Court finds that apart from bald assertion of denying the agreement to sell, defendant has not led any cogent piece of evidence to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff. In view thereof, this Court finds that findings recorded by the Courts below holding that the execution of agreement to sell, Exhibit P-1 stands proved, requires no interference and are hereby affirmed. 12. Lot of stress has been laid down by Mr. Jaggi, counsel for the appellant on the Income Tax Return of the plaintiff but the same does not advance the cause of defendant in light of a specific defence pleaded by her admitting that she availed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff. 13. Coming on to the issue of limitation raised by counsel for the defendant by referring to the date on which the application for amendment was allowed, this Court finds that the same sans merit and deserves to be rejected. 13.1. Clause 3 & 4 of the agreement to sell read as under: “3. That the said seller(s) will clear all the outstanding dues against the said plot (i.e. towards price, increased area, enhanced compensation, interest/penalty, extension fee etc. upto _____) and will get permission to sell/transfer of the said plot from the Estate DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.4152 of 2014 (O&M) 11 Officer, HUDA, Panchkula and will handover the same to M/s Anil Property Dealers, Manimajra, 10 days before the last date of execution of the sale deed. 4. That the last date for execution of the sale deed has been fixed on or before 2nd April 2005 or within 10 days of the grant of permission to transfer by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula whichsoever is later and both the parties shall present themselves in the office of concerned Sub Registrar, as per time fixed through them.” 13.2. In view of the aforesaid terms contained in the agreement to sell, the date fixed for execution of sale deed was agreed to be 02.04.2005 or within ten days of grant of permission to transfer the suit property by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula. Admittedly, the defendant never applied for such permission. The present suit was instituted on 13.12.2005. Application seeking amendment of suit incorporating relief of specific performance was filed on 16.11.2006 and not on 21.02.2007 as claimed by Mr. Jaggi. The same is also evident from order sheet of the Trial Court. Order dated 16.11.2006 reads as under: “Present: Sh. V.P. Chatrath, counsel for the plaintiff. Sh. R.K. Sharma, counsel for the defendant. Order announced. Vide my separate order, the application u/o 7 rule 11 CPC is dismissed. An application u/o 6 rule 17 CPC filed. To come up on 1.12.2006 for filing reply to the application. ACJ(SD)/PKL 16.11.06” 13.3. Thus, even if the limitation to file suit for specific performance is taken to have commenced on 02.04.2005 for the sake of argument, the DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.4152 of 2014 (O&M) 12 present suit would be within limitation. 14. The issue of readiness and willingness has to be ascertained from the conduct of the plaintiff as there can't be any straight jacket formula to ascertain the same. 14.1. In the present case, the parties entered into an agreement to sell on 06.12.2004. They agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 02.04.2005 or within ten days from the date the defendant obtains permission from the concerned authority for transfer of the plot. Since on 02.04.2005 there was no permission obtained by defendant to transfer the suit property, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to appear before the Sub Registrar. Having waited for almost six months thereafter, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 28.11.2005, Exhibit PW2/A calling upon the defendant to obtain permission for transfer of the suit property. Defendant having failed to respond, plaintiff instituted present suit within 15 days, on 13.12.2005. Defendant filed written statement on 27.05.2006 denying execution of agreement to sell accompanied by an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed on 16.11.2006. On the same day, the plaintiff moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint incorporating relief of specific performance pleading that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part. Defendant denied execution of agreement to sell. Not only this, she even denied her ownership over the suit property.The plea raised by defendant was proved to be false as it stands DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.4152 of 2014 (O&M) 13 proved that after death of her mother-in-law she was to succeed the property on the basis of WILL. 14.2. This Court is of the opinion that exhibition of financial capacity though is one of the major parameters to fathom the readiness but is not the only one. Readiness and willingness are questions to be determined on the basis of conduct taking holistic view. In the present case, the stage to appear before the Sub Registrar or to exhibit financial capacity never arrived. From the conduct of the plaintiff, it is evident that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part. 14.3. In view of above, this Court finds no reason to interfere in well reasoned findings recorded by the Courts below granting decree of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff. Resultantly, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is ordered to be dismissed. 15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. July 08, 2026 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether reportable : Yes DEEPAK KUMAR 2026.07.08 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document