IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 110 CM-4733-C-2019; CM-4734-C-2019; CM-4735-C-2019 in/and RSA-1771-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision.:15.01.2026 Sumit Sood …..Appellant Vs. Swaran Kaur and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-4733-C-2019: This is an applica on under Sec on 5 of the Limita on Act to condone the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons men oned in the applica on duly supported by affidavit of Sumit Sood, delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Applica on stands disposed of accordingly. Main case.: The plain ff is before this Court assailing the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. The suit for possession by way of specific performance ins tuted by him was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 14.07.2016, and the appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 14.08.2018, thereby affirming the findings of the Trial Court. 2. The case set up by the plain ff was that defendant No.1, being NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.16 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1771-2019 (O&M) -2- owner of the suit property, had agreed to sell the same to him vide agreement dated 25.06.2010 for a total sale considera on, out of which an amount of ₹6,00,000/- was allegedly paid as earnest money. The target date for execu on of the sale deed was fixed as 30.06.2011. It was further pleaded that another amount of ₹3,50,000/- was subsequently paid, leaving a balance of ₹5,50,000/- to be paid at the me of execu on of the sale deed. However, prior to the target date, defendant No.1 executed a registered sale deed dated 25.05.2011 in favour of defendant No.2. Consequently, the plain ff sought specific performance of the agreement dated 25.06.2010, declara on that the sale deed dated 25.05.2011 was null and void, permanent injunc on for restraining defendant No.2 and in the alterna ve, recovery of ₹15,00,000/- along with interest. 3. Defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex parte. Defendant No.2 contested the suit and denied the very existence of any agreement between the plain ff and defendant No.1 or receipt of any earnest money. According to defendant No.2, defendant No.1 had earlier entered into an agreement dated 26.03.2010 with her for a sale considera on of ₹26,75,000/-, received ₹4,00,000/- as earnest money, and therea;er executed the sale deed dated 25.05.2011 a;er receipt of the en re balance considera on. 4. Upon framing of issues and apprecia on of evidence, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the agreement to sell relied upon by the plain ff was not proved. The First Appellate Court, on re- appraisal of the evidence, affirmed the said findings. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspec ve. 6. This Court has perused the paper-book and considered the submissions. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.16 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1771-2019 (O&M) -3- 7. It is well se>led that in a suit for specific performance, the plain ff must establish: (i) existence and due execu on of a valid and enforceable agreement; and (ii) his con nuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, as mandated under Sec on 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The plain ff must succeed on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the defence. 8. The First Appellate Court has recorded detailed findings that the plain ff failed to prove the very execu on of the agreement. The plain ff, while stepping into the witness box, was unable to support his own pleadings. He could not disclose basic par culars rela ng to the agreement, such as the name of the scribe, whether the scribe had signed or stamped the document, the number of pages of the agreement, or even the correct nature of the stamp paper on which it was executed. Such inconsistencies strike at the root of the plain ff’s case. 9. More importantly, the plain ff failed to prove payment of earnest money. Though he claimed to have withdrawn ₹6,00,000/- from his bank account, he did not produce any bank statement or documentary evidence to establish withdrawal of the said amount. No receipt acknowledging payment was produced. With regard to the alleged payment of ₹3,50,000/-, the plain ff could not disclose even the date or month of payment, much less produce any proof of source or acknowledgment. The tes mony of PW2, who happened to be the father-in-law of the plain ff, was rightly treated as interested and insufficient to prove such substan al cash transac ons. 10. In the absence of proof of payment of earnest money and credible evidence of execu on of the agreement, the ques on of readiness and willingness does not even arise. Mere bald asser ons, without financial NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.16 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1771-2019 (O&M) -4- evidence demonstra ng capacity to perform the contract, do not sa sfy the statutory requirement under Sec on 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 11. The Courts below have also correctly taken note of the fact that defendant No.2 claims tle through a registered sale deed executed prior to the target date of the alleged agreement relied upon by the plain ff. Once the plain ff failed to prove the founda onal agreement itself, the relief of declara on against the subsequent sale deed or alterna ve recovery could not be granted. 12. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are pure findings of fact based on proper apprecia on of oral and documentary evidence. No perversity, illegality, misreading of evidence, or non- considera on of any material evidence has been pointed out so as to warrant interference by this Court. 13. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 14. All pending miscellaneous applica on(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE January 15, 2026 Nee ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.16 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document