IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 106 RSA-3300-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision.:16.02.2026 Idrish Hussain Khan and Another …..Appellants Vs. Gian Singh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Onkar Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendants are before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. The suit for declara&on ins&tuted by the plain&ffs– respondents was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.02.2017. The appeal preferred by the defendants– appellants came to be dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court on 03.02.2023, affirming the findings returned by the trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has sought to assail the concurrent findings primarily on the ground that the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated and that material aspects have been ignored by the Courts below. 3. Having heard learned counsel and perused the en&re paper- book, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. 4. As borne out from the pleadings and evidence, the case of the plain&ffs was that the defendants agreed to purchase land measuring 7 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.17 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3300-2023 (O&M) -2- Kanal 12 Marla owned by them vide agreement to sell dated 30.01.2013 for a total considera&on of ₹1,18,30,000/-. A sum of ₹15,00,000/- was paid at the &me of execu&on of the agreement and a further amount of ₹15,00,000/- was paid on 15.03.2013. The sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered on or before 20.01.2014 on payment of the balance sale considera&on. It was specifically s&pulated that in the event of failure on the part of the purchasers to get the sale deed executed and registered by the s&pulated date, the earnest money would stand forfeited and the agreement would be deemed cancelled. 5. The plain&ffs asserted their con&nuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract and pleaded that they had remained present before the Sub-Registrar on 20.01.2014. According to them, despite service of legal no&ce dated 15.01.2014 calling upon the defendants to perform their obliga&ons, the defendants failed to appear and complete the transac&on. Consequently, the suit was filed seeking a declara&on that the agreement stood rescinded on account of breach by the defendants and that the earnest money paid stood forfeited. 6. The defendants, while contes&ng the suit, raised a plea that the plain&ffs were under an obliga&on to obtain a ‘No Objec&on Cer&ficate’ from the competent authority and to get the land demarcated before execu&on of the sale deed. They also pleaded their own readiness and willingness. 7. Upon framing of issues and apprecia&on of oral as well as documentary evidence, both the Courts below concurrently held that it was the defendants, who had failed to perform their part of the contract. The finding is founded on the admi@ed s&pula&on regarding the target date, the absence of the defendants before the Sub-Registrar on 20.01.2014, and the fact that no suit for specific performance was ins&tuted by them at any point of &me. The plea regarding requirement of ‘No Objec&on Cer&ficate’ NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.17 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3300-2023 (O&M) -3- or demarca&on was rejected on the ground that no such condi&on was incorporated in the agreement to sell. These are pure findings of fact based on construc&on of the contractual terms and apprecia&on of evidence. 8. The Courts below further examined the nature of the payments made and held that only the amount of ₹15,00,000/- paid on 30.01.2013 cons&tuted earnest money liable to forfeiture under the terms of the agreement. The decree was accordingly molded, restric&ng forfeiture to the said amount. The first Appellate Court, being the final Court of fact, re-appreciated the evidence and affirmed these conclusions. 9. It is well se@led that the jurisdic&on of this Court under Sec&on 100 CPC is confined to substan&al ques&ons of law. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless the appellants are able to demonstrate that such findings are perverse, based on misreading of material evidence, or recorded in disregard of se@led legal principles. A mere plea of improper apprecia&on of evidence does not give rise to a substan&al ques&on of law. 10. In the present case, learned counsel for the appellants has candidly admi@ed that the agreement itself provided for forfeiture of earnest money in the event of failure on the part of the purchasers. The conten&on that the plain&ffs were required to obtain a No Objec&on Cer&ficate or demarcate the land is unsupported by any contractual s&pula&on and has been concurrently negated by both the Courts below. No material has been pointed out to show that the findings suffer from perversity or are the result of ignoring admissible evidence or relying upon inadmissible material. 11. In the absence of any substan&al ques&on of law arising for considera&on, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the well- reasoned and concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.17 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3300-2023 (O&M) -4- 12. The present Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 13. All pending miscellaneous applica&on(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE February 16, 2026 Nee&ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.02.17 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document