IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 110 RSA-3259-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision.:19.09.2025 Narender …..Appellant Vs. Shyam Sunder and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. G.S. Sawhney, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.2 of the suit has preferred the present Regular Second Appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the suit for specific performance, declara'on with consequen'al relief of permanent and mandatory injunc'on filed by Shyam Sunder (respondent No.1 herein) against defendant No.1 Ranjeet Singh (respondent No.2 herein) and the present appellant–defendant No.2 was decreed by the trial Court on 27.02.2024, and the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 31.07.2025. 2. The case of the plain'ff is that defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit property to him vide agreement dated 14.06.2018 for a total considera'on of ₹22,00,000/- in the presence of witnesses Naveen Bahal and Pankaj Khurana. The en're sale considera'on was paid, for which a separate receipt was executed on the same day in the presence of witnesses. The agreement was duly a<ested by the Notary Public and entered in his register. Defendant No.1 also handed over the original 'tle deed of the property to the plain'ff. At the 'me of execu'on, defendant No.1’s son and defendant No.2 were also present, though they did not sign the agreement. Subsequently, in October 2018, when the plain'ff requested execu'on of the sale deed, defendant No.1 refused. A legal NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.23 09:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3259-2025 (O&M) -2- no'ce dated 25.10.2018 yielded no response. Therea?er, the plain'ff discovered that defendant No.1 had executed a forged sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 08.08.2018, which according to him was a sham transac'on without considera'on. Accordingly, the plain'ff sought a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 14.06.2018 and a declara'on that the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 was null and void. 3. Defendant No.1, in his wri<en statement, denied execu'on of the agreement, alleging fraud on the ground that the plain'ff had taken him to the Tehsil Office on the pretext of securing a loan by mortgaging his house. He denied receipt of any considera'on. Defendant No.2, while adop'ng a similar stand, further claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for valuable considera'on. 4. The trial Court, a?er framing issues and evalua'ng the evidence, decreed the suit for specific performance vide judgment dated 27.02.2024, direc'ng both defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plain'ff and restraining them from aliena'ng the property. The appeal preferred by defendant No.2 was dismissed, and thus, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed. 5. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Courts below failed to properly appreciate the evidence, as prior to the sale deed dated 08.08.2018, defendant No.1 had already executed an agreement to sell dated 15.02.2018 in favour of the appellant, which was ignored. 6. Having examined the record, I find no merit in the submissions of learned counsel. 7. Both Courts below have rightly held that the agreement to sell dated 14.06.2018 relied upon by the plain'ff stood duly proved by the tes'mony of both a<es'ng witnesses, namely, Naveen Bahal (PW-5) and Pankaj Khurana (PW-6), and by PW-8 Smt. Lalita Rani, Advocate, the Notary Public, who confirmed the a<esta'on. These witnesses also corroborated NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.23 09:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3259-2025 (O&M) -3- that defendant No.1 received the full sale considera'on of ₹22,00,000/- in their presence. Although defendant No.1 alleged fraud, the burden was on him to establish how such fraud was commi<ed, par'cularly when he did not deny his signatures on the agreement. Significantly, defendant No.1 did not step into the witness box to substan'ate his plea. Accordingly, the agreement dated 14.06.2018 was rightly held to be proved. 8. Defendant No.2, though appeared as a witness, failed to establish his plea of being a bona fide purchaser. In cross-examina'on, he admi<ed being a contractual employee on DC rates in the Municipal Commi<ee and could not establish his financial capacity to pay the alleged considera'on of ₹10,00,000/- under the sale deed dated 08.08.2018. It is highly improbable that defendant No.1, a?er agreeing to sell the property for ₹22,00,000/- and receiving the en're considera'on, would sell the same property to defendant No.2 for only ₹10,00,000/-. 9. Further, defendant No.2 conceded in cross-examina'on that defendant No.1’s son, Rishideep, and his family con'nued to reside in the suit property. This remained unexplained, as to whether he had purchased the property under a genuine transac'on. On the contrary, the plain'ff established that possession was delivered to him on the date of execu'on of the agreement dated 14.06.2018 (Ex.PW7/B). 10. The reliance placed by the appellant on an earlier agreement dated 15.02.2018 (Mark ‘DA’) is misplaced. As noted by both Courts, the original of any such agreement was not produced, nor were any scribe or a<es'ng witnesses examined. The said document is not on stamp paper but a plain sheet with an adhesive stamp affixed, which could be manufactured at any stage. By contrast, the plain'ff’s agreement was executed on proper stamp paper purchased on 14.06.2018, a<ested by the Notary Public, and duly entered in his register. These facts clearly establish that the alleged agreement dated 15.02.2018 was concocted by defendants No.1 and 2 in collusion with each other to defeat the plain'ff’s lawful rights under the agreement dated 14.06.2018. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.23 09:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3259-2025 (O&M) -4- 11. In light of the above discussion, I find no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, which are based on proper apprecia'on of evidence. 12. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. All the miscellaneous applica'on(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE September 19, 2025 Nee'ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.09.23 09:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document