RSA-67-2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127 RSA-67-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.04.2025 PARVEEN KUMAR …..Appellant Vs SUKHBIR SINGH …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K. Biriwal, Advocate for the appellant. ****** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Defendant of the case is before this Court against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for possession by way of specific performance regarding the property in dispute filed by plain'ff-Sukhbir Singh (respondent herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 10.08.2017 and the appeal filed by the defendant i.e. appellant herein was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 25.09.2023. 2. The only conten'on raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the courts below, as agreement to sell in ques'on Ex.P-1 was executed by the appellant- defendant as security for earnest money in respect of another agreement Mark DA. 3. As perusal of the paper book would reveal that based upon the registered agreement to sell dated 25.11.2013 between the par'es regarding suit property, the suit for specific performance was filed by the plain'ff claiming that total sale considera'on was ₹28,97,500/-, out of ₹26 lakh was paid as earnest money. The agreement was scribed by Deepinder Singh Advocate and was a;ested by two witnesses namely Om Parkash, Nambardar and Puran Singh. Target date for execu'on and registra'on sale deed was fixed for 25.02.2014, on which date balance sale considera'on was to be paid. Page 1 of 3 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.04.02 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-67-2024 (O&M) Plain'ff appeared on the target date before the office of Sub Registrar, Rania along with balance sale considera'on and requisite charges, but defendant failed to appear. Plain'ff got his presence marked by way of an affidavit and then sent a legal no'ce to the defendant on 26.02.2014 to perform his part of contract, but s'll defendant failed to do so, compelling the plain'ff to file the suit for specific performance. 4. Defendant (appellant herein) in his wri;en statement did not deny the execu'on of the agreement to sell. According to him, he (defendant) is a property dealer and had stood as a broker for sale of 89 kanal 5 marla of land in favour of father of the plain'ff and 02 others on 07.03.2011 and that he was also a witness to that agreement. Vendors of that agreement had transferred the property to others. In order to keep faith of the plain'ff and his father and his reputa'on in the market, defendant executed the agreement in favour of the plain'ff as security for earnest money, which had been paid by the father of the plain'ff in pursuant to the agreement dated 07.03.2011 Mark DA. Defendant submi;ed further that since he did not intend to sell the suit property, so there was no ques'on for a;ending the office of Sub Registrar on 25.02.2014. 5. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par'es was taken on record. Trial Court decreed the suit, by disbelieving the version of the defendant vide judgment dated 10.08.2017 and the Appellate Court endorsed the findings as has already been noted. 6. The conten'on raised by learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated, is found to be absolutely without any basis. 7. It has been no'ced by the Courts below that agreement to sell in favour of the plain'ff was the registered document. Defendant-appellant had never denied the execu'on thereof. The document writer Deepinder Singh, Advocate examined as PW2 & one of the a;es'ng witness Puran examined as PW3 had also proved the same. It was further no'ced that defendant- appellant, being a broker was not an illiterate person. It was further found that Page 2 of 3 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.04.02 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-67-2024 (O&M) no sugges'on had been given to the plain'ff that agreement in ques'on was executed as a security in presence of any other person. DW-2 Jagdish examined by the defendant, was found to be unreliable, as the agreement was not executed in his presence. Not only this, the two vendors of the document mark DA relied by the defendant were not examined. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when defendant- appellant had already received major part of the earnest money of ₹26 lakh out of the total sale considera'on of ₹28,97,500/- and did not deny the execu'on of the agreement, which was a registered document and plain'ff proved his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract since beginning, the Courts below were absolutely jus'fied in gran'ng the decree of specific performance in favour of plain'ff-respondent. 9. This Court does not find any ground to interfere in the well- reasoned concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon the proper apprecia'on of evidence. In the absence of any illegality or perversity in the findings, the present appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 01.04.2025 JUDGE Pry Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No Page 3 of 3 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.04.02 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document