RSA-1801 of 202 IN THE HIG Baljinder Pal Sing Vikram Singh (sin CORAM: HON’BL Present:- Mr. for t DEEPAK GUPTA, This findings of the C performance file vide judgment d dismissed by the 2. Assa contends that t documentary evi 3. How recorded by both contention. 4. As p of the defendant favour regarding alleged that the e of the agreemen deed, as and wh 2025 p. 1 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR RSA No. 1801 of 2025 Decided on: 13.11.2025 l Singh & Anr. Versus (since deceased) through his LRs. N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. *** TA, J. This Regular Second Appeal is d e Courts below, whereby the suit f filed by the plaintiffs–appellants w nt dated 22.09.2017, and the first the First Appellate Court on 22.10.2 Assailing the said judgments, lear at the Courts below failed to pro evidence on record and that the fin However, after examining the plead both Courts below, this Court find As per the plaintiffs’ case, Vikram Si dants, had executed an agreement ding the suit land for a sale consi the entire sale consideration had be ment and that Vikram Singh had when required by the plaintiffs. P HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 25 2025 …Appellant Rs. …Respondent PTA is directed against the concurren uit for possession by way of specifi ts was dismissed by the trial Cour first appeal preferred by them wa .10.2024. learned counsel for the appellant properly appreciate the oral and e findings suffer from perversity. leadings, evidence, and the finding finds no substance in the aforesaid m Singh, the predecessor-in-interes ent to sell dated 21.04.2001 in thei onsideration of ₹3,00,000/-. It wa d been paid at the time of execution ad undertaken to execute the sal ffs. Plaintiffs also pleaded readines llants ents rrent ecific ourt was llants and dings esaid erest their was ution sale iness JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1801 of 202 and willingness a perform the cont 5. The agreement to sel dismissal of the s 6. Both recorded concurr the agreement to 7. This specifically denie the plaintiffs to p Act. Yet, none examined. No ha signatures on th essential evidenc proving due exec 8. Even agreement was either to return plaintiffs themse the said date. plaintiffs) admitt deed. This amoun 9. Still 10–15 times. The account of lack o refusal, no suit w April 2013, whic Article 54 of the not extend or sav 2025 p. 2 ess and claimed to have repeatedly contract. The defendants, however, categoric o sell by Vikram Singh and controver he suit. Both the Courts below, on detai current findings that the plaintiffs nt to sell. This Court finds no infirmity in the c enied the execution of the agreem to prove it in accordance with Sec ne of the attesting witnesses to o handwriting/fingerprint expert wa n the document belonged to Vikram dence, the plaintiffs failed to discha execution. Even otherwise, the suit was hope as dated 21.04.2001. Under its t turn the amount or execute the mselves pleaded that Vikram Singh te. In cross-examination, PW5 Ra mitted that in 2003 itself Vikram Si ounted to a clear refusal, giving cau Still further, plaintiffs pleaded that . They stated that even on 09.05.20 ck of NOC from Town Planning De it was filed for years thereafter, as which is well beyond the three- the Limitation Act. Mere oral assert r save limitation. tedly approached the defendants to gorically denied the execution of th overted all other averments, seekin etailed appraisal of the evidence iffs failed to prove due execution o the conclusion. Once the defendant eement, the burden squarely lay on Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence to the alleged agreement were was examined to establish that the ikram Singh. In the absence of such ischarge the foundational burden o opelessly barred by limitation. The its terms, the vendor was required the sale deed by 20.04.2003. Th ingh failed to return the amount b 5 Ravinder Pal Singh (one of th m Singh refused to execute the sal g cause of action at that stage. that they approached Vikram Singh 5.2006 the sale deed was refused on Department. Despite this admitted , as the present suit was filed only in -year limitation prescribed unde ssertions of repeated approaches do ts to f the eking ence, on of ants y on ence were t the such en of . The uired The nt by the sale Singh d on itted nly in nder es do JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1801 of 202 10. Ther plaintiffs’ versio appellants conce the plaintiffs. If paid in 2001, it possession nor in aspect further re probable. 11. In vi recorded by the based on proper limited jurisdictio for consideration 12. Cons Pending applicat 13.11.2025 Jiten Whe Whe 2025 p. 3 There is yet another circumstan rsion. On specific query by this nceded that possession of the suit . If indeed the entire sale conside , it is wholly unnatural that the or insist upon a registered sale dee er reinforces the concurrent finding In view of the aforesaid discussion, the trial Court and the First App er appreciation of evidence, and iction under Section 100 CPC. No s tion. Consequently, finding no merit in th lications, if any, also stand disposed hether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No hether reportable : Yes/No stance, which seriously dents th his Court, learned counsel for th suit property was never delivered sideration of ₹3,00,000/- had been he plaintiffs would neither receive deed for more than 12 years. Thi ding that the plaintiffs’ story is no ion, this Court finds that the finding Appellate Court are well reasoned and call for no interference in the o substantial question of law arise in the appeal, the same is dismissed sed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE the r the to been ceive . This s not dings ned, the rises ssed. JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document