IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1840-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.01.2026 Ali ...Appellant Versus Jagjit Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) One of the plain-ffs’ has approached this Court by way of the present appeal, assailing the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. The suit for specific performance ins-tuted by them was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 09.05.2017, and the said judgment was affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court on 28.02.2025 while dismissing the appeal preferred by the plain-ffs. 2. The case set up by the plain-ffs is that the defendant agreed to sell land measuring 1 kanal 8 marlas out of total land measuring 17 kanal 4 marlas, situated in village Bohoru, Tehsil and District Amritsar, at the rate of ₹12,90,000/- per acre, vide agreement to sell dated 13.08.2012. An amount of ₹2,55,000/- was allegedly paid as earnest money. The target date for execu-on and registra-on of the sale deed was fixed as 12.01.2013 and, according to the plain-ffs, possession was also delivered to them. It was further pleaded that at the request of the defendant, the -me for execu-on of the sale deed was extended up to 20.04.2013 by way of endorsement on the agreement. Claiming con-nuous readiness and willingness on their part and alleging failure on the part of the defendant, the plain-ffs sought a decree for specific performance. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant, who pleaded that the agreement was vague, indefinite and incapable of specific enforcement. It was YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.16 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
 
 



 
further asserted that no considera-on had been paid and no possession was delivered. Though the rate of sale was admiBed, the defendant categorically alleged that material altera-ons had been made in the agreement by the plain-ffs, rendering it unenforceable. Readiness and willingness on the part of the plain-ffs was also specifically denied. 4. Upon framing of issues and apprecia-on of evidence, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court, on a complete re- appraisal of the pleadings and evidence, affirmed the findings of the Trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspec-ve. 6. This Court has considered the submissions and perused the en-re record. 7. It is well seBled that a plain-ff seeking specific performance must stand on the strength of his own case and must strictly sa-sfy the statutory requirements under Sec-on 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, namely, that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Equally seBled is the principle that an agreement which is vague, uncertain or materially altered without consent of the other party cannot be specifically enforced. 8. The learned First Appellate Court has me-culously examined the evidence and recorded detailed findings on material altera-on of the agreement. A perusal of the agreement Ex.P1 reveals visible cuFng on page 2, specifically at point ‘B’, oblitera-ng a material term. The defendant consistently pleaded that at the -me of execu-on, no such cuFng existed and that a photocopy of the original agreement, prepared contemporaneously, was handed over to him. The said photocopy was produced as Ex.D1. 9. A comparison of Ex.P1 with Ex.D1 clearly establishes that a crucial term stood deleted in Ex.P1, namely, the undertaking by the defendant to get the land registered from the legal heirs of Joginder Kaur. This term goes to the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.16 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
 
 




very root of the contract, as it reflects that other legal heirs had subsis-ng rights in the property and the defendant was required to clear the -tle before execu-on of the sale deed. Striking off such a term materially alters the nature and obliga-ons under the contract. 10. Significantly, the plain-ffs failed to offer any explana-on whatsoever, either in the pleadings or in the evidence, as to when, how and with whose consent this cuFng was made. The cuFng does not bear ini-als or signatures of either party. In law, once material altera-on is alleged and prima facie established, the burden lies heavily upon the party relying on the document to explain and jus-fy the altera-on. The plain-ffs have uBerly failed to discharge this burden. 11. The tes-mony of PW1 further for-fies the defendant’s case. PW1 admiBed his signatures on Ex.D1, thereby establishing its authen-city as a contemporaneous copy of the agreement. The aBes-ng witness PW4 Amrik Singh also failed to inspire confidence, as his signatures do not appear on Ex.D1 and he expressed ignorance regarding the cuFng, which casts serious doubt on his presence at the -me of execu-on of the original agreement. 12. Apart from the material altera-on, the agreement is rendered vague and uncertain by endorsement Ex.P3. A plain reading of this endorsement shows abandonment of 16 marlas out of the total 28 marlas agreed to be sold. The plain-ffs, however, ins-tuted the suit for specific performance of the en-re 28 marlas. No cogent explana-on has been offered as to which 16 marlas were abandoned and how the remaining subject maBer was iden-fied. Such ambiguity regarding the subject maBer of the contract is fatal to a claim for specific performance. 13. On the issue of readiness and willingness, the findings of the Courts below are equally well-founded. The plain-ffs failed to prove payment of earnest money by any reliable evidence. Their own witnesses admiBed that no amount was paid in their presence. The plain-ffs also failed to establish their financial capacity to pay the balance sale considera-on. No bank statement, withdrawal slip, receipt or evidence of sale of assets was produced. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.16 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
 
 




Mere bald asser-ons are insufficient to sa-sfy the mandatory requirement under Sec-on 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. 14. The claim of presence before the Sub Registrar is also riddled with inconsistencies. While the plain-ffs pleaded and deposed that they were present on 20.04.2013, the affidavit relied upon in support thereof (Ex.P4) is dated 22.04.2013. This discrepancy further erodes the credibility of the plain-ffs’ claim of readiness and willingness. 15. The alleged delivery of possession is equally unsubstan-ated. A recital in an unregistered agreement, especially when the agreement itself is found to be materially altered and vague, cannot by itself prove lawful delivery of possession. Moreover, an agreement coupled with delivery of possession aBracts the requirement of registra-on, which admiBedly was not complied with. 16. The First Appellate Court has thus returned findings of fact aLer a thorough re-appraisal of evidence, holding that the agreement Ex.P1 suffered from material altera-on, vagueness and lack of proof of readiness and willingness. These findings are neither perverse nor based on misreading of evidence. 17. In an appeal against concurrent findings of fact, this Court would not interfere unless the findings are shown to be wholly unreasonable or contrary to the record. No such case is made out. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The relief of specific performance has been rightly declined. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 15.01.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.16 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document