RSA-1830-1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Nihal Kaur and Others Gurdev Singh and Others CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. F.S.Virk, Advocate for respondent no.1. Respondents No.2 to 7 service dispensed with (proforma respondents) MANDEEP PANNU,J. 1. This decree dated 24.12.1988 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Sunam, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff Gurdev Singh for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 2 Additional District Judge, Sangrur on 26.08.1998, dismissing the defendant’s appeal. Brief Facts 2. The plaintiff pleaded that defendants Gurchand Singh and Gurbax Singh, being owners in possession of agricultural marlas, entered into an agreement to sell the said land to him on 29.05.1986 for a total consideration of 1999 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA Reserved on: Date of Decision : 02.09.2025 Nihal Kaur and Others VERSUS Gurdev Singh and Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. F.S.Virk, Advocate for respondent no.1. Respondents No.2 to 7 service dispensed with (proforma respondents) -.- MANDEEP PANNU,J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1988 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Sunam, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff Gurdev Singh for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 29.05.1986, as affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur on 26.08.1998, dismissing the defendant’s The plaintiff pleaded that defendants Gurchand Singh and Gurbax Singh, being owners in possession of agricultural marlas, entered into an agreement to sell the said land to him on 29.05.1986 for a total consideration of ₹28,481.25/- (₹2100/- per killa -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1830-1999 (O&M) Reserved on:-27.08.2025 Date of Decision : 02.09.2025 ....Appellants ....Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. F.S.Virk, Advocate for respondent no.1. Respondents No.2 to 7 service dispensed with Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1988 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Sunam, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff Gurdev Singh for possession by way of specific 9.05.1986, as affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur on 26.08.1998, dismissing the defendant’s The plaintiff pleaded that defendants Gurchand Singh and Gurbax Singh, being owners in possession of agricultural land measuring 10 kanals 17 marlas, entered into an agreement to sell the said land to him on 29.05.1986 for a per killa). A sum of ₹10,000/- was - Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1988 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Sunam, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff Gurdev Singh for possession by way of specific 9.05.1986, as affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur on 26.08.1998, dismissing the defendant’s The plaintiff pleaded that defendants Gurchand Singh and Gurbax land measuring 10 kanals 17 marlas, entered into an agreement to sell the said land to him on 29.05.1986 for a was TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.08 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1830-1999 paid as earnest money at the time of execution. The agreement, Ex by Kulwant Rai and attested by Sadha Ram and Harchand Singh. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 10.06.1986. The plaintiff claimed that he remained present on the appointed date in the office of the Sub Registrar, Lehra, along wi the balance consideration of failed to appear. He prayed for a decree for possession by way of specific performance, or in the alternative, recovery of double earnest money. 3. The defendants contes agreement and asserting that Ex.P1 was a forged and fabricated document. They further claimed that the land was coparcenary/ancestral property, incapable of alienation without necessity, and that the sons of the defen parties. Other objections of locus standi, valuation, under joinder of parties were also raised. 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating his stand. 5. From the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed issues:- 1) agreement dated 29.05.86 in favour of Gurdev Singh on receipt of Rs.10,000/ 2) willing to p 3) performance of the contract dated 29.5.86 on in the alternative a decree for the recovery of Rs.20,000/ 1999 (O&M) paid as earnest money at the time of execution. The agreement, Ex by Kulwant Rai and attested by Sadha Ram and Harchand Singh. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 10.06.1986. The plaintiff claimed that he remained present on the appointed date in the office of the Sub Registrar, Lehra, along wi the balance consideration of ₹25,000/- and the attesting witnesses, but defendants failed to appear. He prayed for a decree for possession by way of specific performance, or in the alternative, recovery of double earnest money. The defendants contested the suit, denying execution of any agreement and asserting that Ex.P1 was a forged and fabricated document. They further claimed that the land was coparcenary/ancestral property, incapable of alienation without necessity, and that the sons of the defen parties. Other objections of locus standi, valuation, under joinder of parties were also raised. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating his stand. From the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 have executed an agreement dated 29.05.86 in favour of Gurdev Singh on receipt of Rs.10,000/- as earnest money? OPP Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing and still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the specific performance of the contract dated 29.5.86 on in the alternative a decree for the recovery of Rs.20,000/ -2- paid as earnest money at the time of execution. The agreement, Ex.P1, was scribed by Kulwant Rai and attested by Sadha Ram and Harchand Singh. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 10.06.1986. The plaintiff claimed that he remained present on the appointed date in the office of the Sub Registrar, Lehra, along wi and the attesting witnesses, but defendants failed to appear. He prayed for a decree for possession by way of specific performance, or in the alternative, recovery of double earnest money. ted the suit, denying execution of any agreement and asserting that Ex.P1 was a forged and fabricated document. They further claimed that the land was coparcenary/ancestral property, incapable of alienation without necessity, and that the sons of the defendants were necessary parties. Other objections of locus standi, valuation, under-stamping, and non Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating his stand. From the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 have executed an agreement dated 29.05.86 in favour of Gurdev Singh on receipt of as earnest money? OPP Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing and still ready and erform his part of the contract? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the specific performance of the contract dated 29.5.86 on in the alternative a decree for the recovery of Rs.20,000/-? OPP - .P1, was scribed by Kulwant Rai and attested by Sadha Ram and Harchand Singh. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 10.06.1986. The plaintiff claimed that he remained present on the appointed date in the office of the Sub Registrar, Lehra, along with and the attesting witnesses, but defendants failed to appear. He prayed for a decree for possession by way of specific ted the suit, denying execution of any agreement and asserting that Ex.P1 was a forged and fabricated document. They further claimed that the land was coparcenary/ancestral property, incapable of dants were necessary stamping, and non- the following Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 have executed an agreement dated 29.05.86 in favour of Gurdev Singh on receipt of Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing and still ready and Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the specific performance of the contract dated 29.5.86 on in the alternative a TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.08 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1830-1999 4) file the present suit? OPD 5) 6) of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 7. OPD 8. 29.05.86 and the same is forged and fabricated document? OPD 9. 6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined the following witnesses:- i) agreement Ex.P1 after receiving was scribed by Kulwant Rai and attested by Sadha Ram and Harchand Singh. He reiterated his readiness and willingness, including presence before Sub Registrar with balance money. ii) version and confirmed thumb impressions of defendants on Ex.P1. iii) execution and receipt of cons iv) Fingerprint Expert) compared three thumb impressions on Ex.P1 (Q1, Q2, Q3) with specimen impressions S1 and S2 of defendant Gurchand Singh. He opined that Q1 and Q3 were identical with S1. As r 1999 (O&M) Whether the plaintiff has no locus stand file the present suit? OPD Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD Whether the suit is bad for non OPD Whether there are material alteration in the agreement dated 29.05.86 and the same is forged and fabricated document? OPD Relief. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined the following PW1 Gurdev Singh (plaintiff) deposed that defendants executed agreement Ex.P1 after receiving ₹10,000 earnest money. Agreement was scribed by Kulwant Rai and attested by Sadha Ram and Harchand Singh. He reiterated his readiness and willingness, including presence before Sub Registrar with balance money. PW2 Sadha Ram (attesting witness) supported plaintiff’s version and confirmed thumb impressions of defendants on Ex.P1. PW3 Harchand Singh (attesting witness) corroborated the execution and receipt of consideration. PW4 Varinder Bhushan Bhatnagar (Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert) compared three thumb impressions on Ex.P1 (Q1, Q2, Q3) with specimen impressions S1 and S2 of defendant Gurchand Singh. He opined that Q1 and Q3 were identical with S1. As r -3- Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? Whether there are material alteration in the agreement dated 29.05.86 and the same is forged and fabricated document? OPD In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined the following dev Singh (plaintiff) deposed that defendants executed ₹10,000 earnest money. Agreement was scribed by Kulwant Rai and attested by Sadha Ram and Harchand Singh. He reiterated his readiness and willingness, including presence before Sub Registrar with balance money. PW2 Sadha Ram (attesting witness) supported plaintiff’s version and confirmed thumb impressions of defendants on Ex.P1. PW3 Harchand Singh (attesting witness) corroborated the ideration. PW4 Varinder Bhushan Bhatnagar (Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert) compared three thumb impressions on Ex.P1 (Q1, Q2, Q3) with specimen impressions S1 and S2 of defendant Gurchand Singh. He opined that Q1 and Q3 were identical with S1. As regards - i and cause of action to Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose der of necessary party? Whether there are material alteration in the agreement dated In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined the following dev Singh (plaintiff) deposed that defendants executed ₹10,000 earnest money. Agreement was scribed by Kulwant Rai and attested by Sadha Ram and Harchand Singh. He reiterated his readiness and willingness, including presence PW2 Sadha Ram (attesting witness) supported plaintiff’s PW3 Harchand Singh (attesting witness) corroborated the PW4 Varinder Bhushan Bhatnagar (Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert) compared three thumb impressions on Ex.P1 (Q1, Q2, Q3) with specimen impressions S1 and S2 of defendant Gurchand egards TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.08 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1830-1999 Q2, he noted that due to heavy ink impression, it was blurred and thus no definite opinion could be given. Nonetheless, he categorically concluded that two of the disputed impressions matched with the specimen, proving execution by Gurchand Singh 7. On the other hand, the defendants examined the following witnesses: i) for 30 years without licence, and denied execution. ii) forgery, and claimed land to be ancestral. iii) Singh, not defendants. iv) a photocopy of agreement did not show scribe’s signature. Findings of Trial Court 8. The learned trial Court held that execution of Ex.P1 stood proved by consistent testimony of plaintiff and two attesting witnesses, supported by expert opinion. The payment of earnest money of observed that stray answers of illiterate/rustic witnesses in cross regarding dates or times were immaterial, as their core testimony remained intact. The burden shifted upon defendants to prove forgery or blank paper theory, which they failed to dischar 9. The plaintiff’s readiness and willingness was proved by his presence before Sub Registrar with balance money and attesting witnesses. The objections of locus standi, valuation, non was decreed on 24.12.1988. 1999 (O&M) Q2, he noted that due to heavy ink impression, it was blurred and thus no definite opinion could be given. Nonetheless, he categorically concluded that two of the disputed impressions matched with the specimen, proving execution by Gurchand Singh On the other hand, the defendants examined the following witnesses: DW1 Jiwan Lal deposed that he had been writing documents for 30 years without licence, and denied execution. DW2 Gurchand Singh (defendant) denied execution, alleged forgery, and claimed land to be ancestral. DW3 Chanan Singh deposed that land was owned by Gurdev Singh, not defendants. DW4 Siri Ram Ahlmad appeared with record and claimed that a photocopy of agreement did not show scribe’s signature. f Trial Court The learned trial Court held that execution of Ex.P1 stood proved by consistent testimony of plaintiff and two attesting witnesses, supported by expert opinion. The payment of earnest money of ₹10,000 was established. The Court hat stray answers of illiterate/rustic witnesses in cross regarding dates or times were immaterial, as their core testimony remained intact. The burden shifted upon defendants to prove forgery or blank paper theory, which they failed to discharge. The plaintiff’s readiness and willingness was proved by his presence before Sub Registrar with balance money and attesting witnesses. The objections of locus standi, valuation, non-joinder, and ancestral nature were rejected. The suit n 24.12.1988. -4- Q2, he noted that due to heavy ink impression, it was blurred and thus no definite opinion could be given. Nonetheless, he categorically concluded that two of the disputed impressions matched with the specimen, proving execution by Gurchand Singh-defendant. On the other hand, the defendants examined the following witnesses: DW1 Jiwan Lal deposed that he had been writing documents for 30 years without licence, and denied execution. DW2 Gurchand Singh (defendant) denied execution, alleged forgery, and claimed land to be ancestral. DW3 Chanan Singh deposed that land was owned by Gurdev DW4 Siri Ram Ahlmad appeared with record and claimed that a photocopy of agreement did not show scribe’s signature. The learned trial Court held that execution of Ex.P1 stood proved by consistent testimony of plaintiff and two attesting witnesses, supported by expert ₹10,000 was established. The Court hat stray answers of illiterate/rustic witnesses in cross-examination regarding dates or times were immaterial, as their core testimony remained intact. The burden shifted upon defendants to prove forgery or blank paper theory, which The plaintiff’s readiness and willingness was proved by his presence before Sub Registrar with balance money and attesting witnesses. The objections joinder, and ancestral nature were rejected. The suit - Q2, he noted that due to heavy ink impression, it was blurred and thus no definite opinion could be given. Nonetheless, he categorically concluded that two of the disputed impressions matched with the On the other hand, the defendants examined the following witnesses:- DW1 Jiwan Lal deposed that he had been writing documents DW2 Gurchand Singh (defendant) denied execution, alleged DW3 Chanan Singh deposed that land was owned by Gurdev DW4 Siri Ram Ahlmad appeared with record and claimed that The learned trial Court held that execution of Ex.P1 stood proved by consistent testimony of plaintiff and two attesting witnesses, supported by expert ₹10,000 was established. The Court examination regarding dates or times were immaterial, as their core testimony remained intact. The burden shifted upon defendants to prove forgery or blank paper theory, which The plaintiff’s readiness and willingness was proved by his presence before Sub Registrar with balance money and attesting witnesses. The objections joinder, and ancestral nature were rejected. The suit TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.08 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1830-1999 Findings of Appellate Court 10. The learned lower Appellate Court concurred, noting that the application of defendants to frame issue regarding coparcenary property was dismissed by trial Court on 30.08.1988 and was never challenged. It held defendants failed to prove the land was coparcenary. Execution of agreement stood established through attesting witnesses and expert opinion. Defendants’ bare denials could not outweigh such cogent proof. Plaintiff’s readiness and willingness was also proved. The appeal was dismissed on 26.08.1998, granting plaintiff two months to deposit balance sale consideration. 11. Feeling aggrieved, Nihal Kaur widow of Gurchand Singh, Balwant Singh and Harbans Singh, sons of Gurchand Singh have preferred the Regular Second Appeal. 12. Upon notice, respondent No.1/plaintiff the present appeal. So far as respondents No.2 to 7 are concerned, they being proforma respondents, their service was dispense Arguments of Appellants 13. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that Ex.P1 was forged and fabricated and PW1 and PW2 admitted in their cross recall date/time of execution, the scribe Kulwant Rai never appeared regarding scribing of agreement to sell, DW4 showed photocopy lacked scribe’s signature, and payment of earnest money not proved since alleged commission agent Girdhari Lal, from whom plaintiff alleges to have borrowed money, was not examined. It was further contended that land was coparcenary, sons of defendants were co-sharers, and defendants could not alienate without necessity. Applications to prove coparcenary nature were wrongly dismissed. Learned counsel further 1999 (O&M) Findings of Appellate Court The learned lower Appellate Court concurred, noting that the application of defendants to frame issue regarding coparcenary property was dismissed by trial Court on 30.08.1988 and was never challenged. It held defendants failed to prove the land was coparcenary. Execution of agreement stood established through attesting witnesses and expert opinion. Defendants’ bare denials could not outweigh such cogent proof. Plaintiff’s readiness and willingness o proved. The appeal was dismissed on 26.08.1998, granting plaintiff two months to deposit balance sale consideration. Feeling aggrieved, Nihal Kaur widow of Gurchand Singh, Balwant Singh and Harbans Singh, sons of Gurchand Singh have preferred the Regular Second Appeal. Upon notice, respondent No.1/plaintiff the present appeal. So far as respondents No.2 to 7 are concerned, they being proforma respondents, their service was dispense Arguments of Appellants Learned counsel for the appellants argued that Ex.P1 was forged and fabricated and PW1 and PW2 admitted in their cross recall date/time of execution, the scribe Kulwant Rai never appeared regarding scribing of agreement to sell, DW4 showed photocopy lacked scribe’s signature, and payment of earnest money not proved since alleged commission agent Girdhari Lal, from whom plaintiff alleges to have borrowed money, was not was further contended that land was coparcenary, sons of defendants sharers, and defendants could not alienate without necessity. Applications to prove coparcenary nature were wrongly dismissed. Learned counsel further -5- The learned lower Appellate Court concurred, noting that the application of defendants to frame issue regarding coparcenary property was dismissed by trial Court on 30.08.1988 and was never challenged. It held that defendants failed to prove the land was coparcenary. Execution of agreement stood established through attesting witnesses and expert opinion. Defendants’ bare denials could not outweigh such cogent proof. Plaintiff’s readiness and willingness o proved. The appeal was dismissed on 26.08.1998, granting plaintiff two Feeling aggrieved, Nihal Kaur widow of Gurchand Singh, Balwant Singh and Harbans Singh, sons of Gurchand Singh-defendant, being his legal heirs Upon notice, respondent No.1/plaintiff-Gurdev Singh chose to contest the present appeal. So far as respondents No.2 to 7 are concerned, they being proforma respondents, their service was dispensed with. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that Ex.P1 was forged and fabricated and PW1 and PW2 admitted in their cross-examination that they did not recall date/time of execution, the scribe Kulwant Rai never appeared to depose regarding scribing of agreement to sell, DW4 showed photocopy lacked scribe’s signature, and payment of earnest money not proved since alleged commission agent Girdhari Lal, from whom plaintiff alleges to have borrowed money, was not was further contended that land was coparcenary, sons of defendants sharers, and defendants could not alienate without necessity. Applications to prove coparcenary nature were wrongly dismissed. Learned counsel further - The learned lower Appellate Court concurred, noting that the application of defendants to frame issue regarding coparcenary property was that defendants failed to prove the land was coparcenary. Execution of agreement stood established through attesting witnesses and expert opinion. Defendants’ bare denials could not outweigh such cogent proof. Plaintiff’s readiness and willingness o proved. The appeal was dismissed on 26.08.1998, granting plaintiff two Feeling aggrieved, Nihal Kaur widow of Gurchand Singh, Balwant legal heirs Gurdev Singh chose to contest the present appeal. So far as respondents No.2 to 7 are concerned, they being Learned counsel for the appellants argued that Ex.P1 was forged and examination that they did not to depose regarding scribing of agreement to sell, DW4 showed photocopy lacked scribe’s signature, and payment of earnest money not proved since alleged commission agent Girdhari Lal, from whom plaintiff alleges to have borrowed money, was not was further contended that land was coparcenary, sons of defendants sharers, and defendants could not alienate without necessity. Applications to prove coparcenary nature were wrongly dismissed. Learned counsel further TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.08 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1830-1999 argued that the plaintiff fa specific performance could not be sustained. Arguments of Respondents 14. Learned counsel for respondents supported concurrent findings and argued that execution was proved by testimony of attesting opinion. Once execution was established, burden shifted on defendants to prove alleged forgery or fraud, which they failed. Objection regarding coparcenary was concluded by dismissal of application to prove the same by framing of addit issue, which attained finality. Defendants were competent to alienate their share. He further submitted that other objections lacked substance and the judgments relied upon by appellants were distinguishable and not applicable to the case in hand. Findings of this Court 15. Having considered rival submissions, I find no merit in this appeal. The concurrent findings of both courts below are based on sound appreciation of evidence and do not warrant interference. 16. The execution of agreement Ex.P1 Plaintiffs PW1, PW2 and PW3 attesting witnesses consistently testified that defendants executed agreement in their presence and received money. Their testimony has not been discredited in cross objection raised by counsel for the plaintiff is that they failed to recall exact date and month of agreement to sell and its contents, however, Court cannot lose sight of the fact that they admitted being illiterate. Thus, rustic witnesses may exact dates or formal details, but the material fact that defendants executed Ex.P1 and affixed thumb impressions in their presence remains consistent. 1999 (O&M) argued that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness, and decree for specific performance could not be sustained. Arguments of Respondents Learned counsel for respondents supported concurrent findings and argued that execution was proved by testimony of attesting opinion. Once execution was established, burden shifted on defendants to prove alleged forgery or fraud, which they failed. Objection regarding coparcenary was concluded by dismissal of application to prove the same by framing of addit issue, which attained finality. Defendants were competent to alienate their share. He further submitted that other objections lacked substance and the judgments relied upon by appellants were distinguishable and not applicable to the case in indings of this Court Having considered rival submissions, I find no merit in this appeal. The concurrent findings of both courts below are based on sound appreciation of evidence and do not warrant interference. The execution of agreement Ex.P1 Plaintiffs PW1, PW2 and PW3 attesting witnesses consistently testified that defendants executed agreement in their presence and received money. Their testimony has not been discredited in cross objection raised by counsel for the plaintiff is that they failed to recall exact date and month of agreement to sell and its contents, however, Court cannot lose sight of the fact that they admitted being illiterate. Thus, rustic witnesses may exact dates or formal details, but the material fact that defendants executed Ex.P1 and affixed thumb impressions in their presence remains consistent. -6- iled to prove readiness and willingness, and decree for Learned counsel for respondents supported concurrent findings and argued that execution was proved by testimony of attesting witnesses and expert opinion. Once execution was established, burden shifted on defendants to prove alleged forgery or fraud, which they failed. Objection regarding coparcenary was concluded by dismissal of application to prove the same by framing of additional issue, which attained finality. Defendants were competent to alienate their share. He further submitted that other objections lacked substance and the judgments relied upon by appellants were distinguishable and not applicable to the case in Having considered rival submissions, I find no merit in this appeal. The concurrent findings of both courts below are based on sound appreciation of The execution of agreement Ex.P1 has been established beyond doubt. Plaintiffs PW1, PW2 and PW3 attesting witnesses consistently testified that defendants executed agreement in their presence and received ₹10,000 earnest money. Their testimony has not been discredited in cross-examination. The only objection raised by counsel for the plaintiff is that they failed to recall exact date and month of agreement to sell and its contents, however, Court cannot lose sight of the fact that they admitted being illiterate. Thus, rustic witnesses may not recall exact dates or formal details, but the material fact that defendants executed Ex.P1 and affixed thumb impressions in their presence remains consistent. - iled to prove readiness and willingness, and decree for Learned counsel for respondents supported concurrent findings and witnesses and expert opinion. Once execution was established, burden shifted on defendants to prove alleged forgery or fraud, which they failed. Objection regarding coparcenary was ional issue, which attained finality. Defendants were competent to alienate their share. He further submitted that other objections lacked substance and the judgments relied upon by appellants were distinguishable and not applicable to the case in Having considered rival submissions, I find no merit in this appeal. The concurrent findings of both courts below are based on sound appreciation of has been established beyond doubt. Plaintiffs PW1, PW2 and PW3 attesting witnesses consistently testified that ₹10,000 earnest . The only objection raised by counsel for the plaintiff is that they failed to recall exact date and month of agreement to sell and its contents, however, Court cannot lose sight not recall exact dates or formal details, but the material fact that defendants executed Ex.P1 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.08 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1830-1999 17. It also deserves to be noticed that the non Kulwant Rai do not settled that once the attesting witnesses have been examined and they have consistently proved the execution of the agreement to sell in the presence of the parties, the absence of the scribe in t formal writer of the document and the essential requirement is the testimony of attesting witnesses who have directly witnessed the execution. In the present case, both PW2 Sadhu Ram and PW3 Harchand Singh plaintiff's version, thereby proving the due execution of Ex. P1. 18. Crucially, PW4 handwriting and fingerprint expert compared three thumb impressions of defendant Gurchand Singh on Ex.P1 with his specimen impressions S1 and S2. He categorically opined that impressions Q1 and Q3 were identical with specimen S1. Only Q2 could not yield definite opinion due to heavy ink, which blurred its ridges. However, this circumstance does not shake the expert’s conclusion, since two identical matches are found, the non excess ink does not discredit the document. On the contrary, it strengthens the inference that Ex.P1 bears genuine thumb impr Singh. 19. Thus, execution of Ex.P1 stands duly proved. Once execution is established, the burden shifts upon defendants to prove their plea of forgery or blank papers. No such evidence has been brought on record. Mere denial cannot outweigh expert’s testimony and evidence of attesting witnesses. 20. Coming to the readiness and willingness of plaintiff, the same has also been proved. Plaintiff has categorically stated that he remained present before the 1999 (O&M) It also deserves to be noticed that the non Kulwant Rai do not in any manner weaken the plaintiff's case. The law is well settled that once the attesting witnesses have been examined and they have consistently proved the execution of the agreement to sell in the presence of the parties, the absence of the scribe in the witness box is not fatal. The scribe is only a formal writer of the document and the essential requirement is the testimony of attesting witnesses who have directly witnessed the execution. In the present case, both PW2 Sadhu Ram and PW3 Harchand Singh plaintiff's version, thereby proving the due execution of Ex. P1. Crucially, PW4 handwriting and fingerprint expert compared three thumb impressions of defendant Gurchand Singh on Ex.P1 with his specimen 1 and S2. He categorically opined that impressions Q1 and Q3 were identical with specimen S1. Only Q2 could not yield definite opinion due to heavy ink, which blurred its ridges. However, this circumstance does not shake the expert’s conclusion, since two impressions positively matched. Once two clear and identical matches are found, the non-comparability of one impression because of excess ink does not discredit the document. On the contrary, it strengthens the inference that Ex.P1 bears genuine thumb impr Thus, execution of Ex.P1 stands duly proved. Once execution is established, the burden shifts upon defendants to prove their plea of forgery or blank papers. No such evidence has been brought on record. Mere denial cannot outweigh expert’s testimony and evidence of attesting witnesses. Coming to the readiness and willingness of plaintiff, the same has also been proved. Plaintiff has categorically stated that he remained present before the -7- It also deserves to be noticed that the non-examination of the scribe in any manner weaken the plaintiff's case. The law is well settled that once the attesting witnesses have been examined and they have consistently proved the execution of the agreement to sell in the presence of the he witness box is not fatal. The scribe is only a formal writer of the document and the essential requirement is the testimony of attesting witnesses who have directly witnessed the execution. In the present case, both PW2 Sadhu Ram and PW3 Harchand Singh have unequivocally supported the plaintiff's version, thereby proving the due execution of Ex. P1. Crucially, PW4 handwriting and fingerprint expert compared three thumb impressions of defendant Gurchand Singh on Ex.P1 with his specimen 1 and S2. He categorically opined that impressions Q1 and Q3 were identical with specimen S1. Only Q2 could not yield definite opinion due to heavy ink, which blurred its ridges. However, this circumstance does not shake the impressions positively matched. Once two clear and comparability of one impression because of excess ink does not discredit the document. On the contrary, it strengthens the inference that Ex.P1 bears genuine thumb impressions of defendant Gurchand Thus, execution of Ex.P1 stands duly proved. Once execution is established, the burden shifts upon defendants to prove their plea of forgery or blank papers. No such evidence has been brought on record. Mere denials by DW2 cannot outweigh expert’s testimony and evidence of attesting witnesses. Coming to the readiness and willingness of plaintiff, the same has also been proved. Plaintiff has categorically stated that he remained present before the - examination of the scribe in any manner weaken the plaintiff's case. The law is well settled that once the attesting witnesses have been examined and they have consistently proved the execution of the agreement to sell in the presence of the he witness box is not fatal. The scribe is only a formal writer of the document and the essential requirement is the testimony of attesting witnesses who have directly witnessed the execution. In the present case, have unequivocally supported the Crucially, PW4 handwriting and fingerprint expert compared three thumb impressions of defendant Gurchand Singh on Ex.P1 with his specimen 1 and S2. He categorically opined that impressions Q1 and Q3 were identical with specimen S1. Only Q2 could not yield definite opinion due to heavy ink, which blurred its ridges. However, this circumstance does not shake the impressions positively matched. Once two clear and comparability of one impression because of excess ink does not discredit the document. On the contrary, it strengthens the essions of defendant Gurchand Thus, execution of Ex.P1 stands duly proved. Once execution is established, the burden shifts upon defendants to prove their plea of forgery or s by DW2 Coming to the readiness and willingness of plaintiff, the same has also been proved. Plaintiff has categorically stated that he remained present before the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.08 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1830-1999 Sub Registrar with balance sale consideration and witnesses on the date fixed, but defendants were never present and thereby defaulted. Hence, requirement of Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 is fully satisfied. 21. The reliance placed by learned counsel for t judgment of this Court in Singh[2018(3) RCR (Civil) 658] the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench observed that the plaintiff therein had not pleaded any positive step taken by him in order to show his readiness and willingness, and it was held that the plaintiff must assert and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. It was further emphasized that merely because the defendant had denied execution of the agreement to sell would not absolve the plaintiff of his duty to assert and prove his own readiness and willingness, and that the conduct of the defendants could only be considered once decision, however, is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Here, the plaintiff not only pleaded but also proved his readiness and willingness by producing cogent evide went to the office of the Sub presence. He also proved on record affidavit Ex. P2, wherein he specifically stated that he had already paid Rs.10,00 for payment of the balance sale consideration. He further proved vide Ex.P3 that he was present on that day with the balance sale consideration for execution of the sale deed. This evidence clearly establishes the ratio of Gurmail Singh’s case (supra) 1999 (O&M) with balance sale consideration and witnesses on the date fixed, but defendants were never present and thereby defaulted. Hence, requirement of Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 is fully satisfied. The reliance placed by learned counsel for t judgment of this Court in Gurmail Singh and another v. Jagdish Pal Singh[2018(3) RCR (Civil) 658] is also misplaced. In para 8 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench observed that the plaintiff therein had not pleaded ositive step taken by him in order to show his readiness and willingness, and it was held that the plaintiff must assert and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. It was hasized that merely because the defendant had denied execution of the agreement to sell would not absolve the plaintiff of his duty to assert and prove his own readiness and willingness, and that the conduct of the defendants could only be considered once the plaintiff had first been able to establish his case. The said decision, however, is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Here, the plaintiff not only pleaded but also proved his readiness and willingness by producing cogent evidence. On the stipulated date i.e. 10.06.1986, the plaintiff went to the office of the Sub-Registrar and moved application Ex.P3 to mark his presence. He also proved on record affidavit Ex. P2, wherein he specifically stated that he had already paid Rs.10,000/- as earnest money and 10.06.1986 was fixed for payment of the balance sale consideration. He further proved vide Ex.P3 that he was present on that day with the balance sale consideration for execution of the sale deed. This evidence clearly establishes his readiness and willingness, and, thus Gurmail Singh’s case (supra) does not apply to the present case. -8- with balance sale consideration and witnesses on the date fixed, but defendants were never present and thereby defaulted. Hence, requirement of Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 is fully satisfied. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellants on the Gurmail Singh and another v. Jagdish Pal is also misplaced. In para 8 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench observed that the plaintiff therein had not pleaded ositive step taken by him in order to show his readiness and willingness, and it was held that the plaintiff must assert and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. It was hasized that merely because the defendant had denied execution of the agreement to sell would not absolve the plaintiff of his duty to assert and prove his own readiness and willingness, and that the conduct of the defendants could only the plaintiff had first been able to establish his case. The said decision, however, is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Here, the plaintiff not only pleaded but also proved his readiness and willingness nce. On the stipulated date i.e. 10.06.1986, the plaintiff Registrar and moved application Ex.P3 to mark his presence. He also proved on record affidavit Ex. P2, wherein he specifically stated as earnest money and 10.06.1986 was fixed for payment of the balance sale consideration. He further proved vide Ex.P3 that he was present on that day with the balance sale consideration for execution of the his readiness and willingness, and, thus does not apply to the present case. - with balance sale consideration and witnesses on the date fixed, but defendants were never present and thereby defaulted. Hence, requirement of he appellants on the Gurmail Singh and another v. Jagdish Pal is also misplaced. In para 8 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench observed that the plaintiff therein had not pleaded ositive step taken by him in order to show his readiness and willingness, and it was held that the plaintiff must assert and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. It was hasized that merely because the defendant had denied execution of the agreement to sell would not absolve the plaintiff of his duty to assert and prove his own readiness and willingness, and that the conduct of the defendants could only the plaintiff had first been able to establish his case. The said decision, however, is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Here, the plaintiff not only pleaded but also proved his readiness and willingness nce. On the stipulated date i.e. 10.06.1986, the plaintiff Registrar and moved application Ex.P3 to mark his presence. He also proved on record affidavit Ex. P2, wherein he specifically stated as earnest money and 10.06.1986 was fixed for payment of the balance sale consideration. He further proved vide Ex.P3 that he was present on that day with the balance sale consideration for execution of the his readiness and willingness, and, thus TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.08 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1830-1999 22. The plea of coparcenary property is an afterthought. Application for framing issue to prove coparcenary property was dismissed by tr 30.08.1988. No appeal was filed, and order attained finality meaning thereby nature of property being coparcernary remains unproved on record. Law permits a co-sharer to alienate his undivided share, and even if specific khasra numbers are mentioned, transfer operates as to his share, subject to adjustment in partition. Defendants No.1 and 2 were therefore competent to sell their share. 23. Objections of valuation, non concurrently rejected and rightly so. Conclusion 24. In view of the above, I find no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the courts below. 25. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Judgments and decrees dated 24.12.1988 and 26.08.1998 of the courts below are affirmed. 26. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. September 02, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 1999 (O&M) The plea of coparcenary property is an afterthought. Application for framing issue to prove coparcenary property was dismissed by tr 30.08.1988. No appeal was filed, and order attained finality meaning thereby nature of property being coparcernary remains unproved on record. Law permits a sharer to alienate his undivided share, and even if specific khasra numbers are tioned, transfer operates as to his share, subject to adjustment in partition. Defendants No.1 and 2 were therefore competent to sell their share. Objections of valuation, non-joinder, and locus standi have been concurrently rejected and rightly so. In view of the above, I find no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the courts below. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Judgments and decrees dated 24.12.1988 and 26.08.1998 of the courts below are affirmed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. September 02, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No. -9- The plea of coparcenary property is an afterthought. Application for framing issue to prove coparcenary property was dismissed by trial court on 30.08.1988. No appeal was filed, and order attained finality meaning thereby nature of property being coparcernary remains unproved on record. Law permits a sharer to alienate his undivided share, and even if specific khasra numbers are tioned, transfer operates as to his share, subject to adjustment in partition. Defendants No.1 and 2 were therefore competent to sell their share. joinder, and locus standi have been In view of the above, I find no illegality or perversity in the The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Judgments and decrees dated 24.12.1988 and 26.08.1998 of the courts below are affirmed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No. - The plea of coparcenary property is an afterthought. Application for ial court on 30.08.1988. No appeal was filed, and order attained finality meaning thereby nature of property being coparcernary remains unproved on record. Law permits a sharer to alienate his undivided share, and even if specific khasra numbers are tioned, transfer operates as to his share, subject to adjustment in partition. joinder, and locus standi have been In view of the above, I find no illegality or perversity in the The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Judgments and decrees TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.08 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document