IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.89/2025 Date of Decision: 12th November, 2025. Mohar Singh .....Appellant Versus Purshotam Lal …..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tamana Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, HP in Civil Appeal No.25 of 2023, affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.05.2023, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, HP, in Civil Suit No.311 of 2018. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referred before learned trial Court. The facts material and relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the defendant, who is the owner in possession of the suit land, entered into an agreement to sell the said land to the plaintiff for a total consideration of ₹ 2,00,000/-. This agreement was executed on 13.04.2015 in the presence of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 witnesses. On the day of the agreement, a sum of ₹ 1,80,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in cash as earnest money, which was duly acknowledged by the defendant. The remaining balance of ₹ 20,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of the execution and registration of the sale deed, which was scheduled to take place in October 2015. In the beginning of October 2015, the plaintiff expressed his readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the agreement and informed the defendant at the end of the month. 3. On the appointed day, the plaintiff remained present at the Tehsil Complex in Kullu from 10:00 AM to 05:00 PM with the remaining sale consideration and other incidental charges, but the defendant failed to appear. The plaintiff subsequently swore an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate in Kullu regarding this event. Despite repeated requests from the plaintiff, the defendant made excuses and failed to execute the sale deed. A legal notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on 18.09.2017, calling upon him to perform his part of the agreement, but it yielded no result. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant never intended to perform his part and that the plaintiff remains ready and willing. The cause of action is stated to have lastly arisen on 02.10.2018 when the defendant completely refused to execute the sale deed, leading to the filing of the suit for specific performance. 3 4. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit, suppression of material facts, lack of locus standi of the plaintiff, and that the documents were forged and fictitious. On merits, the defendant denied the averments of the plaint. The defendant claimed that in August 2014, he had borrowed a sum of ₹ 60,000/- from the plaintiff for a period of four months. At that time, the plaintiff took a blank cheque, a blank stamp paper, and other judicial papers duly signed by the defendant as security, with an assurance to return them upon repayment. 5. The defendant alleged that he repaid the borrowed amount within four months and asked for the return of the blank documents, but the plaintiff made excuses that they had been misplaced. The defendant categorically denied having executed any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and asserted that the document was forged. Consequently, he argued that no cause of action ever accrued in favour of the plaintiff and prayed for the dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff filed a replication, denying the averments in the written statement and reaffirming the contents of the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled by learned trial Court on 09.03.2022:- 1. Whether defendant has agreed to sell the suit land by way of agreement dated 13.04.2015 to the plaintiff, as alleged? OPP. 4 2. Whether plaintiff was/is willing to perform his part of contract? OPP. 3. If issues Nos.1 and 2 are proved in the affirmative, whether plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 13.04.2015? OPP. 4. Whether in the alternative, plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount alongwith interest etc. as prayed? OPP. 5. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 6. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to maintain suit against defendant? OPD. 7. Relief. 7. The parties led oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff examined himself, one marginal witness of the agreement (Chet Ram as PW-2), and the scribe of the agreement (Badri Parkash as PW-3). The plaintiff relied upon copies of jamabandis, the agreement to sell (Ext. P3/PW1), a copy of an affidavit (Ext. P4/PW1), a copy of a legal notice (Ext. P5/PW1), and a postal receipt (Ext. P6/PW1). The defendant examined himself and tendered his affidavit in examination-in- chief (Ext. DW1/A). 8. The learned trial court decided issues No.1 to 3 in the affirmative and issues No.4 to 6 in the negative, thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 13.04.2015. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The grounds of appeal challenged the judgment and decree as being against law, facts, and the principles of natural justice. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to appreciate the pleadings and evidence correctly, leading to an erroneous 5 decision. It was argued that the trial court wrongly concluded that the defendant had executed the agreement to sell and that the court should not have taken the unregistered agreement into account. 9. The appellant further alleged that the agreement was not proved in accordance with law and that blank stamp papers, which were taken as security for a loan, had been misused by the plaintiff. The appeal also asserted that the trial court gave undue weight to the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses while ignoring material facts emerging from their cross- examination, thereby committing an illegality in appreciating the statements of the witnesses and wrongly deciding the issues. The First Appellate Court, however, dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s decision. Therefore, the present second appeal has been filed. 10. Heard Counsels for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments. 11. At the outset, it must be stated that there is no dispute regarding the defendant's ownership and possession of the suit land, a fact not specifically denied by the defendant and deemed admitted, and further substantiated by the plaintiff through the jamabandis, Exhibits P2/PW1 and PA. 12. The core question was whether the plaintiff successfully discharged the onus of proving the due execution of the agreement to sell dated 13.04.2015 and the payment of the 6 advance amount of ₹ 1,80,000/-. The plaintiff adduced credible evidence through his own testimony as PW-1, the testimony of PW-2 Chet Ram (a marginal witness), and PW-3 Badri Prakash (the scribe). Their consistent and corroborative testimonies established that the agreement, Exhibit P3/PW1, was written at the instance of the parties, read over and explained to them, and signed by them in the presence of the witnesses, and that the earnest money was paid in their presence. The extensive cross-examination of these witnesses did not yield any material to support the defendant's case, with the plaintiff's witnesses denying the suggestion of a conspiracy and the plaintiff explaining the source and denomination of the funds. 13. The defendant, while admitting his signatures on Exhibit P3/PW1, set up a specific defence that these signatures were obtained on blank papers given as security for a loan of Rs.60,000/-. which was unsubstantiated. The defendant, examined himself as DW-1, provided only a self-serving assertion on this point, which remained uncorroborated by any other oral or documentary evidence. It is improbable that a person of ordinary prudence would repay a loan but fail to retrieve the signed blank papers, and thus an adverse inference must be drawn against the defendant on this account. Consequently, it can be safely concluded that the plaintiff has successfully proved the due execution of the agreement and the payment of the advance consideration. 7 14. On the issue of the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, the plaintiff's evidence was satisfactory. The testimony of PW-1, corroborated by the affidavit Exhibit P4/PW1 and the legal notice Exhibit P5/PW1, establishes that the plaintiff presented himself at the Tehsil Complex on the appointed day with the balance sale consideration and incidental charges, but the defendant failed to appear. Nothing from the cross-examination of the plaintiff detracts from this assertion. The defendant has provided no explanation for his failure to perform his part of the agreement. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the plaintiff has throughout been ready and willing to perform his obligations, and it is the defendant who is in breach of the contract. In light of the foregoing, the findings of the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court on the substantive issues are upheld. 15. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 12th November, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat/TB)