RSA-5400- IN THE HIG 109 Subhash Vinod Kuma CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. concurrent ju ‘Suit for Spe Permanent costs. 2. before the le plaintiff’, wh 3. are that the situated near No. 1461/1 been entered shown to b Subsequently defendant ag -2019 O&M) -1- HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Versus Kumar M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH Mr. Chetan Kapoor, Advocate f I GUPTA, J. The plaintiff-appellant is in rrent judgments and decrees of both t r Specific Performance of Contract ent Injunction’, filed by the plaint The parties shall hereinafter be the learned trial Court i.e. the appella whereas the respondent as ‘the def Brief facts of the case as set ou at the plaintiff and defendant had d near Sugar Mill Shekhpura, Karnal, 461/1 dated 22.05.1995. Mutation No entered and sanctioned; and the plain to be joint owners in possession quently, vide Agreement to Sell date ant agreed to sell his half share of the D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-5400-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.02.2025 .…Appellant ....Respondent NIDHI GUPTA ocate for the appellant. is in second appeal against the both the Courts below whereby the ract with Consequential Relief of plaintiff has been dismissed with fter be referred to as per their status appellant is being referred to as ‘the defendant’. set out by the plaintiff in the plaint t had jointly purchased one shop arnal, through registered Sale Deed ion No. 283to this effect, has duly e plaintiff and the defendant were session of the shop in question. ll dated 28.03.2003 (Ex. P-2), the of the shop in favour of the plaintiff the the of with atus the laint hop eed duly ere tion. the ntiff RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.15 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-5400- for a total sa thereof. The full and fin signatures u witnesses; the plaintiff interference 28.03.2003 plaintiff tha executed and choice as an same. 4. many times defendant di dated 29.01. and register adamant. Th the defendan get the sale d 5. resisting the the defendan shop in ques P-2), the def -2019 O&M) -2- otal sale consideration of ₹25,000/- f. The defendant had duly received th nd final consideration. Thereafter, ures upon the Agreement to Sell and possession had been delivere laintiff is using the said shop as rence. At the time of execution o 2003 (Ex. P-2), it was agreed betw ff that the plaintiff would have the ted and registered in his favour or in as and when he required and the def It is the case of the plaintiff tha times and requested him to get the ant did not do so. Thereafter, the p 29.01.2004 calling upon the defendant gister the same on or before 12.02.200 nt. The plaintiff reached the office of fendant never turned up. The plaintif sale deed executed. Hence the presen Upon notice, defendant appeare ng the claim of the plaintiff qua owner fendant admitted his ownership to th n question. Regarding the Agreement he defendant stated the same to be a f along with all rights pertaining the sum of ₹25,000/- in cash as after, the defendant had put his Ex. P-2, in the presence of elivered to the plaintiff. Since then p as owner thereof without any tion of Agreement to Sell dated d between the defendant and the ve the right to get the sale deed r or in favour of any person of his the defendant shall be liable for the iff that he approached the defendant et the sale deed executed, but the the plaintiff served a legal notice endant to get the sale deed executed 02.2004, but the defendant remained ice of the Sub-Registrar, Karnal, but laintiff is still ready and willing to present suit. ppeared and filed written statement ownership. In his written statement, p to the extent of half share of the ement to Sell dated 28.03.2003 (Ex. be a false and fabricated document ning h as his e of then any ated the eed his the dant the tice uted ined , but g to ent ent, the (Ex. ent RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.15 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-5400- which was the defendan averments, d 6. was filed by 7. were framed 8. the evidence the suit of 22.01.2016. 9. Appellate C judgment an learned Add dated 15.02.2 10. concurrent f -2019 O&M) -3- was not executed between the parties fendant shall execute and get regist ents, dismissal of the suit was prayed f Replication to the written state led by the plaintiff. On the basis of the pleadings o ramed by the learned trial Court vide o “1. Whether the plaintiff is e performance with conse injunction? OPP. 2. Whether suit of the plaint 3. Whether plaintiff has go present suit? OPD. 4. Whether the suit of th valued for the purposes OPD. 5. Relief.” Upon appraisal and considerati idence adduced by the parties, the le it of the plaintiff with costs vide j 2016. Being aggrieved, the plaintif late Court by way of Civil Appea ent and decree dated 22.01.2016; whi d Additional District Judge, Karnal 15.02.2019. Hence, the present second Learned counsel for the app rrent findings of both the Courts belo parties and it was never agreed that register the sale deed. With these rayed for. n statement filed by the defendant ings of the parties, following issues vide order dated 02.02.2015: - is entitled to a decree for specific onsequential relief of permanent laintiff is not maintainable? OPD. s got no locus-standi to file the f the plaintiff has not properly ses of court fee and jurisdiction? ideration of the pleadings, as also the learned trial Court dismissed vide judgment and decree dated laintiff had approached the 1st Appeal No.198/2017,against the which too was dismissed by the arnal, vide judgment and decree econd appeal. e appellant-plaintiff assails the ts below by submitting that while that hese dant sues fic nt he rly RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.15 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-5400- passing the i that the pla relationship Agreement t plaintiff at t Courts belo deposition h to Sell dated one of the at (Ex. P-2) ha to him along and sign on have wrongl no knowled 28.03.2003 ( PW-5, it is c is contended 28.03.2003 ( never denied that the said 11. plaintiff was appreciate th defendant af -2019 O&M) -4- g the impugned judgments, the Courts plaintiff and defendant are real nship with each other. The stamp p ment to Sell dated 28.03.2003 (Ex. P ff at the instance of defendant. It is below have ignored the fact that ition have admitted the fact regarding l dated 28.03.2003 (Ex. P-2). In fact, the attesting witnesses to the Agreem has stated in his cross-examinatio along with the Agreement to Sell and gn on it. It is submitted that therefor rongly held that PW-2 Dheer Singh owledge of the conditions of the 2003 (Ex. P-2); whereas from the sta , it is clear that they were well aware a tended that the execution of the sai 2003 (Ex. P-2), is also proven from th denied his signatures on the said Agr e said Agreement is forged and fabrica It is further submitted that ff was time barred the ld. lower Ap iate that there was no talking terms b ant after the year 2006. It is accordin Courts below have ignored the fact real brothers and have cordial amp papers for execution of the (Ex. P-2), was purchased by the . It is contended that the learned t that all the witnesses in their rding the execution of Agreement fact, PW-2 Dheer Singh, who is greement to Sell dated 28.03.2003 ination that both the parties came ell and asked him to put his stamp erefore, the learned Courts below Singh and PW-5 Harbans Lal had f the Agreement to Sell dated the statements of both PW-2 and ware about the said Agreement. It he said Agreement to Sell dated rom the fact that the defendant had id Agreement; and has not proved fabricated as pleaded by him. that in holding that suit of the er Appellate Court has failed to erms between the plaintiff and the ccordingly, prayed that judgments RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.15 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-5400- and decrees plaintiff be d 12. 13. the case file 14. plaintiff. A p non-suited, a not proven in the statem that the Agre PW-2 Dhee himself as P Agreement w only one Vin the plaintiff 28.03.2003 ( witnesses, n fortified from Singh, who dated 28.03. has further c prior to tha parties/witne stamped it. P -2019 O&M) -5- ecrees of both the Courts below be s ff be decreed. No other argument is raised on I have heard learned counsel fo se file in great detail. I find no merit in the submiss ff. A perusal of the record of the case ited, and the Agreement to Sell date oven by both the Courts below as the statements made by the witnesses. It Agreement to Sell dated 28.03.2003 Dheer Singh and PW-5 Harbans L lf as PW-3 has admitted in his cros ment was executed at the Tehsil Com ne Vinod was present and no one else. aintiff as PW-3, it is to be inferred th 2003 (Ex. P-2), was not witnessed by ses, namely, Dheer Singh and Harb ed from the deposition of alleged att , who has admitted in his cross-exa 28.03.2003 was not got written by the rther candidly deposed that he had sig to that on the said affidavit, ther /witnesses as well as Notary Publi ed it. PW-2 Dheer Singh has further be set aside and the suit of the ed on behalf of the appellant. nsel for the appellant and perused bmissions made on behalf of the e case shows that the plaintiff was ll dated 28.3.2003 was held to be there are serious contradictions sses. It is the case of the plaintiff .2003 (Ex. P-2), was witnessed by ans Lal. However, the plaintiff s cross-examination that the said l Complex Karnal and at that time e else. From the said deposition of rred that Agreement to Sell dated by any of the alleged attesting Harbans Lal. This inference is ed attesting witness PW-2 Dheer examination that the affidavit by the parties in his presence. He ad signed the said agreement; and t, there were signatures of the Public had already signed and urther deposed that no person has RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.15 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-5400- signed the A were the con 15. deposed alon between the language; an Agreement d this evidenc Singh and P Witnesses” 28.03.2003 ( with law. 16. that the Agr consideration entirety. How PW-3 has s made at hom made at the time. Howev that the paym and that the Harbans Lal fields adjace discrepancie -2019 O&M) -6- the Agreement in his presence; and he conditions in the Agreement. PW-5 Harbans Lal another al ed along similar lines to the effect tha en the parties in his presence; that h and that he can read and write on ment dated 28.3.2003 is scribed in Hi vidence that the learned trial Court h nd PW-5 Harbans Lal, could not b es” as required’; and, therefore, th 2003 (Ex. P-2) in question did not s What has further weighed with Agreement to Sell dated 28.03.20 eration of ₹25,000/- which was sta y. However, even this is shrouded in has stated in his cross-examination at home in the presence of family me at the Tehsil; and that no person from However, in contradiction thereof, PW e payment was made in his presence i at the denomination of currency not ns Lal has further deposed that the sai adjacent to the shop in question. Thu pancies in the statements made by the ; and that he did not know what her alleged attesting witness has that no document was written that he does not know the Hindi rite only in Urdu. Admittedly, the in Hindi. It was in the context of ourt has held that ‘PW-2 Dheer ot be held to be the “Attesting ore, the Agreement to Sell dated not stand proven, in accordance d with the learned Courts below is .03.2003 (Ex. P-2), shows a sale as stated to have been paid in ed in suspicion as the plaintiff as ation that the said payment was ily members and no payment was n from outside was present at that f, PW-5 Harbans Lal has deposed ence i.e. in the presence of PW-5; cy notes was ₹100/- each. PW-5 the said payment was made in the n. Thus, clearly there are material y the plaintiff’s witnesses. RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.15 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-5400- 17. Ashok Kum present at th (Ex. P-2); time; that about 10-11: was paid at Notary Publi 18. para No. 7 o defendant ha Registrar on registered. H Sub-Registra available in 12.02.2014, It is also per whereas, the 19. Sell dated 2 the plaintiff upon the Ag and fingerpr 20. learned Cour -2019 O&M) -7- A third and entirely different Kumar, who has stated in his cros t at the time of execution of Agreeme ; that even his brothers and sister that the said Agreement was entered 11:00 AM; and that the amount o at the time of writing of the Agree Public. It has further come on record th o. 7 of the plaint vide legal notice dat ant had been called upon to come p rar on 12.02.2014, for getting the . However, the plaintiff got his p egistrar on 13.02.2014. As such, ble in the office of the Sub-Registra 2014, despite the fact that he had calle lso pertinent that the alleged Agreemen as, the present suit has been filed by th The defendant had disputed his ated 28.03.2003 (Ex. P-2), however, n aintiff to get compare the disputed s the Agreement with his standard sign ngerprint expert. It was keeping in mind all of th d Courts below held that Agreement to erent story is put forth by PW-4 is cross-examination that he was greement to Sell dated 28.03.2003 sisters were also present at that ntered into between the parties at ount of consideration of ₹25,000/- Agreement in the presence of the cord that as per averments made in ice dated 29.01.2014 (Ex. P-4) the ome present in the office of Sub- g the sale deed executed and t his presence marked before the such, plaintiff himself was not egistrar on the target date i.e. on called the defendant on that date. reement to sell is dated 28.3.2003; d by the plaintiff only on 1.4.2014. ed his signatures on Agreement to , no effort was ever made by uted signatures of the defendant rd signatures through handwriting ll of the above-said factors that the ment to Sell dated 28.03.2003 (Ex. RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.15 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-5400- P-2), on the half share of and, therefo under the S 28.03.2003 ₹25,000/- by circumstance 21. controvert th explanation the concurre 22. 23. 13.02.2025 rishu -2019 O&M) -8- on the basis of which plaintiff was la are of the defendant, could not be pro herefore, there was no ground to gr the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as, th 2003 (Ex. P-2) as well as the payme by the plaintiff was engulfed in stances. Learned counsel for the appell vert the above said evidence/finding ation for the same. As such, no groun ncurrent findings returned by both the In view of the above, present ap Pending application(s) if any als 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable was laying claim to the extent of be proved in accordance with law; to grant the discretionary relief as, the Agreement to Sell dated payment of sale consideration of ed in a cloud of doubt/suspicious appellant is unable to dispute or findings or give any satisfactory ground is made out to interfere in th the Courts below. sent appeal is dismissed. any also stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.15 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.