RSA-2171-2025 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2171-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.04.2026 Purshotam through his SPA Ashwani Kumar ...Appellant Versus Kailash and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Cost of ₹ 5,000/- as imposed on last date of hearing has been paid, as per receipt, placed on file. CM – 7398-C-2025 is allowed, permi2ng the appellant to affix deficient court fee. CM – 7399-C-2025 is allowed, condoning the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal. Main Case: The judgment and decree dated 19.02.2025 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant–plain<ff came to be dismissed and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 17.08.2017 were affirmed, have been assailed in the present Regular Second Appeal. 2. The appellant–plain<ff had ins<tuted a suit seeking possession by way of specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell dated 26.09.2011 in respect of the suit property, along with consequen<al relief of permanent injunc<on. The founda<on of the plain<ff’s claim was an alleged oral agreement of the year 1995, pursuant to which the en<re sale considera<on is stated to have been paid and possession allegedly delivered, YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.08 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2171-2025 (O&M) [2] followed by the execu<on of the wriCen agreement in the year 2011. The defendants, however, denied the execu<on of any such agreement and asserted that the document relied upon by the plain<ff was forged and fabricated, allegedly procured under coercion. It was further pleaded that the property in ques<on had already been alienated in favour of a third party, namely Mahabir, vide sale deed dated 03.10.2011. 3. Upon considera<on of the pleadings and evidence led by the par<es, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit. The learned First Appellate Court, being the final Court of facts, undertook a comprehensive reappraisal of the en<re evidence and concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court. 4. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that both the Courts below have erred in law in discarding the agreement to sell and have failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record, par<cularly with regard to the aspect of possession and the readiness and willingness of the plain<ff to perform his part of the contract. It is urged that the findings recorded suffer from perversity and are liable to be set aside. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. 6. At the outset, it is to be noted that the jurisdic<on of this Court under Sec<on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to substan<al ques<ons of law. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below are not to be interfered with unless it is demonstrated that such findings are perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or suffer from a patent illegality. A mere possibility of a different view on apprecia<on of evidence cannot be a ground for interference in second appeal. 7. In the present case, the en<re edifice of the plain<ff’s claim rests upon the alleged oral agreement of the year 1995. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that the said oral agreement has not been YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.08 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2171-2025 (O&M) [3] proved. There is no cogent or reliable evidence on record to substan<ate the alleged payment of the en<re sale considera<on or the delivery of possession at that stage. In a suit for specific performance, the plain<ff is required to establish the founda<onal transac<on with certainty and clarity, which burden has not been discharged in the present case. 8. The agreement to sell dated 26.09.2011, which cons<tutes the backbone of the plain<ff’s case, has been disbelieved by both the Courts below for valid and cogent reasons. The First Appellate Court has no<ced various suspicious circumstances surrounding its execu<on, including the absence of signatures on the first page, lack of clarity regarding procurement of stamp paper, and material inconsistencies in the tes<monies of the aCes<ng witnesses regarding its execu<on and prepara<on. These discrepancies, taken cumula<vely, create serious doubt about the genuineness of the document. It is well seCled that where a document is shrouded in suspicion, the burden lies heavily upon the propounder to dispel such suspicion by leading clear, cogent and convincing evidence, which the plain<ff has failed to do. 9. Further, the plain<ff’s own version regarding payment of considera<on is found to be inconsistent and contradictory. At one stage, the plain<ff asserts that the en<re considera<on was paid in the year 1995, whereas at another stage, it is suggested that the payment was made through a third person. Such contradic<ons go to the root of the maCer and materially affect the credibility of the plain<ff’s case. 10. The plea of possession, as advanced by the plain<ff, has also not been substan<ated. The documents relied upon do not conclusively establish possession over the suit property, nor do they sa<sfactorily correlate with the property in dispute. Significantly, the agreement itself does not make any reference to a constructed house, which renders the plain<ff’s version doubIul. 11. Another circumstance, which lends credence to the defence YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.08 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2171-2025 (O&M) [4] version is the complaint lodged by the defendant alleging that his signatures were obtained under coercion. Although no criminal proceedings ul<mately culminated, the proximity of such complaint to the alleged execu<on of the agreement casts a serious doubt on the authen<city of the transac<on. 12. The conduct of the plain<ff also disen<tles him from seeking the equitable relief of specific performance. Despite having knowledge of the subsequent sale of the property in favour of a third party, the plain<ff failed to implead the said purchaser as a party to the suit. It is well seCled that a subsequent purchaser is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance, and non-joinder thereof is fatal to the case of the plain<ff. Furthermore, suppression of material facts by the plain<ff militates against the grant of discre<onary relief. 13. Both the Courts below have thus concurrently held that the agreement to sell has not been proved in accordance with law, that the plain<ff has failed to establish passing of valid considera<on as well as readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, and that he is not en<tled to the equitable relief of specific performance or injunc<on. These findings are based on proper apprecia<on of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or legal infirmity. 14. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant essen<ally seek re-apprecia<on of evidence, which is impermissible in exercise of jurisdic<on under Sec<on 100 CPC. No substan<al ques<on of law arises for considera<on in the present appeal, as the issues sought to be raised are purely ques<ons of fact already concluded by concurrent findings of the Courts below. 15. Consequently, the present Regular Second Appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 07.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.08 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document