RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) Sombir @ Somvir ...Appellant Versus Manjeet Kumar ...Respondent Reserved on: 07.07.2026 Pronounced on: 10.07.2026 Pronounced fully/opera)ve part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mrs. Suksham Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sukesh Kumar Jindal, Advocate and Ms. Komal Jindal, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The defendant has filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Sec3on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plain3ff seeking possession of suit property by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.08.2016 was decreed. The said judgment has been affirmed by the learned District Judge, Charkhi Dadri vide judgment dated 28.04.2025 dismissing the first appeal preferred by the present appellant. 2. The trial Court record has been perused. For the sake of clarity, the par3es are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. Plainff’s Case: 3.1 The plain3ff (respondent herein) ins3tuted the suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 02.08.2016 executed by the appellant-defendant in respect of agricultural land measuring 40 kanals, YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.13 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) [2] being half share out of land measuring 80 kanals situated in Village Gopalwas, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri. 3.2 According to the plain3ff, the total sale considera3on was fixed at ₹50,00,000/-. Out of the said amount, a sum of ₹40,80,000/- was paid as earnest money at the 3me of execu3on of the agreement itself in the presence of marginal witnesses. The remaining amount of ₹9,20,000/- was agreed to be paid at the 3me of execu3on and registra3on of the sale deed, which was s3pulated to be completed on or before 02.05.2017. The agreement was scribed by an Advocate, executed on stamp paper purchased by the defendant and duly witnessed. Entries regarding its execu3on were also made in the register of the deed writer. 3.3 It was further pleaded that on the s3pulated date i.e. 02.05.2017, the plain3ff remained present before the office of the Sub Registrar, Badhra carrying the balance sale considera3on through cheque besides necessary expenses for registra3on. As the defendant failed to appear, the plain3ff got his presence recorded through an affidavit aGested by the competent Execu3ve Magistrate. ThereaHer legal no3ces dated 30.07.2019 and 30.08.2019 were issued calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. The plain3ff again appeared before the Sub Registrar on 16.09.2019 with a demand draH of ₹9,20,000/- but even on that occasion the defendant failed to honour the agreement, compelling ins3tu3on of the present suit. Defendant’s stand: 4. The defendant did not dispute his signatures appearing upon the agreement. However, he denied receipt of earnest money. According to him, no amount whatsoever had been paid by the plain3ff and that the document had been got executed because of certain monetary transac3ons involving one Suresh. According to the defendant, a Panchayat was YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.13 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) [3] convened on 30.11.2016, wherein the agreement dated 02.08.2016 stood cancelled. Reliance was placed upon an alleged Panchayat wri3ng marked as "Mark-A". It was also pleaded that legal heirs of Suresh had already ins3tuted a recovery suit against the defendant in respect of certain financial transac3ons and that the present agreement was merely intended to exert pressure upon him. 5. On the basis of pleadings, issues were framed and both sides led evidence. Findings of the Trial Court : 6. The learned Trial Court, aHer examining eight witnesses produced by the plain3ff including the deed writer, stamp vendor, aGes3ng witness, handwri3ng expert, re3red Naib Tehsildar and the plain3ff himself, came to the conclusion that execu3on of the agreement stood fully proved; signatures of the defendant on the agreement were admiGed; the agreement was duly supported by independent evidence; the plea regarding cancella3on through Panchayat remained wholly unproved; the plain3ff had established con3nuous readiness and willingness by appearing before the Sub Registrar on two occasions with the balance sale considera3on; and that the defendant had failed to rebut the documentary evidence adduced by the plain3ff. Accordingly, the suit for specific performance was decreed. Findings of the First Appellate Court : 7. The first Appellate Court independently re-appreciated the en3re oral as well as documentary evidence and found that the defendant admiGed execu3on of the agreement, his signatures, purchase of stamp papers and photographs appearing upon the agreement; the stamp vendor and deed writer fully corroborated the plain3ff's case; one of the aGes3ng witnesses supported execu3on as well as payment of earnest money; the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.13 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) [4] handwri3ng expert also opined that the disputed signatures were that of the defendant; the alleged Panchayat wri3ng was only a photocopy and had never been proved in accordance with law; no witness to the alleged Panchayat was examined; and the plain3ff had proved his readiness and willingness by his conduct in appearing before the Sub Registrar with the balance sale considera3on. The appeal was consequently dismissed. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant : 8. Assailing the abovesaid concurrent findings, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that both the Courts below have commiGed a patent error in decreeing the suit. 8.1 Firstly, it is argued that the alleged payment of earnest money amoun3ng to ₹40,80,000/- has not been proved by any independent evidence. According to learned counsel, neither the deed writer nor the stamp vendor witnessed the actual payment and, therefore, mere recital in the agreement could not cons3tute proof of passing of considera3on. 8.2 Secondly, it is contended that the plain3ff uGerly failed to establish his financial capacity to pay an amount exceeding ₹40 lakhs. No bank statement, income-tax return or other documentary evidence regarding availability of funds was produced and, therefore, the Courts below commiGed illegality in presuming financial capability. 8.3 Thirdly, it is submiGed that the mandatory requirement of con3nuous readiness and willingness under Sec3on 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act 1963 has not been established. Mere affidavits of presence before the Sub Registrar, according to the appellant, are self-serving documents incapable of proving readiness and willingness. 8.4 Fourthly, it is argued that the Panchayat seGlement dated 30.11.2016 probabilises the defence that the agreement had already stood cancelled and both the Courts below failed to appreciate this material YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.13 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) [5] circumstance. 8.5 Learned counsel has accordingly prayed that the concurrent findings be set aside. 9. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed upon R. Shama Naik Vs. G. Shrinivasiah, 2024 INSC 927; Shenbagam and others vs. KK Rathinavel, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 71; P. Ramasubbamma vs. V. Vijayalakshmi and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 375; and Pydi Ramana @ Ramulu vs Devarasety Manmadha Rao, 2024 INSC 507. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent : 10.1 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the concurrent judgments. It is argued that execu3on of the agreement is admiGed. The defendant admiGed his signatures, photographs, purchase of stamp papers and execu3on of the document. The deed writer, stamp vendor, aGes3ng witness and handwri3ng expert have all supported the plain3ff's version. The defendant failed to produce any legally admissible evidence regarding alleged cancella3on of the agreement. 10.2 It is further argued that the plain3ff proved his readiness and willingness by appearing before the Sub Registrar on two occasions, by issuing legal no3ces and by carrying the balance sale considera3on through cheque as well as demand draH. Such conduct completely sa3sfies the statutory requirement contained in Sec3on 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. 10.3 It is lastly submiGed that the findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of fact based upon apprecia3on of evidence and do not give rise to any substan3al ques3on of law warran3ng interference under Sec3on 100 CPC. 11. Reliance has been placed upon Satbir vs Mukesh 2026 NCPHHC 43983; Joginder Singh vs Yash Pal Law Finder Doc Id # 2920117; YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.13 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) [6] and Jora Singh vs Lakhwinder Kumar and others 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 130. Points for Determina)on 12. Having heard learned counsel for the par3es at considerable length and having examined the record, the following ques3ons arise for considera3on: (i) Whether the concurrent finding regarding payment of earnest money suffers from perversity? (ii) Whether the plain3ff failed to establish financial capacity to perform his part of the contract? (iii) Whether con3nuous readiness and willingness as contemplated under Sec3on 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act has been proved? (iv) Whether any substan3al ques3on of law arises for considera3on under Sec3on 100 CPC? 13. Before adver3ng to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to no3ce that the execu3on of the agreement to sell dated 02.08.2016 is no longer in serious dispute. The defendant, while appearing as DW-1, categorically admiGed his signatures on the agreement, admiGed the purchase of stamp papers, admiGed his photographs appearing upon the agreement, iden3fied the signatures of the aGes3ng witnesses and further admiGed that the agreement was wriGen in his presence. The only endeavour on the part of the defendant is to contend that although he signed the document, no earnest money was actually paid to him and the agreement subsequently stood cancelled in a Panchayat. Thus, the controversy essen3ally revolves around the legal effect of the admiGed execu3on of the agreement and whether the defendant has been able to rebut the recitals contained therein. Contenon regarding payment of earnest money : YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.13 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) [7] 14. The first conten3on raised on behalf of the appellant is that the plain3ff has failed to prove payment of earnest money amoun3ng to ₹40,80,000/-. According to learned counsel, neither the deed writer nor the stamp vendor witnessed the passing of considera3on and, therefore, the recital contained in the agreement acknowledging receipt of the earnest money cannot, by itself, cons3tute proof of payment. 15. The submission is without merit. A wriGen agreement voluntarily executed by par3es is not an empty formality. It embodies the consensus ad idem between the contrac3ng par3es and carries with it a presump3on that the statements incorporated therein truly represent the transac3on unless successfully rebuGed. The agreement Ex.P-7 specifically records that the defendant had received ₹40,80,000/- as earnest money in presence of witness and aHer keeping the money at his home, he (defendant) had come to Tehsil Office to execute the agreement. In view of this clear recital in the agreement, on which, the executant admits his signatures, the burden shiHs upon him to establish, by cogent and convincing evidence, that the recital acknowledging receipt of considera3on does not reflect the true state of affairs. 16. Another important legal aspect is that admissions made by the defendant regarding execu3on of the agreement aGract the provisions of Sec3ons 17, 21 and 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Sec3on 17 defines an admission as a statement sugges3ng an inference regarding a fact in issue or a relevant fact. Sec3on 21 makes admissions relevant against the person making them. Sec3on 58 further provides that facts admiGed need not be proved. Consequently, once the defendant admiGed execu3on of the agreement and his signatures thereon, the plain3ff was relieved of the burden of proving the execu3on of the document afresh, though he nevertheless examined several independent witnesses in support thereof. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.13 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) [8] 17. It is well seGled that an admission cons3tutes substan3ve evidence against its maker. Though an admission is not conclusive and may be explained, the burden of furnishing a sa3sfactory explana3on rests upon the person making the admission. 18. In Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others, AIR 1960 SC 100, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that admissions are substan3ve evidence and, unless successfully explained, may themselves cons3tute sufficient evidence of the fact admiGed. 19. Applying the aforesaid principles, the admission made by the defendant regarding execu3on of the agreement is of great significance. If, as now sought to be contended, no earnest money whatsoever had been paid, the defendant was expected to furnish a convincing explana3on as to why he voluntarily executed a wriGen agreement specifically acknowledging receipt of ₹40,80,000/-. No such explana3on is forthcoming. A mere oral denial made years later during the course of trial cannot displace a solemn wriGen acknowledgment executed by the defendant himself. 20. AGempt is thus made by the appellant to contradict the recital contained in the wriGen agreement solely through oral tes3mony. Sec3ons 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act embody the salutary principle that where the terms of a contract have been reduced into wri3ng, the document itself cons3tutes the best evidence of its contents and oral evidence cannot ordinarily be adduced to contradict, vary or subtract from those terms except in situa3ons specifically contemplated by law. 21. The agreement Ex.P-7 contains an unequivocal acknowledgment that the defendant had received earnest money of ₹40,80,000/-. The appellant has neither pleaded nor established fraud, coercion, undue influence, mistake or any other circumstance falling within YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.13 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) [9] the excep3ons carved out under the provisos to Sec3on 92 of Indian Evidence Act. Consequently, the wriGen acknowledgment cannot be displaced merely on the strength of a bald oral asser3on that no considera3on had in fact passed. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani, (2003) 6 SCC 595, while explaining the scope of Sec3ons 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, observed that once par3es deliberately embody the terms of their transac3on in wri3ng, oral evidence is excluded for the purpose of contradic3ng the wriGen instrument except in cases falling within the recognised statutory excep3ons. The object is to preserve certainty in commercial transac3ons and to prevent par3es from resiling from solemn wriGen contracts by seRng up inconsistent oral versions. This principle squarely governs the present case. 23. Apart from the legal presump3ons arising from the wriGen agreement, the plain3ff has also led abundant independent evidence. PW- 3, the stamp vendor, proved the purchase of stamp papers by the defendant and produced his register. PW-4, the deed writer, proved the execu3on of the agreement and the corresponding entry made in his register. PW-5, one of the aGes3ng witnesses, supported the plain3ff's version regarding execu3on of the agreement and payment of earnest money. PW-7, the handwri3ng expert, opined that the disputed signatures appearing upon the agreement were indeed those of the defendant. Thus, the agreement stood corroborated by documentary as well as oral evidence from independent sources. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant has repeatedly laid emphasis that PW-3 and PW-4 admiGed during cross-examina3on that the actual payment of money did not take place in their presence. This circumstance, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not advance the appellant's YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.13 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) [10] case. Neither the stamp vendor nor the deed writer claimed to be eyewitnesses to the actual passing of considera3on. Their func3on was confined to proving the execu3on of the agreement and the official records maintained in the ordinary course of business. Their inability to speak about the actual payment does not negate the posi3ve evidence of the aGes3ng witness nor does it dilute the wriGen acknowledgment contained in the agreement. 25. Rather, the tes3mony of PW-5 is of great importance. The Trial Court has rightly no3ced that PW-5 categorically deposed regarding payment of earnest money and that no effec3ve cross-examina3on was directed on this material aspect. The seGled rule of evidence is that failure to challenge a material asser3on in cross-examina3on ordinarily amounts to acceptance thereof. The learned First Appellate Court has rightly relied upon this principle while affirming the decree. 26. The defence founded upon the alleged Panchayat seGlement dated 30.11.2016 is equally devoid of merit. The alleged wri3ng was produced merely as a photocopy marked 'Mark-A'. Neither the original document was produced nor was any applica3on moved for leading secondary evidence. None of the alleged Panchayat members or signatories entered the witness-box. The document, therefore, never aGained the status of admissible evidence. It is trite that mere marking of a document does not amount to proof thereof. 27. Even otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that such a Panchayat had indeed taken place, the appellant has failed to explain why no no3ce for cancelling the agreement was ever issued, why no legal proceedings were ini3ated for declara3on that the agreement stood cancelled, and why no reply was sent to the repeated legal no3ces served by the plain3ff calling upon him to execute the sale deed. The silence YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.13 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) [11] maintained by the appellant throughout this period is wholly inconsistent with the defence now sought to be projected. 28. Consequently, this Court finds itself in complete agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below that the plain3ff has successfully proved payment of earnest money and that the defence raised by the appellant is wholly unsupported by legally admissible evidence. Financial capacity; and Connuous readiness and willingness : 29. The next conten3on advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the plain3ff failed to establish his financial capacity to perform his part of the contract and, therefore, could not be said to have proved the mandatory requirement of con3nuous readiness and willingness as envisaged under Sec3on 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 30. The submission is devoid of merit. Sec3on 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act does not require the plain3ff to prove that he con3nuously possessed the en3re sale considera3on in cash from the date of execu3on of the agreement 3ll the passing of the decree. The requirement is that the plain3ff must establish his con3nuous readiness and willingness to perform the essen3al terms of the contract. Readiness denotes financial ability to perform the contract, whereas willingness refers to the conduct revealing an inten3on to perform. Both are to be gathered from the en3rety of the pleadings, evidence and surrounding circumstances. 31. The law on the point is well seGled. In N.P. Thirugnanam (Dead) by LRs v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao and others, (1995) 5 SCC 115, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that readiness and willingness is primarily a ques3on of fact to be determined from the conduct of the par3es and the surrounding circumstances. It was observed that the plain3ff must establish YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.13 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) [12] that he was always ready and willing to perform his contractual obliga3ons from the date of the agreement 3ll the date of decree. 32. The aforesaid principle was elaborately explained in J.P. Builders and another v. A. Ramadas Rao and another, (2011) 1 SCC 429, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression "readiness and willingness" cannot be construed in an unduly technical manner. The Court observed that the purchaser is not expected to carry the en3re sale considera3on in his pocket throughout the subsistence of the contract. What is required is proof that he possessed the capacity and inten3on to complete the transac3on whenever called upon to do so. The Court further held that readiness and willingness has to be inferred from the cumula3ve conduct of the plain3ff and not from isolated circumstances. 33. Thus, readiness and willingness cannot be examined in a hyper- technical manner. Where the purchaser has consistently asserted his willingness, issued no3ces, remains present before the registering authority and otherwise confirmed his inten3on to complete the transac3on, the statutory requirement under Sec3on 16(c) of Specific Relief Act stands sa3sfied notwithstanding the absence of exhaus3ve documentary proof regarding con3nuous availability of funds. 34. Examined in the light of the aforesaid legal principles, the evidence led by the plain3ff unmistakably establishes both financial capacity as well as con3nuous readiness and willingness. The agreement itself records that out of the total sale considera3on of ₹50,00,000/-, a sum of ₹40,80,000/- (more than 80 % of total sale considera3on) had already been paid as earnest money. Consequently, on the s3pulated date fixed for execu3on of the sale deed, the plain3ff was required to arrange only the balance amount of ₹9,20,000/-. 35. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has aGempted to argue, as if the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.13 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) [13] plain3ff was required to establish availability of the en3re sale considera3on of ₹50,00,000/- on the date fixed for execu3on. Such an argument ignores the admiGed terms of the agreement itself. 36. The plain3ff entered the witness-box as PW-8 and categorically deposed that he was engaged in agriculture, owned commercial shops genera3ng rental income and that his wife was serving in Government employment. He stated that his annual income was approximately ₹4-5 lakhs and that he could produce documentary proof, if required. His tes3mony regarding his financial posi3on remained substan3ally unshaken during cross-examina3on. 37. More importantly, the plain3ff did not merely assert readiness and willingness in the witness-box. His conduct throughout remained consistent with his pleadings. The record reveals that on 02.05.2017, the s3pulated date fixed for execu3on of the sale deed, the plain3ff appeared before the office of the Sub Registrar carrying cheque No.292825 towards the balance sale considera3on. His presence was recorded through an affidavit duly aGested by the competent Execu3ve Magistrate. ThereaHer, legal no3ces were served upon the defendant calling upon him to execute the sale deed. Even subsequently, on 16.09.2019, the plain3ff once again appeared before the Sub Registrar carrying a demand draH for ₹9,20,000/- and got his presence recorded. 38. These acts furnish the best possible evidence of the plain3ff's bona fides. A purchaser who repeatedly appears before the registering authority with the balance sale considera3on, issues legal no3ces calling upon the vendor to perform the contract and thereaHer ins3tutes a suit for specific performance cannot ordinarily be accused of lacking readiness and willingness. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.13 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) [14] 39. Equally relevant is the conduct of the defendant - appellant. Despite receipt of the legal no3ces, the defendant neither appeared before the Sub Registrar nor sent any reply dispu3ng the plain3ff's readiness or expressing his own willingness to perform the contract. Had the defendant genuinely intended to honour the agreement, nothing prevented him from responding to the no3ces or fixing another date for execu3on of the sale deed. His silence throughout is wholly inconsistent with the stand now sought to be projected. 40. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the plain3ff failed to produce bank statements, income-tax returns or similar documentary evidence signifying financial capability. 41. This conten3on also does not merit acceptance. Financial capacity is not required to be established only through bank statements or income-tax returns. These are merely one mode of proof. The Court is required to appreciate the evidence in its en3rety. Readiness and willingness is essen3ally a maGer of inference drawn from the cumula3ve conduct of the par3es. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.P. Builders (supra) expressly cau3oned against adop3ng a rigid or mechanical approach while examining readiness and willingness. The Court observed that insistence upon proof of con3nuous possession of funds irrespec3ve of the surrounding circumstances would defeat the equitable nature of the remedy itself. 42. In the present case, the plain3ff's conduct before ins3tu3on of the suit, during the period s3pulated under the agreement and throughout the li3ga3on consistently reflects his inten3on to complete the transac3on. There is complete harmony between the pleadings, oral evidence and documentary evidence. 43. Both the Courts below have, therefore, rightly concluded that YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.13 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) [15] the plain3ff successfully established con3nuous readiness and willingness within the meaning of Sec3on 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. Discreon under Secon 20 of the Specific Relief Act : 44. It is thus clear that the appellant has failed to establish any circumstance warran3ng refusal of equitable relief. There is no plea of hardship, unfair advantage, unconscionability or any other equitable considera3on recognised under the unamended Sec3on 20 of Specific Relief Act. On the contrary, the appellant admiGedly executed the agreement, acknowledged receipt of substan3al considera3on and thereaHer avoided performance without any legally sustainable jus3fica3on. Equity, therefore, clearly leans in favour of the plain3ff rather than the defendant. Scope of Secon 100 CPC : 45. The last ques3on is whether the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below give rise to any substan3al ques3on of law. 46. The answer has to be in the nega3ve. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, (1999) 3 SCC 722, Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 and Gurnam Singh (Dead) through LRs v. Lehna Singh (Dead) through LRs, (2019) 7 SCC 641, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence in a Regular Second Appeal merely because another view may also be possible. Interference is permissible only where the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or arrived at by ignoring seGled legal principles. 47. In the present case, learned counsel for the appellant has been unable to demonstrate any misreading of evidence, exclusion of material evidence or reliance upon inadmissible material. The concurrent findings are based upon proper apprecia3on of both oral and documentary YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.13 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4255-2025 (O&M) [16] evidence and are fully supported by seGled legal principles. 48. In fact, the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are supported not only by the apprecia3on of evidence but also by the seGled principles governing admissions under Sec3ons 17, 21 and 58 of the Evidence Act, the best evidence rule embodied in Sec3ons 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, the requirements of Sec3on 16(c) and the equitable considera3ons underlying the unamended Sec3on 20 of the Specific Relief Act. 49. This Court, therefore, finds no perversity, illegality or substan3al error of law in the impugned judgments. The endeavour of the appellant is essen3ally to secure a fresh apprecia3on of evidence under the guise of a substan3al ques3on of law, which is impermissible in exercise of jurisdic3on under Sec3on 100 CPC. 50. Consequently, no substan3al ques3on of law arises for considera3on. The present Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are hereby affirmed. Pending miscellaneous applica3on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 10.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 13.07.2026 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.13 13:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document