RSA-3584-2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jeet Singh @ Jit Singh (since Rattan Kumar and Another CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Aakash Singla and Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate with Mr. Kanish Jindal and Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocates for contesting respondent No.1. Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated 12.09.2025 MANDEEP PANNU,J. 1. The present Regular Second Appeal appellant/defendant assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2015 dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court, performance of agreement to sell dated 15.06.2004 was decreed. Brief facts 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent Rattan Kumar filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.06.2004 and in the alternative for recovery of 5 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA Reserved on: Date of Decision : Jeet Singh @ Jit Singh (since deceased) through LRs VERSUS Rattan Kumar and Another HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Aakash Singla and Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate with Mr. Kanish Jindal and Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocates for contesting respondent No.1. Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated 12.09.2025 -.- MANDEEP PANNU,J. The present Regular Second Appeal appellant/defendant assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2015 dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court, vide which the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.06.2004 was decreed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent Rattan Kumar filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.06.2004 and in the alternative for recovery of ₹6,50,000/-. It is the case of the plaintiff that -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3584-2015 (O&M) Reserved on:-15.09.2025 Date of Decision : 17.09.2025 deceased) through LRs ....Appellants ....Respondents HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Aakash Singla and Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocates Mr. Kanish Jindal and Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocates Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2015 dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2012 which the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.06.2004 was decreed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent Rattan Kumar filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.06.2004 and in . It is the case of the plaintiff that has been filed by the appellant/defendant assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2015 dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2012 which the suit of the plaintiff for specific Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent Rattan Kumar filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.06.2004 and in . It is the case of the plaintiff that TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 defendant No.1 is th kanals 17 marlas situated at village Takipur as per Jamabandi for the year 2002 2003. On 15.06.2004, defendant No.1 entered into an agreement of sale of measuring 16 kanals 18 marlas, be No.56, Khasra No.125, Khasra No.2/12 as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, situated at village Takipur, Tehsil and District Sangrur, with the plaintiff at the rate of ₹1,70,000/- per killa. He received a sum o and executed an agreement to sell dated 15.06.2004, agreeing to execute the sale deed on or before 15.06.2006. The agreement was executed between the parties at Longowal and was witnessed. Defendant No.1 affixed his t agreement. All the terms and conditions were reduced into writing. The possession of the land was delivered at the time of execution of the agreement. It was agreed that in case defendant No.1 failed to get the sale deed executed and 15.06.2006, the plaintiff could get the sale deed executed through the agency of the Court, and in case the plaintiff failed to do so, the earnest money would stand forfeited. Defendant No.1 also agreed to get the land redeemed from defen No.2 prior to execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff asserted that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. On 15.06.2006, after informing defendant No.1, the plaintiff went to the office of the Joint Sub Registrar, Longowal, with the balance sale consideration and expenses for stamp duty and registration, and remained present there for the whole day. Defendant No.1 did not turn up. The plaintiff got his presence marked and also obtained an attested affidavit from t readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract but as defendant No.1 5 (O&M) defendant No.1 is the owner to the extent of half share out of land measuring 99 kanals 17 marlas situated at village Takipur as per Jamabandi for the year 2002 2003. On 15.06.2004, defendant No.1 entered into an agreement of sale of measuring 16 kanals 18 marlas, being half share out of land bearing Khewat No.56, Khasra No.125, Khasra No.2/12 as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, situated at village Takipur, Tehsil and District Sangrur, with the plaintiff at the rate per killa. He received a sum of ₹3,25,000/ and executed an agreement to sell dated 15.06.2004, agreeing to execute the sale deed on or before 15.06.2006. The agreement was executed between the parties at Longowal and was witnessed. Defendant No.1 affixed his t agreement. All the terms and conditions were reduced into writing. The possession of the land was delivered at the time of execution of the agreement. It was agreed that in case defendant No.1 failed to get the sale deed executed and 15.06.2006, the plaintiff could get the sale deed executed through the agency of the Court, and in case the plaintiff failed to do so, the earnest money would stand forfeited. Defendant No.1 also agreed to get the land redeemed from defen No.2 prior to execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff asserted that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. On 15.06.2006, after informing defendant No.1, the plaintiff went to the office of the Joint Sub , Longowal, with the balance sale consideration and expenses for stamp duty and registration, and remained present there for the whole day. Defendant No.1 did not turn up. The plaintiff got his presence marked and also obtained an attested affidavit from the Executive Magistrate to that effect. He reiterated his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract but as defendant No.1 -2- e owner to the extent of half share out of land measuring 99 kanals 17 marlas situated at village Takipur as per Jamabandi for the year 2002 2003. On 15.06.2004, defendant No.1 entered into an agreement of sale of the land ing half share out of land bearing Khewat No.56, Khasra No.125, Khasra No.2/12 as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, situated at village Takipur, Tehsil and District Sangrur, with the plaintiff at the rate ₹3,25,000/- in cash as earnest money and executed an agreement to sell dated 15.06.2004, agreeing to execute the sale deed on or before 15.06.2006. The agreement was executed between the parties at Longowal and was witnessed. Defendant No.1 affixed his thumb impression on the agreement. All the terms and conditions were reduced into writing. The possession of the land was delivered at the time of execution of the agreement. It was agreed that in case defendant No.1 failed to get the sale deed executed and registered up to 15.06.2006, the plaintiff could get the sale deed executed through the agency of the Court, and in case the plaintiff failed to do so, the earnest money would stand forfeited. Defendant No.1 also agreed to get the land redeemed from defendant No.2 prior to execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff asserted that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. On 15.06.2006, after informing defendant No.1, the plaintiff went to the office of the Joint Sub , Longowal, with the balance sale consideration and expenses for stamp duty and registration, and remained present there for the whole day. Defendant No.1 did not turn up. The plaintiff got his presence marked and also obtained an he Executive Magistrate to that effect. He reiterated his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract but as defendant No.1 e owner to the extent of half share out of land measuring 99 kanals 17 marlas situated at village Takipur as per Jamabandi for the year 2002– land ing half share out of land bearing Khewat No.56, Khasra No.125, Khasra No.2/12 as detailed in the headnote of the plaint, situated at village Takipur, Tehsil and District Sangrur, with the plaintiff at the rate in cash as earnest money and executed an agreement to sell dated 15.06.2004, agreeing to execute the sale deed on or before 15.06.2006. The agreement was executed between the parties at humb impression on the agreement. All the terms and conditions were reduced into writing. The possession of the land was delivered at the time of execution of the agreement. It was agreed registered up to 15.06.2006, the plaintiff could get the sale deed executed through the agency of the Court, and in case the plaintiff failed to do so, the earnest money would stand dant No.2 prior to execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff asserted that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. On 15.06.2006, after informing defendant No.1, the plaintiff went to the office of the Joint Sub , Longowal, with the balance sale consideration and expenses for stamp duty and registration, and remained present there for the whole day. Defendant No.1 did not turn up. The plaintiff got his presence marked and also obtained an he Executive Magistrate to that effect. He reiterated his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract but as defendant No.1 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated requests, the plaintiff was compelled to file the present suit. 3. Upon notice, defendant No.1 appeared and filed his written statement. It was denied that he executed any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. It was denied that he ever received executed any agreeme agreement is not genuine and is the result of fraud and fabrication. The plaintiff, in connivance with the witnesses, has prepared the same which is not binding upon the defendant. The defenda the alleged agreement. He explained that he used to visit the shop of the plaintiff, who was a commission agent at Anaj Mandi, Longowal, for the sale of his crops between 1990 and 2003, and the plaintif various papers such as stamp papers, bahi, printed forms, receipts, etc. It was pleaded that the plaintiff might have misused such thumb for preparing the alleged agreement to sell. It was spec possession of the land was delivered to the plaintiff. The defendant maintained that he continued to be in possession and cultivating the suit property. He further denied that the land had been mortgaged with defendant No.2, the State India, and, therefore to execution of the sale deed did not arise. 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff wherein the allegations in the written statement were denied and those of th 5 (O&M) failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated requests, the plaintiff was compelled to file the present suit. Upon notice, defendant No.1 appeared and filed his written statement. It was denied that he executed any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. It was denied that he ever received ₹3,25,000/- as earnest money on 15.06.2004 or executed any agreement in favour of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the disputed agreement is not genuine and is the result of fraud and fabrication. The plaintiff, in connivance with the witnesses, has prepared the same which is not binding upon the defendant. The defendant asserted that he never put his thumb impression on the alleged agreement. He explained that he used to visit the shop of the plaintiff, who was a commission agent at Anaj Mandi, Longowal, for the sale of his crops between 1990 and 2003, and the plaintiff used to take his thumb impressions on various papers such as stamp papers, bahi, printed forms, receipts, etc. It was pleaded that the plaintiff might have misused such thumb for preparing the alleged agreement to sell. It was spec possession of the land was delivered to the plaintiff. The defendant maintained that he continued to be in possession and cultivating the suit property. He further denied that the land had been mortgaged with defendant No.2, the State therefore, the question of redeeming the land from defendant No.2 prior to execution of the sale deed did not arise. Replication was filed by the plaintiff wherein the allegations in the written statement were denied and those of the plaint were reiterated. -3- failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated requests, the plaintiff was Upon notice, defendant No.1 appeared and filed his written statement. It was denied that he executed any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. It as earnest money on 15.06.2004 or nt in favour of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the disputed agreement is not genuine and is the result of fraud and fabrication. The plaintiff, in connivance with the witnesses, has prepared the same which is not binding upon nt asserted that he never put his thumb impression on the alleged agreement. He explained that he used to visit the shop of the plaintiff, who was a commission agent at Anaj Mandi, Longowal, for the sale of his crops f used to take his thumb impressions on various papers such as stamp papers, bahi, printed forms, receipts, etc. It was pleaded that the plaintiff might have misused such thumb-impressed blank papers for preparing the alleged agreement to sell. It was specifically denied that possession of the land was delivered to the plaintiff. The defendant maintained that he continued to be in possession and cultivating the suit property. He further denied that the land had been mortgaged with defendant No.2, the State Bank of the question of redeeming the land from defendant No.2 prior Replication was filed by the plaintiff wherein the allegations in the e plaint were reiterated. failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated requests, the plaintiff was Upon notice, defendant No.1 appeared and filed his written statement. It was denied that he executed any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff. It as earnest money on 15.06.2004 or nt in favour of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the disputed agreement is not genuine and is the result of fraud and fabrication. The plaintiff, in connivance with the witnesses, has prepared the same which is not binding upon nt asserted that he never put his thumb impression on the alleged agreement. He explained that he used to visit the shop of the plaintiff, who was a commission agent at Anaj Mandi, Longowal, for the sale of his crops f used to take his thumb impressions on various papers such as stamp papers, bahi, printed forms, receipts, etc. It was impressed blank papers ifically denied that possession of the land was delivered to the plaintiff. The defendant maintained that he continued to be in possession and cultivating the suit property. He further Bank of the question of redeeming the land from defendant No.2 prior Replication was filed by the plaintiff wherein the allegations in the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. whether defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell dated 15.06.2004 and received a sum OPP 2 W his part of the contract 3 W so, to what extent 4 W OPD 5 R 6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined PW1 Sat Sharma, the scribe of the agreement, PW2 Jagjit Singh, an attesting witness to the execution and payment of consideration, PW3 Om Prakash, the who proved that he sold the stamp papers of the agreement to defendant, PW4 Kamlesh Kaur, Clerk, who proved the affidavit through which the presence of the plaintiff was marked before the Joint Sub Registrar, PW5 Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting And Fingerprint Expert impression on the agreement to sell was of the defendant, and PW6 Rattan Kumar, the plaintiff himself, who reiterated the case. 7. In rebuttal, the defendant examined DW1 Buta Singh, who deposed about the defendant’s po any agreement to sell, DW2 Vinod Kumar, Clerk, Market Committee, Cheema, 5 (O&M) From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: whether defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell dated 15.06.2004 and received a sum of OPP. 2 Whether the plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages in the alternative, and if so, to what extent? OPP. 4 Whether the plaintiff has no cause of a OPD Relief. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined PW1 Sat Sharma, the scribe of the agreement, PW2 Jagjit Singh, an attesting witness to the execution and payment of consideration, PW3 Om Prakash, the hat he sold the stamp papers of the agreement to defendant, PW4 Kamlesh Kaur, Clerk, who proved the affidavit through which the presence of the plaintiff was marked before the Joint Sub Registrar, PW5 Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting And Fingerprint Expert from Patiala, who opined that the thumb impression on the agreement to sell was of the defendant, and PW6 Rattan Kumar, the plaintiff himself, who reiterated the case. In rebuttal, the defendant examined DW1 Buta Singh, who deposed about the defendant’s possession of the suit property and that he had not heard of any agreement to sell, DW2 Vinod Kumar, Clerk, Market Committee, Cheema, -4- From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: whether defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell dated of ₹3,25,000/- as earnest money? plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform hether the plaintiff is entitled to damages in the alternative, and if hether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined PW1 Sat Sharma, the scribe of the agreement, PW2 Jagjit Singh, an attesting witness to the execution and payment of consideration, PW3 Om Prakash, the Stamp Vendor, hat he sold the stamp papers of the agreement to defendant, PW4 Kamlesh Kaur, Clerk, who proved the affidavit through which the presence of the plaintiff was marked before the Joint Sub Registrar, PW5 Navdeep Gupta, Patiala, who opined that the thumb impression on the agreement to sell was of the defendant, and PW6 Rattan Kumar, In rebuttal, the defendant examined DW1 Buta Singh, who deposed ssession of the suit property and that he had not heard of any agreement to sell, DW2 Vinod Kumar, Clerk, Market Committee, Cheema, From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: whether defendant No.1 entered into an agreement to sell dated as earnest money? plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform hether the plaintiff is entitled to damages in the alternative, and if suit? Pal Sharma, the scribe of the agreement, PW2 Jagjit Singh, an attesting witness to the endor, hat he sold the stamp papers of the agreement to defendant, PW4 Kamlesh Kaur, Clerk, who proved the affidavit through which the presence of the plaintiff was marked before the Joint Sub Registrar, PW5 Navdeep Gupta, Patiala, who opined that the thumb impression on the agreement to sell was of the defendant, and PW6 Rattan Kumar, In rebuttal, the defendant examined DW1 Buta Singh, who deposed ssession of the suit property and that he had not heard of any agreement to sell, DW2 Vinod Kumar, Clerk, Market Committee, Cheema, TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 who stated that the defendant used to sell his crops up to the year 2001 at M/s Takipura Brothers, Longowal, and DW3 Jeet Si Findings of the trial Court 8. The learned Trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence led, held that the plaintiff had duly proved execution of the agreement. PW1, the scribe, and PW2, plaintiff’s case regarding execution and consideration. PW3 Om Prakash proved sale of stamp papers to the defendant. PW4 Kamlesh Kaur proved the affidavit showing plaintiff’s presence before the Sub Registrar on 15.06.2 expert, established that the thumb impression on the agreement to sell was that of the defendant. PW6, the plaintiff, reiterated the pleadings. On the other hand, the defendant failed to rebut the evidence regarding the taking of thumb impres to substantiate his theory that the plaintiff, being a commission agent, fraudulently obtained thumb impressions on blank papers. The Trial Court observed that DW1 Buta Singh’s evidence was confined to possession and he admitted he had not heard of the agreement. DW2 Vinod Kumar only proved that the defendant used to sell crops up to 2001 at the plaintiff’s shop. The defendant himself could not establish how the plaintiff misused blank papers and he never filed any complaint to any authority allegi stated possession was delivered, there was no recital in the agreement to that effect, and thus possession plaintiff had proved readiness With these findings, the suit was decreed. 5 (O&M) who stated that the defendant used to sell his crops up to the year 2001 at M/s Takipura Brothers, Longowal, and DW3 Jeet Singh Findings of the trial Court The learned Trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence led, held that the plaintiff had duly proved execution of the agreement. PW1, the scribe, and PW2, the attesting witness, supported the plaintiff’s case regarding execution and consideration. PW3 Om Prakash proved sale of stamp papers to the defendant. PW4 Kamlesh Kaur proved the affidavit showing plaintiff’s presence before the Sub Registrar on 15.06.2 expert, established that the thumb impression on the agreement to sell was that of the defendant. PW6, the plaintiff, reiterated the pleadings. On the other hand, the defendant failed to rebut the evidence regarding the taking of thumb impres to substantiate his theory that the plaintiff, being a commission agent, fraudulently obtained thumb impressions on blank papers. The Trial Court observed that DW1 Buta Singh’s evidence was confined to possession and he admitted he had not f the agreement. DW2 Vinod Kumar only proved that the defendant used to sell crops up to 2001 at the plaintiff’s shop. The defendant himself could not establish how the plaintiff misused blank papers and he never filed any complaint to any authority alleging forgery. The Court observed that although the plaintiff stated possession was delivered, there was no recital in the agreement to that effect, and thus possession of plaintiff was not proved. However, it was held that the plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. With these findings, the suit was decreed. -5- who stated that the defendant used to sell his crops up to the year 2001 at M/s ngh is defendant No.1 himself. The learned Trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence led, held that the plaintiff had duly proved execution of the attesting witness, supported the plaintiff’s case regarding execution and consideration. PW3 Om Prakash proved sale of stamp papers to the defendant. PW4 Kamlesh Kaur proved the affidavit showing plaintiff’s presence before the Sub Registrar on 15.06.2006. PW5, the expert, established that the thumb impression on the agreement to sell was that of the defendant. PW6, the plaintiff, reiterated the pleadings. On the other hand, the defendant failed to rebut the evidence regarding the taking of thumb impressions or to substantiate his theory that the plaintiff, being a commission agent, fraudulently obtained thumb impressions on blank papers. The Trial Court observed that DW1 Buta Singh’s evidence was confined to possession and he admitted he had not f the agreement. DW2 Vinod Kumar only proved that the defendant used to sell crops up to 2001 at the plaintiff’s shop. The defendant himself could not establish how the plaintiff misused blank papers and he never filed any complaint ng forgery. The Court observed that although the plaintiff stated possession was delivered, there was no recital in the agreement to that effect, was not proved. However, it was held that the and willingness to perform his part of the contract. who stated that the defendant used to sell his crops up to the year 2001 at M/s The learned Trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence led, held that the plaintiff had duly proved execution of the attesting witness, supported the plaintiff’s case regarding execution and consideration. PW3 Om Prakash proved sale of stamp papers to the defendant. PW4 Kamlesh Kaur proved the affidavit 006. PW5, the expert, established that the thumb impression on the agreement to sell was that of the defendant. PW6, the plaintiff, reiterated the pleadings. On the other hand, the sions or to substantiate his theory that the plaintiff, being a commission agent, fraudulently obtained thumb impressions on blank papers. The Trial Court observed that DW1 Buta Singh’s evidence was confined to possession and he admitted he had not f the agreement. DW2 Vinod Kumar only proved that the defendant used to sell crops up to 2001 at the plaintiff’s shop. The defendant himself could not establish how the plaintiff misused blank papers and he never filed any complaint ng forgery. The Court observed that although the plaintiff stated possession was delivered, there was no recital in the agreement to that effect, was not proved. However, it was held that the and willingness to perform his part of the contract. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 Findings of the Lower Appellate Court 9. Feeling aggrieved by the above said judgment and decree dated 29.05.2012 passed by the learned trial Court, learned Lower Appellate Court discarded the theory of blank papers. It observed that the plea of fraud was not believable as there was no evidence to support it. With regard to the long period fixed for execution of the sale deed portion of consideration being paid, the Court found the plaintiff’s explanation plausible that since the land was mortgaged with the bank, parties fixed a long date to enable redemption before execution. The Court held that this objection meritless. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed of the Trial Court were affirmed. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present RSA has been filed by the defendant/appellant. At the notice of motion, substantial questions of law were framed by this Court dated 09.09.2015. would be prepared to pay the amount mentioned as advance i.e. with interest as the Court may determine from the date of agreement till the date of payment. It was also urged that the decree for specific performance obtained by the plaintiff was based upon use of thumb impressions on papers which the plaintiff had obtained during his transactions with the defendant as commission agent. This Court accordingly observed that the case will be considered on the following substantial questions of law: 1. material available in the case that would show that there was no 5 (O&M) Findings of the Lower Appellate Court Feeling aggrieved by the above said judgment and decree dated 29.05.2012 passed by the learned trial Court, The defen learned Lower Appellate Court discarded the theory of blank papers. It observed that the plea of fraud was not believable as there was no evidence to support it. With regard to the long period fixed for execution of the sale deed portion of consideration being paid, the Court found the plaintiff’s explanation plausible that since the land was mortgaged with the bank, parties fixed a long date to enable redemption before execution. The Court held that this objection meritless. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed of the Trial Court were affirmed. Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present RSA has been filed by the defendant/appellant. At the notice of motion, substantial questions of law were framed by this Court 09.09.2015. It was observed that counsel for the appellant stated that he would be prepared to pay the amount mentioned as advance i.e. with interest as the Court may determine from the date of agreement till the date of payment. It was also urged that the decree for specific performance obtained by the plaintiff was based upon use of thumb impressions on papers which the plaintiff obtained during his transactions with the defendant as commission agent. This Court accordingly observed that the case will be considered on the following substantial questions of law: Whether the Courts below failed to recognise the intrinsic material available in the case that would show that there was no -6- Feeling aggrieved by the above said judgment and decree dated The defendant filed an appeal. The learned Lower Appellate Court discarded the theory of blank papers. It observed that the plea of fraud was not believable as there was no evidence to support it. With regard to the long period fixed for execution of the sale deed despite a major portion of consideration being paid, the Court found the plaintiff’s explanation plausible that since the land was mortgaged with the bank, parties fixed a long date to enable redemption before execution. The Court held that this objection was meritless. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on 10.03.2015 and the findings Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the present RSA has been filed by the defendant/appellant. At the time of issuing notice of motion, substantial questions of law were framed by this Court vide order It was observed that counsel for the appellant stated that he would be prepared to pay the amount mentioned as advance i.e. ₹3,25,000/- along with interest as the Court may determine from the date of agreement till the date of payment. It was also urged that the decree for specific performance obtained by the plaintiff was based upon use of thumb impressions on papers which the plaintiff obtained during his transactions with the defendant as commission agent. This Court accordingly observed that the case will be considered on the following hether the Courts below failed to recognise the intrinsic material available in the case that would show that there was no Feeling aggrieved by the above said judgment and decree dated dant filed an appeal. The learned Lower Appellate Court discarded the theory of blank papers. It observed that the plea of fraud was not believable as there was no evidence to support it. despite a major portion of consideration being paid, the Court found the plaintiff’s explanation plausible that since the land was mortgaged with the bank, parties fixed a long date was and the findings Feeling aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the time of issuing vide order It was observed that counsel for the appellant stated that he ong with interest as the Court may determine from the date of agreement till the date of payment. It was also urged that the decree for specific performance obtained by the plaintiff was based upon use of thumb impressions on papers which the plaintiff obtained during his transactions with the defendant as commission agent. This Court accordingly observed that the case will be considered on the following hether the Courts below failed to recognise the intrinsic material available in the case that would show that there was no TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 relationship as vendor/vendee between the parties, and if at all, it was only an indebtedness which was sought to be converted fraudu by the plaintiff by using some of the thumb impressions of the defendant which the plaintiff had access to. 2. of possession of the property did not amount to projecting a false case and c specific performance. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued that both the Courts below have wrongly and illegally decreed t of the alleged agreement to sell. The present case, he submitted, is one where Section 111 of the Evidence Act operates and is one of a fiduciary/blank transaction claimed by a commission agent from his client. The lo not properly considered and appreciated the fact that if the alleged agreement were genuine, execution of the sale deed could not have been postponed in the agreement for so long a period as two years, especially when out of the total sale consideration of paid on 15.06.2004 and only an amount of according to the plaintiff. No prudent person, having paid such a large sum as earnest money, would agre of merely ₹35,000/ was not a genuine sale the course of a fiduciary relati 5 (O&M) relationship as vendor/vendee between the parties, and if at all, it was only an indebtedness which was sought to be converted fraudu by the plaintiff by using some of the thumb impressions of the defendant which the plaintiff had access to. Whether the defendant’s conduct in making a case of delivery of possession of the property did not amount to projecting a false case and coming to Court with unclean hands to deny the plaintiff relief of specific performance. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued that both the Courts below have wrongly and illegally decreed t of the alleged agreement to sell. The present case, he submitted, is one where Section 111 of the Evidence Act operates and is one of a fiduciary/blank transaction claimed by a commission agent from his client. The lo not properly considered and appreciated the fact that if the alleged agreement were genuine, execution of the sale deed could not have been postponed in the agreement for so long a period as two years, especially when out of the total sale consideration of ₹3,59,125/-, a substantial payment of paid on 15.06.2004 and only an amount of according to the plaintiff. No prudent person, having paid such a large sum as earnest money, would agree to postpone the sale date for two years for the payment ₹35,000/-. All this, learned counsel argued, shows that the transaction was not a genuine sale, rather, the alleged agreement P1 was falsely created during the course of a fiduciary relationship, plaintiff being a commission agent and the -7- relationship as vendor/vendee between the parties, and if at all, it was only an indebtedness which was sought to be converted fraudulently by the plaintiff by using some of the thumb impressions of the defendant which the plaintiff had access to. hether the defendant’s conduct in making a case of delivery of possession of the property did not amount to projecting a false case oming to Court with unclean hands to deny the plaintiff relief of Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued that both the Courts below have wrongly and illegally decreed the suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell. The present case, he submitted, is one where Section 111 of the Evidence Act operates and is one of a fiduciary/blank-paper transaction claimed by a commission agent from his client. The lower Courts have not properly considered and appreciated the fact that if the alleged agreement were genuine, execution of the sale deed could not have been postponed in the agreement for so long a period as two years, especially when out of the total sale , a substantial payment of ₹3,25,000/- was allegedly paid on 15.06.2004 and only an amount of ₹35,000/- remained to be paid according to the plaintiff. No prudent person, having paid such a large sum as e to postpone the sale date for two years for the payment . All this, learned counsel argued, shows that the transaction rather, the alleged agreement P1 was falsely created during onship, plaintiff being a commission agent and the relationship as vendor/vendee between the parties, and if at all, it was lently by the plaintiff by using some of the thumb impressions of the hether the defendant’s conduct in making a case of delivery of possession of the property did not amount to projecting a false case oming to Court with unclean hands to deny the plaintiff relief of Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued that both the he suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement to sell. The present case, he submitted, is one where paper wer Courts have not properly considered and appreciated the fact that if the alleged agreement were genuine, execution of the sale deed could not have been postponed in the agreement for so long a period as two years, especially when out of the total sale was allegedly remained to be paid according to the plaintiff. No prudent person, having paid such a large sum as e to postpone the sale date for two years for the payment . All this, learned counsel argued, shows that the transaction rather, the alleged agreement P1 was falsely created during onship, plaintiff being a commission agent and the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 defendant an agriculturist. The defendant used to take inputs on credit and sometimes advances, and the plaintiff used to obtain blank signed stamp papers as security. The present case, learned counsel urg money-lending, not of sale. The defendant, being an agriculturist, was not likely to sell the land which was his livelihood. The approach of the lower appellate court with regard to the fixation of a long date for the sa 35 of the impugned judgment, is, counsel submitted, perverse and based on surmises and conjectures. One can free a property from encumbrance in a day by paying the loan. T date. Learned counsel relied upon where the Supreme Court denied specific performance and set aside the decrees of the Courts below because of delay and doubtful conduct of the plaintiff. He submitted that the judgment relied upon by the lower appellate court 504) is distinguishable because in that case the plaintiff had served legal notice and filed suit promptly, unlike the present case where there was delay of more than one and a half years. Learned counsel argued that the postponement of the sale date for two years goes to the root of the case and disentitles the plaintiff from discretionary relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. No notice was given by the plaintiff to the def (the target date) or thereafter, despite the alleged large payment of This circumstance, he submitted, creates grave doubt about the genuineness of the transaction. 12. Regarding the mortgage o the appellant pointed out that according to the Jamabandi for the year 2002 5 (O&M) defendant an agriculturist. The defendant used to take inputs on credit and sometimes advances, and the plaintiff used to obtain blank signed stamp papers as security. The present case, learned counsel urg lending, not of sale. The defendant, being an agriculturist, was not likely to sell the land which was his livelihood. The approach of the lower appellate court with regard to the fixation of a long date for the sa 35 of the impugned judgment, is, counsel submitted, perverse and based on surmises and conjectures. One can free a property from encumbrance in a day by . The encumbrance could not have been the reason for fi date. Learned counsel relied upon Tej Ram v. Patti Ram, 1997 AIR SC 2702 where the Supreme Court denied specific performance and set aside the decrees of the Courts below because of delay and doubtful conduct of the plaintiff. He t the judgment relied upon by the lower appellate court is distinguishable because in that case the plaintiff had served legal notice and filed suit promptly, unlike the present case where there was delay of more than one s. Learned counsel argued that the postponement of the sale date for two years goes to the root of the case and disentitles the plaintiff from discretionary relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. No notice was given by the plaintiff to the defendant for executing the sale deed on 15.06.2006 (the target date) or thereafter, despite the alleged large payment of This circumstance, he submitted, creates grave doubt about the genuineness of the Regarding the mortgage of the land with the bank, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that according to the Jamabandi for the year 2002 -8- defendant an agriculturist. The defendant used to take inputs on credit and sometimes advances, and the plaintiff used to obtain blank signed stamp papers as security. The present case, learned counsel urged, is a case of breach of trust or lending, not of sale. The defendant, being an agriculturist, was not likely to sell the land which was his livelihood. The approach of the lower appellate court with regard to the fixation of a long date for the sale deed, as adopted in paragraph 35 of the impugned judgment, is, counsel submitted, perverse and based on surmises and conjectures. One can free a property from encumbrance in a day by he encumbrance could not have been the reason for fixing a long Tej Ram v. Patti Ram, 1997 AIR SC 2702 where the Supreme Court denied specific performance and set aside the decrees of the Courts below because of delay and doubtful conduct of the plaintiff. He t the judgment relied upon by the lower appellate court (2011 (1) C C is distinguishable because in that case the plaintiff had served legal notice and filed suit promptly, unlike the present case where there was delay of more than one s. Learned counsel argued that the postponement of the sale date for two years goes to the root of the case and disentitles the plaintiff from discretionary relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. No notice was endant for executing the sale deed on 15.06.2006 (the target date) or thereafter, despite the alleged large payment of ₹3,25,000/ This circumstance, he submitted, creates grave doubt about the genuineness of the f the land with the bank, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that according to the Jamabandi for the year 2002–2003 defendant an agriculturist. The defendant used to take inputs on credit and sometimes advances, and the plaintiff used to obtain blank signed stamp papers as ed, is a case of breach of trust or lending, not of sale. The defendant, being an agriculturist, was not likely to sell the land which was his livelihood. The approach of the lower appellate court le deed, as adopted in paragraph 35 of the impugned judgment, is, counsel submitted, perverse and based on surmises and conjectures. One can free a property from encumbrance in a day by xing a long Tej Ram v. Patti Ram, 1997 AIR SC 2702, where the Supreme Court denied specific performance and set aside the decrees of the Courts below because of delay and doubtful conduct of the plaintiff. He (2011 (1) C C is distinguishable because in that case the plaintiff had served legal notice and filed suit promptly, unlike the present case where there was delay of more than one s. Learned counsel argued that the postponement of the sale date for two years goes to the root of the case and disentitles the plaintiff from discretionary relief under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. No notice was endant for executing the sale deed on 15.06.2006 ₹3,25,000/-. This circumstance, he submitted, creates grave doubt about the genuineness of the f the land with the bank, learned counsel for 2003 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 (Exhibit P29) the land was encumbered with the bank for P1, the alleged agreement, does not specifical there is merely a vague clause that the encumbrance would be cleared before the sale date appears. This, he submitted, indicates that no Jamabandi was actually obtained at the time of the alleged agreement, otherwise parti mortgage would have been specifically mentioned. Further, the plaintiff has not produced any Jamabandi obtained on or before the alleged agreeme was obtained in 2007. Any prudent purchaser would have obtained proof of title before entering into such a transaction, but no such proof was produced. The appellant submitted that the plaintiff misused blank signed stamp papers by taking undue advantage of a dominant fiduciary position. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant next urged th relationship between plaintiff and defendant evidenced on the file by registers and documents of the market committee under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, namely Exhibits D2 to D13. Even the alleged attesting witness of the agreement, PW2 Jagjit Singh, in examination could not deny that the plaintiff dealt in commission agency business. Rather, PW2 stated that he had not sold his crop to the plaintiff but to some other commission agent indeed a commission agent. The lower appellate court did not examine this evidence properly and returned no specific finding on this pivotal issue, thereby leaving the crucial question unadjudicated. 14. Learned counsel relied upon Section 111 of the Evi illustrations) which reads as follows: 5 (O&M) (Exhibit P29) the land was encumbered with the bank for P1, the alleged agreement, does not specifically merely a vague clause that the encumbrance would be cleared before the sale date appears. This, he submitted, indicates that no Jamabandi was actually obtained at the time of the alleged agreement, otherwise parti mortgage would have been specifically mentioned. Further, the plaintiff has not produced any Jamabandi obtained on or before the alleged agreeme was obtained in 2007. Any prudent purchaser would have obtained proof of title entering into such a transaction, but no such proof was produced. The appellant submitted that the plaintiff misused blank signed stamp papers by taking undue advantage of a dominant fiduciary position. Learned counsel for the appellant next urged th relationship between plaintiff and defendant of evidenced on the file by registers and documents of the market committee under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, namely Exhibits D2 to D13. Even the alleged attesting witness of the agreement, PW2 Jagjit Singh, in examination could not deny that the plaintiff dealt in commission agency business. Rather, PW2 stated that he had not sold his crop to the plaintiff but to some other commission agent, this, appellant’s counsel argued, implies that the plaintiff was indeed a commission agent. The lower appellate court did not examine this evidence properly and returned no specific finding on this pivotal issue, thereby leaving the crucial question unadjudicated. Learned counsel relied upon Section 111 of the Evi which reads as follows:- -9- (Exhibit P29) the land was encumbered with the bank for ₹2,25,000/-. Yet Exhibit ly refer to a mortgage with SBI and merely a vague clause that the encumbrance would be cleared before the sale date appears. This, he submitted, indicates that no Jamabandi was actually obtained at the time of the alleged agreement, otherwise particulars of the mortgage would have been specifically mentioned. Further, the plaintiff has not produced any Jamabandi obtained on or before the alleged agreement. Ex.P was obtained in 2007. Any prudent purchaser would have obtained proof of title entering into such a transaction, but no such proof was produced. The appellant submitted that the plaintiff misused blank signed stamp papers by taking undue advantage of a dominant fiduciary position. Learned counsel for the appellant next urged that the fiduciary of commission agent and farmer is evidenced on the file by registers and documents of the market committee under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, namely Exhibits D2 to D13. Even the alleged attesting witness of the agreement, PW2 Jagjit Singh, in cross examination could not deny that the plaintiff dealt in commission agency business. Rather, PW2 stated that he had not sold his crop to the plaintiff but to some other this, appellant’s counsel argued, implies that the plaintiff was indeed a commission agent. The lower appellate court did not examine this evidence properly and returned no specific finding on this pivotal issue, thereby Learned counsel relied upon Section 111 of the Evidence Act (with . Yet Exhibit refer to a mortgage with SBI and merely a vague clause that the encumbrance would be cleared before the sale date appears. This, he submitted, indicates that no Jamabandi was actually culars of the mortgage would have been specifically mentioned. Further, the plaintiff has not P-29 was obtained in 2007. Any prudent purchaser would have obtained proof of title entering into such a transaction, but no such proof was produced. The appellant submitted that the plaintiff misused blank signed stamp papers by taking at the fiduciary commission agent and farmer is evidenced on the file by registers and documents of the market committee under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, namely Exhibits D2 to D13. Even cross- examination could not deny that the plaintiff dealt in commission agency business. Rather, PW2 stated that he had not sold his crop to the plaintiff but to some other this, appellant’s counsel argued, implies that the plaintiff was indeed a commission agent. The lower appellate court did not examine this evidence properly and returned no specific finding on this pivotal issue, thereby dence Act (with TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 “111. Proof of good faith in relation of active confidence faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to th in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence. (a)The good faith of a sale by a client to an attorney is in question in a suit the transaction is on the attorney. (b)The good faith of a sale by a son just come of age to a father is in question in a suit brought by the son. The burden of proving the good faith of the tr 15. He onus on the dominant party to prove the genuineness of the transaction is heavy. He relied on Krishna Mohan Kaul v. Pratima Mittal & Ors., (2003) AIR 4351, submitting that where a person in a position of active confidence is challenged on the ground of fraud, the burden lies heavily upon the dominant party to establish the validity of the document, and the plaintiff has failed to discharge this onus. Hence, learned counsel argued, the plaintiff is not entitled to discretionary relief in specific performance. 16. On the question of delivery of possession, learned counsel contended that the plaintiff’s pleading that possession was delivered was not bor document and the Trial Court itself noted that possession was not proved. He 5 (O&M) 111. Proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation of active confidence-Where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to th in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active confidence. Illustrations (a)The good faith of a sale by a client to an attorney is in question in a suit brought by the client. The burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the attorney. (b)The good faith of a sale by a son just come of age to a father is in question in a suit brought by the son. The burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the father argued that once a fiduciary or dominant relationship is shown, the onus on the dominant party to prove the genuineness of the transaction is heavy. Krishna Mohan Kaul v. Pratima Mittal & Ors., (2003) AIR , submitting that where a person in a position of active confidence is challenged on the ground of fraud, the burden lies heavily upon the dominant party to establish the validity of the document, and the plaintiff has failed to discharge Hence, learned counsel argued, the plaintiff is not entitled to discretionary relief in specific performance. On the question of delivery of possession, learned counsel contended that the plaintiff’s pleading that possession was delivered was not bor document and the Trial Court itself noted that possession was not proved. He -10- transactions where one party is in Where there is a question as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active Illustrations (a)The good faith of a sale by a client to an attorney is in question in brought by the client. The burden of proving the good faith of (b)The good faith of a sale by a son just come of age to a father is in question in a suit brought by the son. The burden of proving the good ansaction is on the father.” argued that once a fiduciary or dominant relationship is shown, the onus on the dominant party to prove the genuineness of the transaction is heavy. Krishna Mohan Kaul v. Pratima Mittal & Ors., (2003) AIR , submitting that where a person in a position of active confidence is challenged on the ground of fraud, the burden lies heavily upon the dominant party to establish the validity of the document, and the plaintiff has failed to discharge Hence, learned counsel argued, the plaintiff is not entitled to On the question of delivery of possession, learned counsel contended that the plaintiff’s pleading that possession was delivered was not borne out by the document and the Trial Court itself noted that possession was not proved. He transactions where one party is in Where there is a question as to the good e other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of active (a)The good faith of a sale by a client to an attorney is in question in brought by the client. The burden of proving the good faith of (b)The good faith of a sale by a son just come of age to a father is in question in a suit brought by the son. The burden of proving the good argued that once a fiduciary or dominant relationship is shown, the onus on the dominant party to prove the genuineness of the transaction is heavy. Krishna Mohan Kaul v. Pratima Mittal & Ors., (2003) AIR SC , submitting that where a person in a position of active confidence is challenged on the ground of fraud, the burden lies heavily upon the dominant party to establish the validity of the document, and the plaintiff has failed to discharge Hence, learned counsel argued, the plaintiff is not entitled to On the question of delivery of possession, learned counsel contended ne out by the document and the Trial Court itself noted that possession was not proved. He TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 further argued that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement. 17. With respect to the thumb impressions appe agreement P1, learned counsel pointed out that the evidence of expert PW5 is unreliable. PW5 himself admitted that impressions defendant) were not clear for comparison and for that reason he could not opine positively about those impressions. There are six alleged thumb impressions on Exhibit P1; Q1 appears on the first page; Q2 Q3 (allegedly of defendant) agreement, Q4 appe the back of the second page; and Q6 on the blank third page. PW5 stated that Q3, which is material for completing the sale contract, could not be identified as the defendant, likewise, Q5 could not be said to be of the defendant. Once the thumb impressions on the front and back of page 2 are not proved to be those of the defendant, the agreement cannot be said to be established. This, counsel ar performance. 18. An important circumstance, learned counsel submitted, is that the third page of Exhibit P1 is blank except for the alleged thumb impression Q6 of the defendant. This, he urged, suppo fiduciary relationship: had there been a genuine transaction, the third page would not be blank and bearing thumb impressions, been completed in full. The presence of a blank pag indicates that thumb impressions may have been taken earlier on blank papers and 5 (O&M) further argued that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement. With respect to the thumb impressions appe agreement P1, learned counsel pointed out that the evidence of expert PW5 is unreliable. PW5 himself admitted that impressions were not clear for comparison and for that reason he could not opine positively about those impressions. There are six alleged thumb impressions on Exhibit P1; Q1 appears on the first page; Q2 (allegedly of attesting (allegedly of defendant) appearing on the second page which completes the Q4 appears on back side of 1st page of agreement to sell, the back of the second page; and Q6 on the blank third page. PW5 stated that Q3, material for completing the sale contract, could not be identified as likewise, Q5 could not be said to be of the defendant. Once the thumb impressions on the front and back of page 2 are not proved to be those of the defendant, the agreement cannot be said to be established. This, counsel argued, disentitles the plaintiff to a decree of specific An important circumstance, learned counsel submitted, is that the third page of Exhibit P1 is blank except for the alleged thumb impression Q6 of the defendant. This, he urged, supports the blank fiduciary relationship: had there been a genuine transaction, the third page would k and bearing thumb impressions, been completed in full. The presence of a blank pag indicates that thumb impressions may have been taken earlier on blank papers and -11- further argued that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to With respect to the thumb impressions appearing on the alleged agreement P1, learned counsel pointed out that the evidence of expert PW5 is unreliable. PW5 himself admitted that impressions Q3, Q5 and Q6 (allegedly of were not clear for comparison and for that reason he could not opine positively about those impressions. There are six alleged thumb impressions on (allegedly of attesting witness) and on the second page which completes the page of agreement to sell, Q5 appears on the back of the second page; and Q6 on the blank third page. PW5 stated that Q3, material for completing the sale contract, could not be identified as that likewise, Q5 could not be said to be of the defendant. Once the thumb impressions on the front and back of page 2 which is the most relevant page are not proved to be those of the defendant, the agreement cannot be said to be gued, disentitles the plaintiff to a decree of specific An important circumstance, learned counsel submitted, is that the third page of Exhibit P1 is blank except for the alleged thumb impression Q6 of the rts the blank-paper theory arising out of the fiduciary relationship: had there been a genuine transaction, the third page would instead the document would have been completed in full. The presence of a blank page with a thumb impression indicates that thumb impressions may have been taken earlier on blank papers and further argued that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to aring on the alleged agreement P1, learned counsel pointed out that the evidence of expert PW5 is and Q6 (allegedly of were not clear for comparison and for that reason he could not opine positively about those impressions. There are six alleged thumb impressions on and on the second page which completes the Q5 appears on the back of the second page; and Q6 on the blank third page. PW5 stated that Q3, that of likewise, Q5 could not be said to be of the defendant. Once the which is the most relevant page are not proved to be those of the defendant, the agreement cannot be said to be gued, disentitles the plaintiff to a decree of specific An important circumstance, learned counsel submitted, is that the third page of Exhibit P1 is blank except for the alleged thumb impression Q6 of the paper theory arising out of the fiduciary relationship: had there been a genuine transaction, the third page would instead the document would have e with a thumb impression indicates that thumb impressions may have been taken earlier on blank papers and TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 later used to fabricate Exhibit P1. This aspect, counsel argued, has been ignored by both Courts below. after the writing of the document. Moreover, the absence of the vendor’s signature on the back of the stamp papers, which PW3 Om Prakash sold, indicates suspicious origin of the document. PW3’s cross his register (Exhibit D1), including entries not signed by purchasers, and the plaintiff withheld comparison vendor register (Exhibit P2), which invites adverse inference. 19. Learned counsel for the appe that whether the Courts below failed to recognise intrinsic material showing there was no vendor- misused to convert an indebtedness and the related defendant’s conduct of asserting delivery of possession amounts to coming to Court with unclean hands. Submissions of learned counsel for 20. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that there is no illegality in the judgments passed by the Courts below. They rightly held that execution of the agreement to sell stands proved on the record, and once execution is proved by the presence of thumb impressions of the defendant appearing on the f established. Even if some impressions on the second page or on the backs of pages were heavily inked and not comparable, this wou non-comparability of some impressions does not negate the comparability and proof of other impressions. It was further argued that the defendant failed to prove 5 (O&M) later used to fabricate Exhibit P1. This aspect, counsel argued, has been ignored by both Courts below. Further, nothing proves that the after the writing of the document. Moreover, the absence of the vendor’s signature on the back of the stamp papers, which PW3 Om Prakash sold, indicates suspicious origin of the document. PW3’s cross-examination revealed many irregularities his register (Exhibit D1), including entries not signed by purchasers, and the plaintiff withheld comparison of thumb impression at relevant entry vendor register (Exhibit P2), which invites adverse inference. Learned counsel for the appellant thus pressed the substantial question whether the Courts below failed to recognise intrinsic material showing there -vendee relationship but rather a commission misused to convert an indebtedness and the related defendant’s conduct of asserting delivery of possession amounts to coming to Court with unclean hands. Submissions of learned counsel for the respondent Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand, there is no illegality in the judgments passed by the Courts below. They rightly held that execution of the agreement to sell stands proved on the record, and once execution is proved by the presence of thumb impressions of the defendant appearing on the first page and on other pages of the agreement, the contract is established. Even if some impressions on the second page or on the backs of pages were heavily inked and not comparable, this wou comparability of some impressions does not negate the comparability and proof of other impressions. It was further argued that the defendant failed to prove -12- later used to fabricate Exhibit P1. This aspect, counsel argued, has been ignored by urther, nothing proves that the said impressions were taken after the writing of the document. Moreover, the absence of the vendor’s signature on the back of the stamp papers, which PW3 Om Prakash sold, indicates suspicious examination revealed many irregularities his register (Exhibit D1), including entries not signed by purchasers, and the of thumb impression at relevant entry with the vendor register (Exhibit P2), which invites adverse inference. llant thus pressed the substantial question whether the Courts below failed to recognise intrinsic material showing there vendee relationship but rather a commission-farmer relationship misused to convert an indebtedness and the related question whether the defendant’s conduct of asserting delivery of possession amounts to coming to the respondent Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand, there is no illegality in the judgments passed by the Courts below. They rightly held that execution of the agreement to sell stands proved on the record, and once execution is proved by the presence of thumb impressions of the defendant irst page and on other pages of the agreement, the contract is established. Even if some impressions on the second page or on the backs of pages were heavily inked and not comparable, this would not amount to proof of fraud, comparability of some impressions does not negate the comparability and proof of other impressions. It was further argued that the defendant failed to prove later used to fabricate Exhibit P1. This aspect, counsel argued, has been ignored by ions were taken after the writing of the document. Moreover, the absence of the vendor’s signature on the back of the stamp papers, which PW3 Om Prakash sold, indicates suspicious examination revealed many irregularities in his register (Exhibit D1), including entries not signed by purchasers, and the with the llant thus pressed the substantial question whether the Courts below failed to recognise intrinsic material showing there farmer relationship question whether the defendant’s conduct of asserting delivery of possession amounts to coming to Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand, there is no illegality in the judgments passed by the Courts below. They rightly held that execution of the agreement to sell stands proved on the record, and once execution is proved by the presence of thumb impressions of the defendant irst page and on other pages of the agreement, the contract is established. Even if some impressions on the second page or on the backs of pages ld not amount to proof of fraud, comparability of some impressions does not negate the comparability and proof of other impressions. It was further argued that the defendant failed to prove TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 that there was no vendor of commission agent and farmer. Even if a commission a commission agent is not precluded from entering into a contract of sale. It was pointed out that in the written statement the defendant admitted that the plaintiff might have used som learned counsel submitted, is binding and outweighs the expert’s inconclusive report. Findings 21. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record carefully. 22. For the reasons set ou concurrent judgments/ sustained and that substantial doubt has been cast upon the genuineness of Exhibit P-1 such as to disentitle the plaintiff to the disc performance. 23. First confidence and dominance between the parties, commission-agent and the defendant as an is manifest from the market registers and related documents on the file (Exhibits D-2 to D-13). The lower Courts below have singularly failed to grapple w central factual matrix. Ne negativing the existence of commission explanation been given for the many entries and documents produced by the defendant that point to frequent commercial dealings between the parties. 5 (O&M) that there was no vendor-vendee relationship or that the true relationship was that ion agent and farmer. Even if a commission a commission agent is not precluded from entering into a contract of sale. It was pointed out that in the written statement the defendant admitted that the plaintiff might have used some thumb-impressed blank papers, and such an admission, learned counsel submitted, is binding and outweighs the expert’s inconclusive I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record For the reasons set out below, this Court is judgments/decrees impugned in this Regular Second Appeal cannot be sustained and that substantial doubt has been cast upon the genuineness of Exhibit 1 such as to disentitle the plaintiff to the disc First, the evidence on the record establishes a relationship of active d dominance between the parties, agent and the defendant as an agriculturist/client is manifest from the market registers and related documents on the file (Exhibits 13). The lower Courts below have singularly failed to grapple w central factual matrix. Neither has any meaningfu negativing the existence of commission-agent transactions nor has any satisfactory explanation been given for the many entries and documents produced by the defendant that point to frequent commercial dealings between the parties. -13- vendee relationship or that the true relationship was that ion agent and farmer. Even if a commission-agent relationship existed, a commission agent is not precluded from entering into a contract of sale. It was pointed out that in the written statement the defendant admitted that the plaintiff impressed blank papers, and such an admission, learned counsel submitted, is binding and outweighs the expert’s inconclusive I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record this Court is of the view that the decrees impugned in this Regular Second Appeal cannot be sustained and that substantial doubt has been cast upon the genuineness of Exhibit 1 such as to disentitle the plaintiff to the discretionary relief of specific , the evidence on the record establishes a relationship of active d dominance between the parties, the plaintiff functioning as a agriculturist/client and that relationship is manifest from the market registers and related documents on the file (Exhibits 13). The lower Courts below have singularly failed to grapple with this ither has any meaningful finding been recorded agent transactions nor has any satisfactory explanation been given for the many entries and documents produced by the defendant that point to frequent commercial dealings between the parties. Once vendee relationship or that the true relationship was that agent relationship existed, a commission agent is not precluded from entering into a contract of sale. It was pointed out that in the written statement the defendant admitted that the plaintiff impressed blank papers, and such an admission, learned counsel submitted, is binding and outweighs the expert’s inconclusive I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record of the view that the decrees impugned in this Regular Second Appeal cannot be sustained and that substantial doubt has been cast upon the genuineness of Exhibit retionary relief of specific , the evidence on the record establishes a relationship of active the plaintiff functioning as a and that relationship is manifest from the market registers and related documents on the file (Exhibits ith this l finding been recorded agent transactions nor has any satisfactory explanation been given for the many entries and documents produced by the Once TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 such a fiduciary/dominant relationship is shown, the legal position is clear Section 111 of the Evidence Act that asserting the instrument (here, the plaintiff asserting Exhibit P correspondingly heavier and he must prove, by cogent and unimpeachable material, that the document was executed freely and knowingly and not fabricated or misused in consequence of the dominant position. 24. Second record, believable and supported by a constellation of circumstances which the Courts below have not adequately examined. The expert evidence on the thumb impressions (PW impressions marked Q2, Q3 and Q5 on concludes and on the back to comparison and therefore cannot be positively attributed to the defendant, and other impressions are that the third page of Exhibit P That circumstance into a multipart instrument is, in ordin and at the least calls for explanation. Equally disquieting is the absence of regular vendor signatures or corroborative entries on the back of the individual stamp papers sold by PW to procure and place before Court the comparative entries from the register (Exhibit P discredited the expert’s comparison such material invites a strong adverse inference against the plaintiff. In short, the 5 (O&M) such a fiduciary/dominant relationship is shown, the legal position is clear Section 111 of the Evidence Act that the evidentiary burden upon the party asserting the instrument (here, the plaintiff asserting Exhibit P y heavier and he must prove, by cogent and unimpeachable material, that the document was executed freely and knowingly and not fabricated or misused in consequence of the dominant position. Second, the “blank-paper” theory advanced by the defendant i record, believable and supported by a constellation of circumstances which the Courts below have not adequately examined. The expert evidence on the thumb impressions (PW-5) is far from conclusive. The expert himself admits that crucial ons marked Q2, Q3 and Q5 on 2nd concludes and on the back-side of 2nd page of agreement Ex. to comparison and therefore cannot be positively attributed to the defendant, and other impressions are also non-comparable. It is a matter of prime significance that the third page of Exhibit P-1 is essentially blank save for a thumb That circumstance i.e a blank sheet bearing a thumb into a multipart instrument is, in ordinary commercial practice, highly suspicious and at the least calls for explanation. Equally disquieting is the absence of regular vendor signatures or corroborative entries on the back of the individual stamp papers sold by PW-3 (the stamp vendor) and the to procure and place before Court the comparative entries from the register (Exhibit P-2/D-1 register) which, if produced, might have assisted or discredited the expert’s comparison. The deliberate or negligent such material invites a strong adverse inference against the plaintiff. In short, the -14- such a fiduciary/dominant relationship is shown, the legal position is clear, as per the evidentiary burden upon the party asserting the instrument (here, the plaintiff asserting Exhibit P-1) becomes y heavier and he must prove, by cogent and unimpeachable material, that the document was executed freely and knowingly and not fabricated or misused in consequence of the dominant position. paper” theory advanced by the defendant is, on the record, believable and supported by a constellation of circumstances which the Courts below have not adequately examined. The expert evidence on the thumb he expert himself admits that crucial nd page of Ex.P-1, the agreement page of agreement Ex.P-1 are not amenable to comparison and therefore cannot be positively attributed to the defendant, and omparable. It is a matter of prime significance 1 is essentially blank save for a thumb-mark (Q6). a blank sheet bearing a thumb-impression later incorporated ary commercial practice, highly suspicious and at the least calls for explanation. Equally disquieting is the absence of regular vendor signatures or corroborative entries on the back of the individual stamp 3 (the stamp vendor) and the unexplained failure of the plaintiff to procure and place before Court the comparative entries from the vendor’s 1 register) which, if produced, might have assisted or he deliberate or negligent withholding of such material invites a strong adverse inference against the plaintiff. In short, the as per the evidentiary burden upon the party 1) becomes y heavier and he must prove, by cogent and unimpeachable material, that the document was executed freely and knowingly and not fabricated s, on the record, believable and supported by a constellation of circumstances which the Courts below have not adequately examined. The expert evidence on the thumb he expert himself admits that crucial 1, the agreement 1 are not amenable to comparison and therefore cannot be positively attributed to the defendant, and omparable. It is a matter of prime significance mark (Q6). impression later incorporated ary commercial practice, highly suspicious and at the least calls for explanation. Equally disquieting is the absence of regular vendor signatures or corroborative entries on the back of the individual stamp unexplained failure of the plaintiff vendor’s 1 register) which, if produced, might have assisted or withholding of such material invites a strong adverse inference against the plaintiff. In short, the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 pattern of impressions, the lacunae in the vendor’s documentation and the expert’s inability to identify the essential impressions combine to make the hy earlier thumb-marks on blank papers subsequently used to fabricate Exhibit P realistic and credible explanation. 25. Third deepen the doubt. The agreement contains no specific possession. The Trial Court itself recorded that possession was not proved plaintiff’s allegation 26. The long postponement of the sale substantial payment of improbable and unexplained. A prudent purchaser, having paid such a substantial sum as earnest money, would not pass immediate possession or agree to a protracted deferment without contempor disclosure of encumbrances. Although the Jamabandi produced on the file shows encumbrance with the bank, it was obtained much later Exhibit P-1 itself contains only a vague clause abo than a specific reference to the very omission is material and inconsistent with the case of an honest buyer who has examined title prior to entering into a sale transaction. The lower reliance upon conjecture that the long date redemption from the bank is not supported by contemporaneous documentary proof and amounts to speculation and equitable relief. 5 (O&M) pattern of impressions, the lacunae in the vendor’s documentation and the expert’s inability to identify the essential impressions combine to make the hy marks on blank papers subsequently used to fabricate Exhibit P realistic and credible explanation. Third, the plaintiff’s own conduct and the documentary omissions deepen the doubt. The agreement contains no specific he Trial Court itself recorded that possession was not proved plaintiff’s allegation of delivery is unsupported by cogent evidence. The long postponement of the sale yment of ₹3,25,000 being alleged to have been made is inherently improbable and unexplained. A prudent purchaser, having paid such a substantial sum as earnest money, would not pass immediate possession or agree to a protracted deferment without contemporaneous documentary proof of title or clear disclosure of encumbrances. Although the Jamabandi produced on the file shows encumbrance with the bank, it was obtained much later 1 itself contains only a vague clause abo than a specific reference to the very mortgage shown in the Jamabandi, omission is material and inconsistent with the case of an honest buyer who has examined title prior to entering into a sale transaction. The lower reliance upon conjecture that the long date redemption from the bank is not supported by contemporaneous documentary ounts to speculation and such surmise cannot sustain the grant of -15- pattern of impressions, the lacunae in the vendor’s documentation and the expert’s inability to identify the essential impressions combine to make the hypothesis of marks on blank papers subsequently used to fabricate Exhibit P- , the plaintiff’s own conduct and the documentary omissions deepen the doubt. The agreement contains no specific recital of delivery of he Trial Court itself recorded that possession was not proved T of delivery is unsupported by cogent evidence. The long postponement of the sale-date for two years despite a ₹3,25,000 being alleged to have been made is inherently improbable and unexplained. A prudent purchaser, having paid such a substantial sum as earnest money, would not pass immediate possession or agree to a aneous documentary proof of title or clear disclosure of encumbrances. Although the Jamabandi produced on the file Ex.P shows encumbrance with the bank, it was obtained much later in the year 2007 and 1 itself contains only a vague clause about clearing encumbrances rather mortgage shown in the Jamabandi, this omission is material and inconsistent with the case of an honest buyer who has examined title prior to entering into a sale transaction. The lower appellate Court’s reliance upon conjecture that the long date must have been fixed to enable redemption from the bank is not supported by contemporaneous documentary such surmise cannot sustain the grant of pattern of impressions, the lacunae in the vendor’s documentation and the expert’s pothesis of -1 a , the plaintiff’s own conduct and the documentary omissions recital of delivery of The date for two years despite a ₹3,25,000 being alleged to have been made is inherently improbable and unexplained. A prudent purchaser, having paid such a substantial sum as earnest money, would not pass immediate possession or agree to a aneous documentary proof of title or clear P-29 2007 and ut clearing encumbrances rather this omission is material and inconsistent with the case of an honest buyer who has appellate Court’s fixed to enable redemption from the bank is not supported by contemporaneous documentary such surmise cannot sustain the grant of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 27. Support is also derived from the judgment of this Court in the case of RCR (Civil) 503 “In case the intention of parties was actually to execute agreement in that case after paying 90% of the consideration the sale deed would not have been postponed for such a long period. As per Section 20 of the Act, the Court is not bound to grant the di specific performance. No doubt the discretion in withholding the said relief should not be arbitrary and should be based upon sound principles but on the facts of the present case both the Courts below have judiciously exercised the of Section 20 of the Act in withholding the relief of specific performance. There is nothing on file that Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence. Further has taken a stand that she has been duped. No doubt the Courts below held that agreement was executed between the parties but the finding that the said agreement was to secure a loan is based other evidence available on file and cannot be interfered. 28. The ratio of above mentioned judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case in hand also, 90% of the sale consideration w already paid and for remaining of 10% of the sale consideration long date of two 5 (O&M) Support is also derived from the judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh Singla Vs. Smt. Phool Pati and Another, 2013(1) RCR (Civil) 503. In para No.14 of the same, it was held as under: “In case the intention of parties was actually to execute agreement in that case after paying 90% of the consideration the sale deed would not have been postponed for such a long period. As per Section 20 of the Act, the Court is not bound to grant the di specific performance. No doubt the discretion in withholding the said relief should not be arbitrary and should be based upon sound principles but on the facts of the present case both the Courts below have judiciously exercised the jurisdiction by invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act in withholding the relief of specific performance. There is nothing on file that Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence. Further, it was also held that the defendant is an illiterate lady and has taken a stand that she has been duped. No doubt the Courts below held that agreement was executed between the parties but the finding that the said agreement was to secure a loan is based upon the circumstantial evidence and the other evidence available on file and cannot be interfered. The ratio of above mentioned judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case in hand also, 90% of the sale consideration w already paid and for remaining of 10% of the sale consideration long date of two -16- Support is also derived from the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of Suresh Singla Vs. Smt. Phool Pati and Another, 2013(1) In para No.14 of the same, it was held as under:- “In case the intention of parties was actually to execute agreement in that case after paying 90% of the consideration the sale deed would not have been postponed for such a long period. As per Section 20 of the Act, the Court is not bound to grant the discretionary relief of specific performance. No doubt the discretion in withholding the said relief should not be arbitrary and should be based upon sound principles but on the facts of the present case both the Courts below jurisdiction by invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act in withholding the relief of specific performance. There is nothing on file that Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the testimony of witnesses and documentary the defendant is an illiterate lady and has taken a stand that she has been duped. No doubt the Courts below held that agreement was executed between the parties but the finding that the said upon the circumstantial evidence and the other evidence available on file and cannot be interfered. The ratio of above mentioned judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case in hand also, 90% of the sale consideration w already paid and for remaining of 10% of the sale consideration long date of two ordinate Bench of Suresh Singla Vs. Smt. Phool Pati and Another, 2013(1) “In case the intention of parties was actually to execute agreement in that case after paying 90% of the consideration the sale deed would not have been postponed for such a long period. As per Section 20 of scretionary relief of specific performance. No doubt the discretion in withholding the said relief should not be arbitrary and should be based upon sound principles but on the facts of the present case both the Courts below jurisdiction by invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act in withholding the relief of specific performance. There is nothing on file that Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the testimony of witnesses and documentary the defendant is an illiterate lady and has taken a stand that she has been duped. No doubt the Courts below held that agreement was executed between the parties but the finding that the said upon the circumstantial evidence and the The ratio of above mentioned judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case in hand also, 90% of the sale consideration was already paid and for remaining of 10% of the sale consideration long date of two TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 years was fixed for execution of sale deed which shows intention of the parties that it was only a loan transaction. 29. Fourth cumulative effect of (a) the proved fiduciary/commission the expert’s inconclusive comparisons of the material thumb presence of a blank, thumb production of decisive vendor delivery of possession to draw a strong inference that Exhibit P or perfected by using earlier thumb relationship. In that factual matrix the plaintiff has not borne the heavy onus incumbent upon him. A equitable jurisdiction in his favour. 30. For these reasons, this Court is upholding the execution and genuineness of consideration of critical evidence and by unsafe questions of law framed by this Court are appellant. The record contains intrinsic material indicating that the parties’ relationship was that of commission sale may be only a conversion of indebtedness and the defendant’s assertion of delivery of possession, as recorded, does not furnish a sound basis for specific performance but rather discloses conduct which disentitles the plaintiff to equitable relief. 5 (O&M) years was fixed for execution of sale deed which shows intention of the parties that it was only a loan transaction. Fourth, applying accepted principles of evidence and equity, the cumulative effect of (a) the proved fiduciary/commission the expert’s inconclusive comparisons of the material thumb presence of a blank, thumb-marked page in Exhibit P production of decisive vendor-register comparisons, and (e) the failure to prove delivery of possession (f) failure to explain the long deferment of the sale to draw a strong inference that Exhibit P-1 may well or perfected by using earlier thumb-marks taken in the course of the fiduciary relationship. In that factual matrix the plaintiff has not borne the heavy onus incumbent upon him. Accordingly he cannot ask equitable jurisdiction in his favour. For these reasons, this Court is satisfied that the concurrent findings upholding the execution and genuineness of Ex. consideration of critical evidence and by unsafe questions of law framed by this Court are, therefore he record contains intrinsic material indicating that the parties’ relationship was that of commission-agent and farmer and that what is sale may be only a conversion of indebtedness and the defendant’s assertion of delivery of possession, as recorded, does not furnish a sound basis for specific performance but rather discloses conduct which ntitles the plaintiff to equitable relief. -17- years was fixed for execution of sale deed which shows intention of the parties that , applying accepted principles of evidence and equity, the cumulative effect of (a) the proved fiduciary/commission-agent relationship, (b) the expert’s inconclusive comparisons of the material thumb-marks, (c) the Exhibit P-1, (d) the absence or non register comparisons, and (e) the failure to prove to explain the long deferment of the sale-date, is 1 may well be a document manufactured marks taken in the course of the fiduciary relationship. In that factual matrix the plaintiff has not borne the heavy onus ccordingly he cannot ask or the Courts to exercise the satisfied that the concurrent findings Ex.P-1 are vitiated by material non consideration of critical evidence and by unsafe inferences. The substantial therefore, answered in favour of the he record contains intrinsic material indicating that the parties’ agent and farmer and that what is alleged as a sale may be only a conversion of indebtedness by improper use of thumb-marks and the defendant’s assertion of delivery of possession, as recorded, does not furnish a sound basis for specific performance but rather discloses conduct which years was fixed for execution of sale deed which shows intention of the parties that , applying accepted principles of evidence and equity, the agent relationship, (b) marks, (c) the 1, (d) the absence or non- register comparisons, and (e) the failure to prove date, is be a document manufactured marks taken in the course of the fiduciary relationship. In that factual matrix the plaintiff has not borne the heavy onus ise the satisfied that the concurrent findings 1 are vitiated by material non- inferences. The substantial ered in favour of the he record contains intrinsic material indicating that the parties’ alleged as a marks and the defendant’s assertion of delivery of possession, as recorded, does not furnish a sound basis for specific performance but rather discloses conduct which TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3584-2015 31. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court dated 10.03.2015 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 29.05.2012, insofar as they decre performance on Ex.P is dismissed. However, in the alternative, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover the earnest money amount of entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. 15.06.2004 till the date of filing of the suit, and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till actual re decretal amount. 32. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. September 17, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 5 (O&M) Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court dated 10.03.2015 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 29.05.2012, insofar as they decre performance on Ex.P-1, are set aside. The plaintiff’s suit for specific performance is dismissed. However, in the alternative, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover the earnest money amount of ₹3,25,000/- along with interest. The plainti entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. 15.06.2004 till the date of filing of the suit, and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till actual re decretal amount. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. , 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No. -18- Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court dated 10.03.2015 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 29.05.2012, insofar as they decree specific 1, are set aside. The plaintiff’s suit for specific performance is dismissed. However, in the alternative, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover along with interest. The plaintiff shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. 15.06.2004 till the date of filing of the suit, and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till actual realization of the Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court dated 10.03.2015 and the judgment and e specific 1, are set aside. The plaintiff’s suit for specific performance is dismissed. However, in the alternative, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover ff shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of execution of the agreement i.e. 15.06.2004 till the date of filing of the suit, and thereafter at the rate alization of the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document