IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125 RSA-3055-2023 Date of Decision: 22.04.2025 BIRO DEVI …..APPELLANT Vs. SURESH RATHI THROUGH LRS …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Rahul Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. ******* DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Suit for specific performance filed by the plain ff-Suresh Rathi (respondent through her LRs herein), based upon an agreement to sell dated 10.09.2011, was decreed by the trial Court on 24.05.2018. The appeal filed by the defendant (appellant herein) was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 03.08.2023. 2. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, the present appeal has been filed by the defendants. 3. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that agreement to sell in ques on was unregistered document and since the agreement purported to deliver possession of the property in dispute to the vendee-defendant, therefore it was required to be registered. 4. There is no merit in the aforesaid conten on. 5. As per the agreement in ques on total sale considera on was ₹1,50,000/-. The possession was delivered to the defendant. En re sale considera on amount had been paid. It had been agreed that vendor- defendant shall execute the sale deed and get it registered as and when requested by the plain ff. PRIYANKA 2025.04.23 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3055-2023 6. The Courts below have found that agreement to sell in ques on was duly proved. It will be relevant to reproduce the observa ons made by the First Appellate Court in this regard, which are as under:- ‘12. Ex.P-1 is the agreement dated 10.09.2011 which reveals that the ap- pellant agreed to sell the suit property measuring 105 square yards to the respondent for a sale considera on of Rs.1,50,000/- and that she received the said amount from the respondent. The execu on of the agreement, Ex.P-1, is sufficiently proved by the respondent. The respondent appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and he examined the a9es ng witnesses of the agreement, Rohtash as PW-2 and Amit son of Balbir as PW-3. All the wit- nesses categorically stated that the appellant agreed to sell the suit prop- erty to the respondent and received a sale considera on of Rs.1,50,000/- from him. PW-1 to PW-3 were cross examined at length but nothing could come to impeach their tes mony. Rather, the due execu on of agreement by appellant as well as payment of sale considera on is proved in their tes - mony. Therefore, the due execu on of agreement, Ex.P-1, by the appellant in favour of deceased respondent is duly proved. 13. It is argued by learned advocate for the appellant that agreement, Ex.P-1, is a forged and fabricated document and the same was never got ex- ecuted by the appellant. This argument of learned advocate for the appel- lant has no ground to stand upon. It is very much evident that the appellant has miserably failed to prove any sufficient or cogent evidence from which it could be proved that agreement, Ex.P-1, is a false and fabricated document. Rather, while cross examining respondent Suresh Rathi, the learned advoc- ate for appellant gave him a sugges on that agreement Ex.P-1 was got ex- ecuted by him from the appellant by way of security as amount of Rs.50,000/- was taken as loan by the appellant from the respondent. This sugges on and story came in the light for the first me when PW-1 was be- ing cross examined and this defence was never taken by the appellant in her pleadings. Moreover, the defence taken by the appellant during cross exam- ina on clearly reveals that she herself admi9ed the execu on of agreement Ex.P-1. Therefore, it cannot be said that the agreement, Ex.P-1, is a result of fraud and misrepresenta on. Page 2 of 3 PRIYANKA 2025.04.23 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3055-2023 14. In the light of above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the agreement dated 10.9.2011, Ex.P-1, by the appellant in favour of respondent Suresh Rathi is sufficiently proved. The respondent is en tled to possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of agree- ment dated 10.09.2011 and the appellant has no right to alienate the suit property to anybody else other than the respondent. The findings of the learned trial Court on issues no.1 to 4 are legal and jus fied and do not re- quire any interference. The Point for Determina on is, accordingly, decided against the appellant. 7. In the light of aforesaid observa ons, when the execu on of agreement to sell is duly proved, the suit for specific performance as filed by the plain ff was duly maintainable. Suit was filed on 4.9.2013 i.e., within limita on period. Simply because the agreement in ques on was unregistered and possession had been delivered, could not be a reason to decline the relief of specific performance, as is contended by learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Consequently, this Court does not find any reason to disturb concurrent findings of the fact as recorded by the Courts below. As such, holding the present revision to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. 22.04.2025 Pry (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? Yes p. 3 PRIYANKA 2025.04.23 16:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document