RSA-1534-2023 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1534-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.08.2025 Rajesh Kumar ...Appellant Versus Sangeeta Devi ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjay Mi,al, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. Defendant of the case is before this Court against concurrent findings of the Courts below. 2. As the perusal of the paper book would reveal that a suit for specific performance regarding the property in dispute was filed by respondent-plain4ff-Smt. Sangeeta Devi, based upon on agreement to sell dated 21.01.2008 executed by Rajesh Kumar (appellant herein) in her favour. The suit was decreed on 30.08.2016 by Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narnaul. The said judgment was upheld by the First Appellate Court on 06.09.2022, thus, dismissing the appeal of the defendant appellant. 3. Assailing the concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that as per the agreement, total sale considera4on was Rs.12,50,000/- and that an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was given as earnest money. Learned counsel submits that defendant did not receive an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque No.286851 dated 09.12.2007 as this cheque was subject ma,er of another agreement to sell executed between husband of the plain4ff and father of the defendant. It is also contended that agreement to sell dated 21.01.2008 is subsequent to Yogesh Mehta 2025.08.26 15:56 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-1534-2023 (O&M) [2] the cheque dated 09.12.2007 and so it cannot be considered to be a part of earnest money pertaining to the present transac4on. 4. ABer hearing learned counsel at considerable length, this Court does not find merit in the conten4on. 5. The aforesaid conten4on was raised before the First Appellate Court and while rejec4ng the same, it was observed as under:- “14. Exh.PI is the agreement to sell dated 21.01.2008 which had been executed between the plainff and defendant in relaon to suit property. A bare glance at the recitals of said agreement in queson reveal that it has been specifically menoned therein that Rs.6,50,000/- were being paid by the plainff to the defendant in cash and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which had already been paid to the defendant by the plainff, was to be adjusted/set off as against earnest money out of total sale consideraon of Rs. 12,50,000/-. It has also been specifically menoned therein that a.er this payment in cash and through cheque towards earnest money, the liability of plainff under agreement in queson was limited to the extent of remaining balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- only which she was to pay to the plainff on the day of execuon and registraon of sale deed. It has also been specifically menoned therein that this agreement was being scribed and dra.ed at the instance of both the pares to agreement in queson and that contents thereof had been read over and explained to both the pares to agreement in queson who admi/ed the same to be correct as per their instrucons. PW-1, the scribe of agreement in queson, had also tesfied on oath that he had read over and explained the recitals of agreement in queson to both the pares who admi/ed the same to be correct and only a.er understanding and admi1ng the correctness thereof, they had affixed their signatures thereon. He also tesfied that the a/esng witnesses also affixed their signatures/thumb impression a.er understanding and admi1ng the correctness of contents of agreement in queson and even father of defendant was present who had also signed Yogesh Mehta 2025.08.26 15:56 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-1534-2023 (O&M) [3] his consent to the contents thereof. He also tesfied that under agreement in queson, it was agreed upon by the pares to the agreement that only Rs.1,00,000/- remained to be paid on the date of execuon/registraon of sale deed. The scribe PW-1 tendered in evidence copy of relevant extract of his deed register which is Exh.P2 and in this document also, there is entry regarding payment of Rs. 11,50,000/- as earnest money and balance sale consideraon of Rs.1,00,000/-. This entry is also signed by the pares to the suit. PW-3, the a/esng witnesses, had tesfied in the same vein that Rs.1,00,000/- were to be paid towards balance sale consideraon by the plainff upto 31.12.2008 and, in cross- examinaon, PW-3 stated in clear-cut terms that the defendant himself told him that he had already received a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plainff in connecon with agreement in queson. The plainff PW-2, during the course of cross-examinaon, denied the suggeson in categoric terms that the cheque had been given by her on behalf of her husband towards repayment of earnest money which her husband received from the father of defendant in pursuance of separate agreement to sell dated 10.09.2007. And, as noced earlier, the defendant did not dispute the execuon of agreement in queson or his signatures over the same at any stage while filing wri/en statement or leading evidence. In modern mes, no reasonable and prudent person can be expected to sign any document without being aware of its consequences. It is neither the case of the defendant nor it has been pleaded anywhere that when he affixed his signatures on agreement Exh.P1, the scribe PW-1 did not explain or read over the contents to them, hence, he was not aware about the adjustment of amount of disputed cheque towards earnest money under agreement in queson. The defendant himself did not act in prudent manner and likewise, his father, who was also present at that me and give his consent to the execuon of agreement in queson, did not object to this part of agreement in queson. There is nothing on the file which could show that there was any misrepresentaon applied on behalf of the plainff which induced the Yogesh Mehta 2025.08.26 15:56 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-1534-2023 (O&M) [4] defendant to put signatures on agreement in queson without the knowledge the contents of the same. It is significant to note that, as per the version of defendant, on the date when agreement in queson Exh.Pl was executed, another agreement to sell Exh. DI was executed between his father and the husband of the plainff regarding the land of husband of plainff and this Court failed to understand as to why the disputed cheque was menoned in agreement in queson Exh.P1 and not in that agreement to sell Exh. D1 executed between his father and the husband of the plainff. In addion, the documentary evidence of the defendant, available on record, indicate that the payment of cheque, which had been given by the father of defendant to the husband of plainff in respect of their own agreement to sell vide cheque No. 186921 dated 10.09.2007 Exh.DW1/C had been stopped by the defendant himself vide inmaon dated 17.11.2007 Exh.DW1/D. 15. In view of the admission in the wri/en statement, the defendant cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the contract and come forward with a new case that the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- through disputed cheque was in fact in the shape of repayment of money at the behest of husband of plainff to the father of defendant a.er separate transacon between them through another agreement to sell dated 10.09.2007 in respect of land of husband of plainff had failed. Rather, from the statement of the plainff PW-2 and admission of defendant DW- 1, who candidly admi/ed the execuon of agreement in queson Exh.P1, it is established that agreement Exh.P1 was executed between the pares of their free will and subject to terms and condions as laid out therein. The tesmony of plainff, scribe and a/esng witness remained consistent and nothing to sha/er their veracity could be elucidated during their cross-examinaon by the defendant to extract anything favourable to him. Rather, tesmony of PW-1 Shivhari Bhardwaj. who had dra.ed the agreement, that he had executed the agreement at the instance of plainff and defendant and that he had read over and explained the contents of agreement to the pares and witnesses and therea.er the Yogesh Mehta 2025.08.26 15:56 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-1534-2023 (O&M) [5] pares appended their signatures/thumb impressions has gone unchallenged. And, it is important to note that, in cross-examinaon, the defendant DW-1 admi/ed that he had got encashed disputed cheque and had received Rs. 5,00,000/- thereunder. Indisputably, the defendant had admi/ed having received Rs.6,50,000/- in cash by making entry in his own hand over Exh.P1. Meaning thereby, the defendant had received Rs.11,50,000/- as earnest money from the plainff under agreement in queson Exh.Pl. In absence of anything cogent and convincing evidence to the contrary, this Court sees no reason to disbelieve or discard the tesmony of plainff or her witnesses and from the evidence led on the file and admission of defendant DW-1, execuon of agreement in toto by defendant is duly established and it is also duly proved that he had received earnest money of Rs.11,50,000/-Affidavit Exh.P3 has also been tendered by the plainff which shows that she alongwith balance sale consideraon and other miscellaneous expenses waited since 9:00 A.M. for the presence of defendant and when he did not turn up ll closing of office hours, she appeared before the Sub Registrar on 31.12.2008 and got her presence marked in respect of her readiness and willingness to get the sale deed executed and registered. Though defendant also placed on record affidavit Exh.D6 to prove his readiness and willingness by claiming that he got marked his presence before the Sub Registrar on 31.12.2008 but nowhere in affidavit Exh.D6 it is menoned that he had waited for the plainff throughout the day since morning ll closing of office hours. As such, the plainff has always been ready and willing to perform her part of agreement but the defendant failed to execute and register the sale deed in her favour. The law cited by learned counsel for appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case.” 6. It is thus, evident from the aforesaid observa4ons that in the agreement to sell dated 21.01.2008 (Ex.P-1), execu4on of which is not disputed by the appellant defendant, there is specific recital regarding the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- having been received by the appellant in cash; Yogesh Mehta 2025.08.26 15:56 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-1534-2023 (O&M) [6] and that amount of Rs.5,00,000/- had already been paid to him by the plain4ff, which was to be adjusted/set off against earnest money out of total sale considera4on of Rs.12,50,000/-. It was further specifically men4oned in the agreement that aBer this payment in cash and through cheque towards the earnest money, the liability of the plain4ff i.e. respondent herein under the agreement in ques4on was limited to the extent of balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- only, which she was required to pay to the defendant on the date of execu4on and registra4on of the sale deed. 7. The execu4on of the aforesaid agreement was proved not only by the tes4mony of plain4ff but was further proved by the statement of scribe (PW-1) and one of the a,es4ng witness (PW-3). 8. The Appellate Court has rightly observed that as per the version of the defendant-appellant, on the date when agreement in ques4on (Ex.P-1) was executed, another agreement to sell (Ex.D-1) was executed between his father and the husband of the plain4ff regarding the land of husband of the plain4ff. However, it was not explained as to why there was men4on of the disputed cheque in agreement to sell (Ex.P-1) and not in the agreement to sell (Ex.D-1) executed between the father of the defendant appellant and the husband of the plain4ff. Not only this, it was further found that the payment of the cheque which had been given by the father of the defendant to the husband of the plain4ff in respect of their own agreement to sell vide cheque No.186921 dated 10.09.2007 had been stopped by the defendant himself vide in4ma4on dated 17.11.2007 (Ex.DW1/D). 9. In view of the aforesaid observa4ons, this Court has no reason to differ with the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts Yogesh Mehta 2025.08.26 15:56 I agree to specified portions of this document RSA-1534-2023 (O&M) [7] below to the effect that amount of Rs.5,00,000/- paid through cheque was in respect of part of the earnest money pertaining to the agreement to sell (Ex.P-1) between the par4es. 10. This Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 25.08.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Yogesh Mehta 2025.08.26 15:56 I agree to specified portions of this document