RSA-542-2026 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-542-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.04.2026 Kamla Devi ...Appellant Versus Satwan* Devi ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Rajvinder Kaur Sohal, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant–defendant challenging the judgment & decree dated 05.12.2025 passed by the learned Addi*onal District Judge, Karnal, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment & decree dated 06.03.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Assandh, decreeing the suit of the plain*ff–respondent for recovery of ₹1,30,000/- along with interest, was affirmed. 2. The case arises out of an agreement to sell dated 18.08.2004. As per the pleaded case of the plain*ff, the defendant agreed to sell the suit property for total sale considera*on of ₹1,30,000/-, which was paid by the plain*ff to the defendant at the *me of execu*on of the agreement, and possession of the property was also delivered to him. It was specifically agreed between the par*es that the defendant would ensure execu*on and registra*on of the sale deed through the recorded owners of the property, namely Tejbir and Mahindro, in whose names the property stood recorded. It was further s*pulated that in case the defendant failed to get the sale deed executed, the plain*ff would be en*tled to recover the en*re amount YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.30 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-542-2026 (O&M) [2] of ₹1,30,000/- along with interest at the agreed rate. According to the plain*ff, despite repeated requests, the defendant failed to fulfil her contractual obliga*on. Subsequently, the plain*ff came to know that the recorded owners had executed sale deeds in favour of third par*es, namely Krishna, Santro and Binder Kaur, in December 2015 and January 2016. As a result, the plain*ff was dispossessed from the suit property. The plain*ff then demanded refund of the amount along with interest, and also served a legal no*ce dated 05.05.2016, but to no avail. On these premises, the plain*ff ins*tuted a suit for recovery of ₹1,30,000/- along with interest. 3. The defendant contested the suit raising various preliminary objec*ons, inter alia, regarding maintainability, limita*on, lack of cause of ac*on, estoppel and concealment of material facts. On merits, it was asserted that the plain*ff was already in possession of the property and con*nued to enjoy the same. It was further pleaded that disputes regarding the property were already pending between third par*es and the plain*ff was aware of such li*ga*on at the *me of entering into the agreement. The defendant denied any liability to refund the amount and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial Court framed issues, the principal one being whether the plain*ff was en*tled to recovery of ₹1,30,000/- along with interest on the basis of the agreement dated 18.08.2004. The par*es led both oral and documentary evidence. The plain*ff examined herself and other witnesses and proved the agreement as well as the subsequent sale deeds executed in favour of third par*es. The defendant also stepped into the witness box and examined another witness in support of her defence. 5. Upon apprecia*on of evidence, the learned trial Court decreed YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.30 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-542-2026 (O&M) [3] the suit holding that the agreement and payment of considera*on stood proved and that the defendant had failed to perform her part of the contract, thereby en*tling the plain*ff to recovery of the amount along with interest. 6. Aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the learned Addi*onal District Judge, Karnal, vide judgment dated 05.12.2025. The first appellate Court, upon re-appraisal of the en*re evidence, concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court and upheld the decree. 7. Assailing the above findings, Learned counsel for the appellant raised following grounds: 7.1 Firstly, it is contended that the agreement dated 18.08.2004 was neither duly stamped nor registered and, therefore, was inadmissible in evidence and could not have been relied upon by the Courts below. 7.2 Secondly, it is argued that the suit is barred by limita*on, as the agreement was executed in the year 2004 and the suit was ins*tuted only in the year 2016. 7.3 Thirdly, it is submiFed that the plain*ff remained in possession of the property and, therefore, was not en*tled to seek recovery of the amount. 7.4 Fourthly, it is urged that the rate of interest awarded is excessive and not supported by the terms of the agreement. 7.5 Lastly, it is contended that both the Courts below have misread and mis-appreciated the evidence on record, and their findings are liable to be set aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below as well as the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.30 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-542-2026 (O&M) [4] paper-book. 9. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the scope of interference in a Regular Second Appeal is limited. This Court can interfere only if a substan*al ques*on of law arises. Findings of fact concurrently recorded by the Courts below are not to be disturbed unless the same are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. 10. Upon considera*on of the maFer, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal for the following reasons: (a) On the issue of agreement and receipt of consideraon : Both the Courts below have concurrently held, on the basis of cogent evidence, that the agreement dated 18.08.2004 was duly executed and that the defendant had received ₹1,30,000/- from the plain*ff. These findings are pure findings of fact based on apprecia*on of evidence and cannot be re- opened in second appeal. (b) Objecon regarding admissibility of agreement : The argument that the agreement is inadmissible due to lack of stamp or registra*on is misplaced. The present suit is not one for specific performance but for recovery of money on failure of contractual obliga*on. The agreement has been rightly looked into for the collateral purpose of proving the transac*on and receipt of money. No illegality can be found in the approach adopted by the Courts below. (c) On limitaon : The Courts below have rightly held that the cause of ac*on arose, when the plain*ff was dispossessed and when the defendant failed to perform her obliga*on aIer the execu*on of sale deeds in favour of third par*es in 2015–2016. The suit filed thereaIer is clearly within limita*on. This finding is based on correct applica*on of law to the facts and does not give rise to any substan*al ques*on of law. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.30 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-542-2026 (O&M) [5] (d) On possession and entlement to recovery : The plea that the plain*ff con*nued in possession stands negated by concurrent findings that she was dispossessed. Once the defendant failed to fulfil her contractual obliga*on and the property stood transferred to third par*es, the plain*ff became en*tled to recover the amount paid. (e) On rate of interest : Though the grant of interest is based on the terms of the agreement and the surrounding circumstances and the same cannot be said to be so excessive or arbitrary, but this Court finds substance in the limited conten*on raised on behalf of the appellant with regard to the rate of future interest. The transac*on in ques*on emanates from an agreement to sell between private individuals concerning a residen*al property and does not partake the character of a commercial transac*on. 11. In terms of Sec*on 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while the Court has discre*on in awarding interest, the future interest in non-commercial transac*ons ordinarily ought not to exceed 6% per annum. The award of interest at a higher rate for the post-decree period, therefore, cannot be sustained. 12. Accordingly, while maintaining the decree passed by the Courts below with respect to the principal amount and other findings, the rate of future interest is modified and reduced to 6% per annum from the date of decree *ll realiza*on. 13. Except for the limited interven*on as above, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or contrary to law. The en*re endeavour of the appellant is to seek re-apprecia*on of evidence, which is impermissible in a second appeal. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.30 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-542-2026 (O&M) [6] 14. In view of the detailed discussion and reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the present Regular Second Appeal insofar as the findings on facts and en*tlement of the respondent– plain*ff are concerned. The concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on proper apprecia*on of evidence and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference in exercise of jurisdic*on under Sec*on 100 CPC. No substan*al ques*on of law arises for considera*on. 15. However, this Court finds merit in the limited aspect rela*ng to the rate of future interest, as discussed above. Accordingly, while affirming the decree passed by the Courts below on all other counts, the rate of future interest is modified and reduced to 6% per annum from the date of decree *ll realiza*on. 16. Consequently, the present Regular Second Appeal stands dismissed with the aforesaid modifica*on in the rate of future interest. Decree be drawn accordingly. No order as to costs. 29.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.04.30 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document