Jasptreet Kaur v. Baldev Singh

IN T

Jaspreet Kaur Baldev Singh

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Ms

Mr

(thr MANDEEP PA

1.

defendant assai whereby the lea suit of the plain Additional Distr appeal filed by t Brief Facts

2.

is the owner in On 22.11.2017, along with all ri ₹3,00,000. Out THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Da

VERSUS

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Manish Kumar Singla, Advoca s. Bhoomika, Advocate for the ap r. Nitin Mittoo, Advocate for the rough Video Conferencing) -.-

ANNU, J. e present Regular Second Appe ling the concurrent findings re arned Additional Civil Judge (S ntiff vide judgment and decree rict Judge, Faridkot vide judgme the defendant and affirmed the d e case of the plaintiff, as pleaded possession of a house construct , the defendant entered into an ights attached thereto to the plain of the total amount, the defend

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-3096-2025 (O&M) ate of Decision : 27.10.2025

....Appellant

....Respondent DEEP PANNU ate and ppellant. respondent. eal has been filed by the appella ecorded by both the Courts bel Senior Division), Jaitu decreed dated 31.01.2023, and the learn ent dated 12.05.2025, dismissed decree of the trial court. d in the plaint, is that the defend ted on land measuring five mar n agreement to sell the said ho ntiff for a total sale consideration dant received ₹2,00,000 as earn

- ant– low ned dant rlas. ouse n of

money through India, Branch Ja executed and re possession of th plaintiff at the ti The plaintiff thu The plaintiff fur his part of the attended the o

20.11.2018, alo defendant failed Registrar, got h legal notice upo avail. Conseque agreement to s plaintiff also pr seeking a perm property.

3.

In illiterate and ru pleaded that th transaction but w stated that she h of her residentia cheque No. 488598 dated 22.11 aitu. It was agreed between the egistered in favour of the plaintif he house was stated in the agree ime of its execution, in fact, actu us claimed possession along with rther asserted that he remained e contract. He had arranged th ffice of the Sub-Registrar, Ja ng with the requisite funds and d to appear. The plaintiff mar is affidavit attested by the Exec on the defendant calling upon her ently, the suit for possession by ell dated 22.11.2017 was insti rayed for recovery of ₹3,00,000 manent injunction restraining th the written statement, the defen stic villager who knows only to he alleged agreement to sell w was executed only as security fo had borrowed a sum of ₹1,50,000 al house and agreed to pay ₹4,50

1.2017 drawn on the State Bank parties that the sale deed would ff on or before 20.11.2018. Thou ement to have been delivered to ual possession was not handed ov h the relief of specific performan ever ready and willing to perfo he balance sale consideration aitu, on the stipulated date, i d expenses for registration, but rked his presence before the S cutive Magistrate, and also serve r to execute the sale deed, but to way of specific performance of ituted, and in the alternative, along with future interest, besi he defendant from alienating ndant took the plea that she is o sign her name in Punjabi. It w was never intended to be a s or a loan transaction. The defend 0 from the plaintiff for construct 00 per month as interest. Accord

- k of d be ugh ver. nce. orm and i.e., Sub-ed a o no ides s an was sale dant tion

to her, two bla document relied securing the sai been repaid by t failed to return that the plainti husband, and th defendant also p inadequate as t question of selli

4.

Up

¶1pro

2.

22.

3.

¶4pla per OP

¶5inju ank signed cheques were also d upon by the plaintiff was mere id loan. It was further contended the defendant by raising funds f the security document and mis iff along with his family had hat the police had failed to tak pleaded that the alleged sale con the property was worth aroun ing the only residential house of on completion of pleadings, the Whether the defendant is th operty as prayed for? OPP Whether the defendant ente

11.2017 in favour of the plaintif Whether the plaintiff is ready agreement? OPP If issue No.1 to 3 are decided aintiff is entitled to claim the reli rformance of agreement to sell PP Whether the plaintiff is entit unction as prayed for? OPP

handed over as security, and ely a paper transaction executed d that the loan amount had alre from other sources, but the plain sused the same. It was also alle assaulted the defendant and ke action on their complaint. T nsideration of ₹3,00,000 was who nd ₹15,00,000, and there was the family for such a small sum. following issues were framed:- he owner in possession of the ered into agreement to sell da ff as prayed for? OPP y and willing to perform his par d in favour of plaintiff, whether ief of possession by way of spec l dated 22.11.2017 as prayed f led to claim the relief of perman

- for ady ntiff ged her olly

suit ated rt of cific for?

¶6in t

7.

¶8is o

¶9sec

¶10lac

¶11han

¶12not

13.

5.

Bot plaintiff examin dated 22.11.201 categorically sup into the witnes including an ac returned. Findings of the

6.

Aft plaintiff success Whether the plaintiff is entit the alternative along with interes Whether the suit is not maint Whether the defendant is illi only house of the defendant, if so Whether the agreement wa curity, if so, its effect? OPD

Whether the market value o s, if so, its effect? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has n nds? OPD

Whether the suit is not veri t affixed the property court fee? O

Relief. th sides led evidence in suppor ned himself as PW1 and produ 17 as Ex. P1, besides examin pported the execution of the doc s box along with her husband count statement (Ex. D1) to sup e trial Court ter considering the evidence, th sfully proved the execution of th

tled to claim the relief of recov st as prayed for? OPP tainable? OPD iterate villager and the suit prope o, its effect? OPD as executed for the purpose o of the suit property is about Rs not come to the Court with cl ified properly and the plaintiff OPD rt of their respective versions. T uced the original agreement to ing both marginal witnesses w cument. The defendant also stepp d and produced certain docume pport the plea that the amount w he learned trial court held that he agreement to sell (Ex. P1). B

- very erty of a s.15 lean has sell who ped ents was

attesting witness The defendant receipt of ₹2,00 was executed m evidence. The documentary pr repaid. The ac irrelevant, as it with the plainti claimed to have

7.

consideration c consideration to disbelieve a val only residential down by the H Ram and others an agreement exemption from residential hous Gurmit Singh a exists a written evidence canno transaction for s ses supported the plaintiff's case and her husband admitted their ,000 as earnest money through c merely as security for a loan was trial court observed that there roof to substantiate that the amo ccount entry (Ex.D1) relied u did not establish any connection ff's son, Sukhwinder Singh, to been made. e trial court further held th could not invalidate the con o save stamp duty was a comm lidly executed agreement. The property of the defendant was a on'ble Punjab and Haryana Hig s, 2018 (3) CCC 196, wherein it to sell is established, the ve m performance on the ground se. Reliance was also placed on and Another, 2003 (4) RCR (C agreement, it must be interpret t be introduced to vary its term securing a loan.

e and withstood cross-examinati r signatures on the agreement cheque. The plea that the docum found unsupported by any credi e was no independent witness ount was a loan or that it had b upon by the defendant was h n with the transaction in question whom the alleged repayment w hat the plea of inadequate s ntract, as undervaluation of s mon practice and not a ground contention that the house was also rejected in view of the law l gh Court in Rakesh Devi v. Sh was held that once the execution endor cannot subsequently cla d that the property was the s Gurbachan Singh and anothe Civil) 223, to hold that when th ted by its plain language, and o ms by alleging that it was a pa

- ion. and ment ible or een held n or was sale sale d to laid hish n of aim sole r v. here oral

8.

On the plaintiff had execution of th evidence (Exs. P with postal rece entitled to the

22.11.2017. Th recovery of ₹3,0 Findings of the

9.

Ag defendant filed dismissed on 12 concurred with t P1) had been va unsupported by readiness and w accordingly dism

10.

Hen appellant–defen Submissions of

11.

Lea that both the Co for specific perf that the impugn n the question of readiness and w d proved his presence before the e sale deed through his affidav P3 to P5). The service of notice eipts (Exs. P7 and P8) was duly p relief of specific performance he suit was decreed accordingl 00,000 was declined as redundan e first Appellate Court grieved by the said judgment an appeal before the learned Ad

2.05.2025. The first appellate c the findings of the trial court hol alidly executed, that the plea of y evidence, and that the pla willingness to perform his part missed, affirming the decree for nce, the present Regular Seco ndant challenging the concurrent f learned counsel for the appell arned counsel for the appellant– ourts below have erred in law an formance of the agreement to sel ned judgments suffer from mi

willingness, the trial court found t Sub-Registrar on the date fixed vit (Ex.P2) and other document e upon the defendant (Ex.P6) alo proved. Thus, the plaintiff was h e of the agreement to sell da ly, and the alternative prayer nt. and decree dated 31.01.2023, dditional District Judge, which w ourt, on a reappraisal of eviden lding that the agreement to sell ( f loan/security was an afterthou intiff had established continu t of the contract. The appeal w specific performance. ond Appeal has been filed by findings of the Courts below. lant –defendant has vehemently argu nd on facts while decreeing the ll dated 22.11.2017. It is conten isreading and non-appreciation

- that for tary ong held ated for was nce, (Ex. ught uous was ued suit ded

material eviden unsustainable in

12.

It i most crucial as servant in the h dominant positio her signatures o was that of emp by undue influen alleged sale con ₹15,00,000 at th agreement to s advanced for the

13.

Lea ignored the settl succeed on the w were to be ignor is argued that m and the plaintiff and convincing evidence regard capacity to pay t

14.

It i readiness and w nce on record, and that the fin n law. is submitted that the Courts be spect of the case that the appe house of the respondent–plaintif on, exploited the illiteracy and i on the impugned document. Th ployer and employee, and thus t nce and inequality of bargaining nsideration of ₹3,00,000 for a r he relevant time clearly establis ell but was executed only as e construction of the appellant's arned counsel further submits led principle that the plaintiff ha weakness of the defence. It is urg red, the plaintiff has miserably f mere exhibition of the document f was required to establish the ex g evidence. The plaintiff has f ding the payment of earnest mon the balance sale consideration. is further argued that the Cour willingness of the plaintiff to perf

ndings recorded are perverse elow have failed to appreciate ellant was working as a dome ff and that the plaintiff, being i ignorance of the appellant to obt he relationship between the par the alleged transaction was vitia g power. It is further argued that residential house worth more th shes that the document was not security for repayment of a l house. that both the Courts below h as to prove his own case and can ged that even if the defence vers failed to prove his own pleadings Ex. P1 does not prove its conten xecution of the document by cog failed to produce any independ ney, source of income, or finan rts below have erred in presum form his part of the contract with

- and stic in a tain rties ated han t an oan have nnot sion s. It nts, gent dent cial ming

any proof. Lea declaration of i consideration an been produced t intended to com that mere presen by itself, establi

15.

It discharge its du on the issues inv a cryptic and me evidence issue-w devoid of such a settled judicial Saraswathi & A that appellate C based on eviden

16.

Lea wrongly assume under the agree remained in con given is based o

17.

It i the plaint of the arned counsel contends that re intent but includes proof of fin nd actual conduct consistent wit to show that the plaintiff had su mplete the transaction. Reliance nce at the Sub-Registrar's office sh continuous readiness and will is also submitted that the low uty as the final court of fact by n volved and by merely endorsing echanical manner. The appellate wise and give reasoned finding analysis. The findings are compo norms as laid down by the Another v. B. Gopalakrishna N ourts must deal specifically with nce. arned counsel has further subm ed that possession of the prop ement Ex.P1, whereas it is an ad ntinuous possession of the hous on mere recitals in the document s next contended that the Courts respondent–plaintiff is not in co

eadiness does not merely mean ancial capacity to pay the bala th such intention. No evidence ufficient funds or that he genuin has been placed upon the princi e or filing of an affidavit does n lingness throughout. wer appellate court has failed not recording independent findi the conclusions of the trial cour e court was required to examine gs, but the impugned judgmen osite, non-speaking, and contrary e Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naidu & Others, where it was h h each issue and record conclusi mitted that the Courts below h erty was delivered to the plain dmitted fact that the defendant e. The finding that possession w without any supporting evidence s below have failed to consider t onformity with the prescribed Fo

- n a ance has nely iple not, d to ings rt in nt is y to G. held ons have ntiff has was e. that

No. 47 or 48 of the decree pass Section 20(2)(a discretionary rel the peculiar fac and inequitable consider the har were ordered, p house.

18.

It i misconstrued th drawn conclusio evaluation of th of non-considera

19.

In findings of the and that the su agreement to sel Submissions of

20.

Lea and perversity in he prays for dism

21.

I ha as well as the co f Appendix A of the Code of Ci sed suffers from procedural ir a) of the Specific Relief Act, lief and ought not to have been cts of this case, where the alleg . The Courts below, while exe rdship that would be caused to th particularly since the property i is further urged that the learne he evidence, failed to appreciat ons based on assumptions and c he record. The judgments, accord ation of relevant evidence and m view of the above submissions Courts below be set aside as b uit of the plaintiff–respondent ll be dismissed. f learned counsel for the respon arned counsel for the responden n the judgments and decrees pas missal of the present regular seco ave heard the learned counsel fo oncurrent findings recorded by b

ivil Procedure, 1908 and therefo rregularity. It is urged that un 1963, specific performance i granted in favour of the plaintif ged transaction was unconsciona ercising discretion, were bound he appellant if specific performa in question is her only residen d Courts below have misread te the same as a whole, and h conjectures rather than on a pro ding to learned counsel, are a re misapplication of the law. s, it is prayed that the concurr being perverse and contrary to l t for specific performance of ndent nt submits that there is no illega ssed by the Courts below, therefo ond appeal. or the parties and perused the rec oth the Courts below.

- ore, nder s a ff in able d to ance ntial and have oper sult rent aw, ality ore,

22.

proved on recor the plaintiff and signatures of the sale of the house has remained c herself, as wel agreement and t the State Bank scrutiny of the o of the agreemen burden of provin

23.

domestic servan advantage of his sell, is an afterth Second Appeal. before the trial c Both the Court deposition or in or that the execu was in fact a pa the defendant is or surrounding e execution of the agreement to rd. Both the marginal witnesses t d they categorically supported th e defendant and affirming that t e in question for a total consider onsistent and unshaken during ll as her husband, have admi the receipt of ₹2,00,000 as earne k of India, Jaitu Branch. Both oral and documentary evidence, nt to sell is fully established and ng his case. e contention now raised by the a nt in the house of the plaintiff a s dominating position, procured hought and has been raised for t . There is neither any such plea court nor any evidence led durin ts below have not found even that of her witnesses that such a ution was obtained by undue infl aper transaction executed merely s also without any foundation in circumstance has been brought

o sell dated 22.11.2017 stands d to the agreement were examined he case of execution, identifying the transaction was entered into ration of ₹3,00,000. Their testimo cross-examination. The defend itted their signatures on the s est money through cheque drawn the Courts below, upon detai have rightly held that the execut that the plaintiff has discharged appellant that she was working a and that the plaintiff, taking un her signatures on the agreemen the first time in the present Regu ading in the written statement fi ng the trial to substantiate this p n a suggestion in the defendan a relationship of dominance exis fluence. The plea that the agreem y as security for a loan advanced n the record. No document, witne t on record to show that any su

- duly d by for ony dant said n on iled tion as a due nt to ular filed lea. nt's sted ment d to ess,

loan was advanc the evidence c agreement and encashed.

24.

agreement was relied upon by t manner. There i the money adva witness or do acknowledgmen findings of both

25.

As also stands con pleaded and pro contract. He had date, i.e., 20.11 expenses for re attested by the defendant, callin been duly exhib that this evide maintained read ced or that the document was int conclusively shows that the de accepted the earnest money e plea that the defendant had re misused is equally baseless. Th the defendant does not connect t is no evidence to show that the s anced under the agreement. The ocument showing that the nt from the plaintiff regarding h Courts below rejecting this cont regards the requirement of rea nclusively established on reco oved that he was always ready an d attended the office of the Sub

1.2018, along with the balance egistration. His presence was du Executive Magistrate. Legal ng upon her to execute the sal bited on record as Exs. P2 to P8. ence conclusively establishes diness and willingness to perform

tended as security. On the contra efendant voluntarily executed through cheque, which she la epaid the alleged loan and that he alleged account entry (Ex. D to the plaintiff or his family in said entry pertained to repaymen e defence has failed to produce money was returned, nor the alleged repayment. Thus, tention are perfectly justified. adiness and willingness, the sa ord. The plaintiff has specifica nd willing to perform his part of b-Registrar, Jaitu, on the stipula e sale consideration and requi uly marked, and his affidavit w notice was also served upon le deed. All these documents h The Courts below have rightly h that the plaintiff continuou m his contractual obligation.

- ary, ater D1) any nt of any any ame ally f the ated site was have held

26.

sufficient financ evidence. The l producing cash evidence show correctly applie favour of the pla

27.

obtained and mi has been proved forgery. The p defendant's ow plaintiff, which both the Courts

28.

It i main relief of s money. Once th and continuous plaintiff becom alternative relie inequitable or im the house is he defence against others, 2018 (3) e contention of the appellant cial means to pay the balance co aw does not require the plaintif in hand or a bank statement; genuine intent and capacity to ed this settled principle while aintiff. e argument that blank signed isused by the plaintiff is also dev d to have been filed by the defend plea appears to be an aftertho wn admission that she received h she encashed. Hence, this con below. s further noted that both the Cou specific performance and not th he execution of the agreement t readiness and willingness of mes entitled to the enforcement ef for recovery arises only i mpracticable, which is not the c er only residential property doe specific performance, as settled ) CCC 196.

t that the plaintiff did not h onsideration is not supported by ff to prove availability of funds it is sufficient if his conduct perform. Both Courts below h recording a concurrent finding d cheques of the defendant w void of merit. No complaint or F dant at any stage alleging misuse ought and is contradicted by d ₹2,00,000 by cheque from ntention stands rightly repelled urts below have rightly granted he alternative relief of recovery to sell, payment of earnest mon f the plaintiff are established, of the contract. The grant of if specific performance is fou case here. The defendant's plea t es not, by itself, constitute a va d in Rakesh Devi v. Sh. Ram a

- have any s by and have g in were FIR e or by y of ney, f an und that alid

Conclusion

29.

Hav that the findin appreciation of less any substan

30.

Con dismissed in lim interference by Courts below ar

31.

Pen

October 27, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh ving considered the entire recor ngs recorded by both the Cou evidence and correct application ntial question of law, arises for de nsequently, finding no merit in mine, as no arguable points h this Court. The concurrent jud re well reasoned, based on eviden nding application(s), if any, also

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

d and submissions, this Court fi urts below are based on pro n of law. No question of law, mu etermination in the present appea n the present appeal, the same have been raised so as to warr dgments and decrees passed by nce and do not call for interferen stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

- inds oper uch al. e is rant