The admission of an agreement's execution shifts the burden of proof to the denying party, and failure to substantiate denial supports the validity of the agreement for specific performance.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.(Oral)

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 08.03.2019 and 06.03.2023, passed by the Courts below, whereby, suit for possession by way of specific performance filed at the instance of respondent-plaintiff based on an agreement to sell dated 24.07.2002, besides seeking relief of permanent injunction, stands decreed.

2. Briefly stating, based on an agreement to sell dated 24.07.2002, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance qua 07 marlas of land/house situated at Abadi Baggewali, Verka, Amritsar, while stating that though the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,70,000/- was paid to the appellants-defendants against delivery of possession, yet, sale deed could not be executed and now, the appellants were trying to interfere in his peaceful possession, hence, compelling the respondent-plaintiff to file the suit.

3. On the other hand, the suit was contested by filing a written statement while denying the execution of the alleged agreement and stating that the respondent-plaintiff was inducted as tenant over the property in question in the year 1999 and thus, was having no right to seek specific performance. It was also pleaded that on the previous occasion, the respondent-plaintiff filed civil suit for possession by way of specific performance based on this very agreement, which was dismissed in default vide order dated 22.08.2017, hence, the second suit was not maintainable. In addition, the plea of suit being barred by limitation was also raised.

4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.03.2019, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants-defendants filed first appeal, however, the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide judgement and decree dated 06.03.2023.

5. Impugning the aforementioned judgments and decrees, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Courts below went wrong while decreeing the suit, solely on the basis of admission made by Tarlok Singh (DW-1) in his cross-examination, regarding execution of the agreement (Ex.P-1). He further submits that the said witness could not understand the legal terminology and thus, one line admission would not have been taken against him as proof of the agreement in question, particularly, when the witnesses to the said agreement, besides its scribe were not examined by respondent-plaintiff. Learned counsel also submits that no evidence about the proof of payment of earnest money was produced on record. In support, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in " Chikkam Koteswara Rao v. Chikkam Subbarao and others", 1971 AIR (Supreme Court) 1542.

He further points out that the suit filed at the instance of respondent-plaintiff was barred by limitation. As per him, even if the execution of agreement to sell dated 24.07.2002 was taken to be valid, the suit was beyond limitation, having been filed on 20.09.2017. While relying upon judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah and others v. Anton Elis Farel" , 2006(2) Civil Court Cases 139 and "Ahmmadsahab Abdul Milla (dead) by proposed LRs. v. Bibijan and others" , 2009(2) RCR-788 , he submits that once no specific date of denial was mentioned in the plaint for the purpose of filing suit for specific performance, the suit could not have been decreed since the respondent-plaintiff was supposed to mention spec