Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
NIDHI GUPTA
Gurnek Singh – Appellant
Versus
Kamaljit Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below; whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for possession by way of specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 02.01.2006 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff of suit property measuring 1 Biswa i.e. 1.2/3 Marlas, has been decreed by both the Courts below; and it has been directed that defendant is given three months time to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff from the date of judgment, upon receipt of balance sale consideration failing which the plaintiff shall be at liberty to take the recourse of law; and defendant is restrained from alienating the suit property in favour of anyone else except the plaintiff.
2. Order sheets indicate that respondent was served and had put in appearance as far back as on 21.04.2014. However, on the last date of hearing i.e. 10.04.2023, parties were not represented. Office report shows that ld. Counsel for the respondent was duly notified, however none appears. As such, the matter being of such an old vintage, is being heard and decided in the absence of l
The burden of proof for fraud allegations lies with the defendants, and mere allegations without evidence do not invalidate an agreement for specific performance.
Registered documents are publicly known and a suit for declaration of fraud must be filed within the limitation period or it is barred; possession must be proven with cogent evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
