IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.89/2025 Date of Decision: 12th November, 2025.

Mohar Singh .....Appellant Versus .

Purshotam Lal …..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

W hether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tamana Sharma, Advocate.

F or the Respondent: N emo.t Bipin Chander Negri, Judge (oral).

The appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment Cand decree dated 28.02.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, HP in Civil Appeal Noh.25 of 2023, affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.05.2023, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, HP, in Civil Suit No.311 of 2018.

H2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referred before learned trial Court. The facts material and relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the defendant, who is the owner in possession of the suit land, entered into an agreement to sell the said land to the plaintiff for a total consideration of ₹ 2,00,000/-. This agreement was executed on 13.04.2015 in the presence of

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

witnesses. On the day of the agreement, a sum of ₹ 1,80,000/-

was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in cash as eaPrnest money, which was duly acknowledged by the defendant. The remaining balance of ₹ 20,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of the execution and registration of the sale deed, which was scheduled to take place in October 2015. In the beginning of October 2015, the plaintiff expressed his readiness and willingness to perform his obligattions under the agreement and informed the defendant at the end of the month.

3. On the appointed day, the plaintiff remained present at the Tehsil Complex in Kullu from 10:00 AM to 05:00 PM with the remaining sale consideration and other incidental charges, but the defendant failed to appear. The plaintiff subsequently swore an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate in Kullu regarding gthis event. Despite repeated requests from the plaintiff, the defendant made excuses and failed to execute the sale deed. A legal notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on 18.09.2017, calling upon him to perform his part of the agreement, but it yielded no result. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant never intended to perform his part and that the plaintiff remains ready and willing. The cause of action is stated to have lastly arisen on 02.10.2018 when the defendant completely refused to execute the sale deed, leading to the filing of the suit for specific performance.

4. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections regardingP the maintainability of the suit, suppression of material facts, lack of locus standi of the plaintiff, and that the documents were forged and fictitious. On merits, the defendant denied the averments of the plaint. The defendant claimed that in August 2014, he had borrowed a sum of ₹ 60,000/- from the plaintiff for a period of four months. At that time, the tplaintiff took a blank cheque, a blank stamp paper, and other judicial papers duly signed by the defendant as security, with an assurance to return them upon repayment.

5. The defendant alleged that he repaid the borrowed amount within four months and asked for the return of the blank documents, but the plaintiff made excuses that they had gbeen misplaced. The defendant categorically denied having executed any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff and asserted that the document was forged. Consequently, he argued that no cause of action ever accrued in favour of the plaintiff and prayed for the dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff filed a replication, denying the averments in the written statement