Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 5088
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Pankaj Jain, J
Naib Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sarabjot Singh – Respondent
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Anil Kumar Garg
For the Respondents: Mr. Sunny K. Singla
The execution of an agreement to sell must be valid, and alterations without consent undermine its enforceability.
Headnote:The court considered an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC regarding the introduction of new evidence in a case of specific performance of contract. The key facts involved a disputed agreement to sell land, with claims of fraud and forgery by the defendant. The court found that both lower courts had identified alterations in the agreement, but the appellate court's conclusions were not supported by sufficient evidence or consent of parties. The court ultimately restored the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for specific performance, emphasizing the necessity for valid execution. The result was that the appeal was accepted and the trial court's ruling reinstated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of contract based on executed agreements. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. need for clear and consensual alterations in agreements. (Para 4 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. suspicious circumstances surrounding document execution. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. defense against fraud and forger is insufficient without solid evidence. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. final acceptance of appeal restores trial court judgment. (Para 13 , 16) |
PANKAJ JAIN, J (ORAL)
CM-14957-C-2019 This is an application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for placing on record statement of appellant-Naib Singh in execution application titled as “Sarabjot Singh Vs. Naib Singh”
bearing No. EX-106-T of 08.07.2014 as Annexure R-1 (Colly). For the reasons mentioned in the application as well as no objection by opposite counsel, same is allowed and the accompanied document Annexure R-1 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Main Case
1. Defendant is in second appeal aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the First Instance accepting the appeal filed by the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff filed suit seeking decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23.12.2002. As per plaintiff, agreement to sell executed in his favor by the defendant qua the land measuring 5½ Killas i.e. 44 Kanals as detailed out in the headnote of the plaint.
3. As per the plaintiff, defendant agreed to sell suit land in his favour for valuable consideration of Rs.16,50,000/- and received earnest money of Rs.8,00,000/- on 23.12.2002. Agreement to sell was reduced into writing. The parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 22.11.2005. Plaintiff claims that he remained present in the office of Sub- Registrar on the agreed date, but the defendant failed to execute the sale deed. Plaintiff issued legal notice dated 23.01.2007 through his counsel calling upon defendant to execute the sale deed. Despite having received the same, defendant remained inert. Plaintiff claims that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and is entitled for decree of specific performance. Suit was instituted on
09.04.2014.
4. Suit was contested by the defendant. Execution of agreement to sell was denied. Defendant claims that he is small farmer who used to sell his crops on the shop of M/s Bhupender Singh Sewa Singh commission agent. Plaintiff is a partner in the said firm. Agreement to sell is a result of fraud and forgery. The attesting witness are related to the plaintiff. Karnail Singh one of the attesting witnesses happens to be brother-in-law of plaintiff. Defendant claims that the value of land being more than Rs.20 lacs per acre, there was no reason for the defendant to agree to sell the same at a meagre rate of Rs.3 lacs per acre.
5. Suit was put to trial by the Court of First Instance framing following issues:-
“ 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for specific performance to sell dated 23.12.2002 regarding the suit property?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP.”
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable ?OPD
5. Whether no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff to file the present suit?OPD
6. Relief”
6. Plaintiff in order to prove the execution of agreement to sell examined attesting witnesses. The Court of the First Instance while recording finding on issue No.1 held that the agreement to sell propounded by the plaintiff was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. There were interpretations and manipulations in the document which can be seen with naked eyes. Date with respect to execution of the agreement to sell has been interpolated by erasing computer typed digit and replacing the same with digits typed with manual typewriter. The Court of the first instance found that the plaintiff failed to dispel su
