IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :- 13.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement:-22.01.2026 Uploaded on:-23.01.2026 Shangara Singh … Appellant Versus Piara Singh ... Respondent ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Argued by :-

Mr. Naresh Dadwal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the respondent.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal (for short, ‘RSA’), assailing the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1994 rendered by the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.09.1992 passed by the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, stood reversed in appeal. The impugned appellate judgment, which unsettled the findings of the trial Court, has been challenged on the grounds of legal infirmity, misappreciation of evidence, and erroneous application of settled principles of law, thereby necessitating scrutiny under Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’).

2. Succinctly encapsulated, the appellant–plaintiff, Shangara Singh, instituted the present suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 09.11.1987 pertaining to agricultural land measuring 5 Kanals 9 Marlas. It was asserted that the defendant, being a co-sharer to the extent of half share in the suit property, had validly entered into the ₹

aforementioned agreement for a total sale consideration of 5,000/-, which stood fully paid to him on the date of execution of the agreement. The parties had mutually stipulated that, for the personal requirements of the defendant, the sale deed would be executed on or before 27.01.1988.

2.1. The plaintiff, in fulfilment of his contractual obligations, issued a notice dated 07.01.1988 calling upon the defendant to appear for execution and registration of the sale deed on 19.01.1988. However, the defendant failed to honour the notice. On the stipulated date, i.e., 27.01.1988, the plaintiff duly presented himself at the office of the Sub-Registrar along with the requisite funds and expenses, but the defendant again absented himself. The plaintiff once more visited the office of the Sub-Registrar on 03.02.1988, yet the defendant did not appear.

2.2. To place his readiness on record, the plaintiff swore an affidavit evidencing his presence before the Sub-Registrar and also dispatched a telegram to the defendant requiring him to execute the sale deed, but all such efforts proved futile. The plaintiff has consistently pleaded and established that he was, and continues to be, ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.

3. In a pointed and categorical rebuttal, the defendant entered contest by repudiating, at the very outset, the very foundation of the plaintiff’s claim, asserting that no agreement to sell was ever executed between the parties and that no sale consideration ever exchanged hands. The defendant maintained that, on 08.11.1987, he along with his daughter was present at the Haryana bus stand awaiting a bus to Amritsar, the place of his posting in the Railways. At that moment, according to him, the plaintiff, accompanied by certain police personnel, allegedly arrived in a police jeep and forcibly took him to Police Station Haryana. It is further his plea that at about 11:00 p.m., one ASI Ram Swaroop, purportedly acting at the behest of the plaintiff, subjected him to severe physical assault. The defendant asserts that under duress, and in the presence of the plaintiff, Narinder Singh (Lambardar), Diwan Singh, and Santokh Singh, he was compelled to affix his signatures on certain documents which, as later disclosed, pertained to the suit property and were engineered to create an appearance of an agreement in favour of the plaintiff. He avers that despite making representations and submitting complaints to the higher authorities regarding the alleged coercion and maltreatment, no remedial action w