##PAGE1##

119

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA-2621-2022 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 04.02.2026

JAGTAR SINGH .... Appellant

VERSUS

AMRIK SINGH .... Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present : Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the

plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2016

passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2022

passed by the First Appellate Court.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

appellant herein filed the present suit for possession by way of specific

performance of agreement to sell dated 14.12.2004. It was the stand taken in

the plaint that the defendant-respondent was owner in possession of land

measuring 8 Kanal 0 Marla situated at Raikot as fully described in the plaint.

It was the case that the defendant-respondent had received full and final

consideration in cash on 14.12.2004 i.e. ₹3,00,000 and he undertook to get the

sale deed registered on or before 13.12.2006 i.e. after a period of two years. It

was agreed that in case the defendant-respondent does not get the sale deed

executed, the plaintiff-appellant would be at liberty to avail his remedies

AMAN JAIN

2026.02.05 09:21

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgment

RSA-2621-2022 (O&M) -2-

through the process of law or recover damages. It was the case set up that the

plaintiff-appellant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It

was further the stand taken that a legal notice was issued by the plaintiff-

appellant on 11.08.2007 asking the defendant-respondent to come forward to

execute the sale deed till 27.08.2007 however again the defendant-respondent

did not show up. Hence, the present suit.

3. On notice the defendant-respondent appeared and filed his

written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits it was the

stand taken that the plaintiff-appellant had filed the suit on the basis of a false

and fabricated agreement which had been prepared with the help of marginal

witnesses and scribe. It was further the case that value of the suit land was

more than ₹8,00,000 per acre in the year 2004 so the question of selling the

same at ₹3,00,000 did not arise.

4. Replication was filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties

the following issues were framed :

1. Whether defendant executed an agreement to sell

dated 14.12.2004 in favour of the plaintiff and received

full and final payment from the plaintiff as earnest money

? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform

his part of contract ? OPP

3. If issues no.1 and 2 are proved, whether the plaintiff

is entitled to decree for possession of the suit land by way

AMAN JAIN

2026.02.05 09:21

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this

order/judgment

RSA-2621-2022 (O&M) -3-

of specific performance of agreement to sell dated

14.12.2004 ? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus-standi to file

the present suit ? OPD

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD

6. Whether the agreement in question is result of fraud

and misrepresentation ? OPD

7. Relief.

5. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2016

dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the

plaintiff-appellant which appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate

Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.09.2022. Hence, the present regular

second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that

the plaintiff-appellant had examined a handwriting expert PW5 Dr. Vikram

Raj Singh, to prove the genuineness of the agreement to sell and that no expert

witness was examined by the defendant-respondent. It is further the

contention of the learned counsel that the plaintiff-appellant had proved the

agreement to sell by way of cogent evidence as the marginal witness had also

been examined. Learned counsel would further contend that even a legal

no