IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27.01.2026 Hardev Singh alias Gurdev Singh (deceased)

through his LRs and another ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Naresh Kumar and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sarbjit Singh Khaira, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. D.S.Bainola, Advocate for respondent No.4.

Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.5.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Defendants No.1 and 2 are in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 04.04.2002, has been decreed by both the Courts below for specific performance.

2. The facts as pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint are that the suit land measuring 12K-6M was previously in the ownership of one Kartar Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein, who had executed an Agreement to Sell dated 04.04.2002 in favour of the plaintiff for total sale of Rs.4,50,000/-. Kartar Singh had died and his estate was mutated in favour of defendants No.1 t o 3. Avtar Singh /defendant No.3-son of late Kartar Singh, had received an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- as earnest money. The date of execution of Sale Deed was set for on or before 03.04.2003. It was pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff had duly remained present before the Sub Registrar Mukerian on 03.04.2003. However, none had appeared on behalf of the defendants. Plaintiff had served a legal notice dated 10.10.2003 for execution of Sale Deed but defendants did not do the needful. As such, present suit was filed on 15.01.2004.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mukerian had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated

04.11.2011, in the following terms: -

“20. In view of my findings on various issues, suit of plaintiff is decreed with costs to the effect that he is entitled to possession by way of specific performance by execution of sale deed on deposit of balance sale consideration of Rs.

1,30,000/- within one month of the passing of decree.

Further defendant no. 1 is directed to get sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff within two months on deposit of balance sale consideration, failing which the plaintiff would have liberty to get sale deed executed through process of court. Further, it is also made clear that defendant no. 6 bank with whom suit property has been mortgaged, would have first charge over the balance sale consideration/suit property for recovery of loan amount. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly and file be consigned to record room.”

4. Against the above, the Defendants No.1 and 2 had preferred Civil Appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2008. Hence, the present second appeal by defendants No.1 and 2.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 that the learned Courts below were in error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as they failed to appreciate that in actual fact, plaintiff was a money lender. Father of the defendants was in dire need of money and he approached the plaintiff and requested him to give Rs.50,000/- at which time plaintiff had taken signatures of Kartar Singh and his family members on stamp papers, which were subsequently misused by him to forge the present fraudulent Agreement to Sell. It is submitted that in actual fact, the appellants had also returned an amount of Rs.40,000/- out of the borrowed sum of Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff in the presence of witness, namely Darshan Singh. It is contended that the plaintiff in his cross-examination has admitted that he was money lender as plaintiff has stated that he has 4-5 cases of the same nature against him in different villages. Even the Deed Writer has admitted in his cross- examination