IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:22.01.2026 Dalip Singh ...Appellant Versus Balbir Singh (since deceased) through legal representatives ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Arjun Dhaliwal, Advocate for appellant.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Present appeal has been preferred by appellant-plaintiff being aggrieved by impugned judgment and decree dated 04.12.1991 passed by learned Sub Judge First Class, Firozepur and judgment and decree dated 03.01.1995 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Firozepur vide which suit for specific performance preferred by appellant-plaintiff as well as first appeal were dismissed.

2. Vide suit for specific performance, plaintiff had sought specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.06.1988 regarding land measuring 8 kanals fully described in the plaint. It was the case of appellant-plaintiff that the total consideration was agreed upon at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per acre against that Rs.5000/- was paid as advance to the respondent-defendant at the time of execution of agreement to sell. The respondent-defendant had agreed to execute sale deed within eight months. On last date for execution of sale deed, appellant-plaintiff had duly requested respondent-defendant to remain present before the Office of Sub-Registrar, Dharmokot but respondent-defendant gave evasive reply and had failed to come present to execute sale deed. Appellant-plaintiff had duly moved an application to mark his presence which was fixed for 28.02.1989. Appellant-Plaintiff again went to office of Sub-Registrar but none came present for respondent-defendant and accordingly his presence was duly marked. Appellant-plaintiff had served a legal notice dated 12.04.1990 upon respondent-defendant, however, no reply was given. Accordingly, appellant-plaintiff had sought specific performance of agreement dated 27.06.1988 and prayed that in alternative he be awarded Rs.16,000/- as damages and compensation.

3. On notice, suit was contested by respondent-defendant by filing written statement while taking number of preliminary objections. It was asserted that suit for specific performance is not maintainable. Respondent- defendant had denied the execution of agreement to sell and its contents. It was pleaded that appellant-plaintiff had taken benefit of his illiteracy and accordingly when he had taken loan of Rs.5000/- from appellant-plaintiff, who is a money-lender at that time in the garb of creating security for loan, appellant-plaintiff prepared agreement to sell by misrepresenting the document as a pronote for repayment of Rs.5000/- with interest at the rate 20% per annum. It is asserted that appellant-plaintiff has committed a fraud upon respondent-defendant. It was further claimed that suit property was worth Rs.60,000/- per acre, in 1988, therefore, could not have been sold for Rs.16,000/- and accordingly dismissal of suit was prayed for.

4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, learned Court of first instance framed the following issues:

i) Whether the defendant executed agreement to sell dated

27.06.1988 in favour of plaintiff in respect of the suit land?OPP ii) Whether the plaintiff paid Rs.5000/- as earnest money at the time of executions of the agreement dated 27.06.1988 to the defendant?OPP iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement to sell?OPP iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to alternative relief for the recovery of Rs.16,000/- as damages and compensation?OPP v) Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?OPP vi) Whether the suit is not maintainable the plaintiff being big land lord?OPD vii) Whether the suit for mere specific performance of the agreement is not maintainable?OPD viii) Whether the agreement in question is the result of fraud as alleged?OPD ix) Whether the suit land is coparcenary property? If so, its effect? OPD x) Relief.

Onus to prove due execution o