IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.01.2026 Roopa Mehra @ Rukmani ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Shyam Bhardwaj ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the respondent.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Defendant is in Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for specific performance, has been decreed by the First Appellate Court for specific performance.

2. The pleaded case of the plaintiff/respondent is that the defendant, being owner in possession of the suit house had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 21.11.2005 with the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.2 lacs. At the time of execution of agreement, the plaintiff alleged to have paid ₹10,000/– to the defendant in cash as earnest amount. A further payment of ₹40,000 in cash and ₹1,00,000 is alleged to have been made to the defendant at time of execution of subsequent Agreement to Sell on 16.12.2005. In this manner, the plaintiff had paid earnest money of Rs.1,50,000/- in separate instalments. Target date for execution of Sale Deed was set for 26.02.2006. It is pleaded that as 26.02.2006 was a Sunday and office of Sub Registrar was closed, therefore, plaintiff had appeared before Sub Registrar on 24.02.2006 and 27.02.2006 but the defendant had failed to appear and execute the Sale Deed. It was alleged that defendant is threatening to alienate the property in favour of some other person. As such, present suit for possession and specific performance of the Agreement dated 21.11.2005, was filed on

07.03.2006.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 18.09.2006:-

“1. Whether defendant executed agreement of sale dated 21.11.05 in favour of plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and received Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money on the same day? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform its part of agreement? OPP.

3. If above issues proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance with consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.

4. Whether the agreement is result of fraud and misrepresentation? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?

OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act, conduct to file the present suit? OPD.

8. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected u/o7 rule 11 CPC? OPD.

9. Relief.”

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon had partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.50,000/- with interest vide judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010. However, Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the above said judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon; and vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011, suit of the plaintiff was decreed in entirety for possession by way of specific performance. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant.

5. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that since the beginning the appellant has categorically denied the alleged Agreements to Sell dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005. It is submitted that appellant is an illiterate housewife; whereas the plaintiff is her neighbour and is a property dealer. The appellant being a poor lady was in need of some money and had borrowed some amounts from the plaintiff; at which time, the Plaintiff had obtained signatures/thumb impressions of the appellant on some blank papers; which had been misused by the respondent to fabricate and forge the fraudulent Agreement to Sell. The impugned judgment has been passed while ignoring that in this regard, an F.I.R. was lodged by the appellant against the respondent at Police Sta