SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 4718

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SHIMBHU SINGH ALIAS SHIMBHU SINGH CHAUHAN AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
TEJBIR – Respondent



##PAGE1##

RSA-3387-2025 (O&M) - 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

221 RSA-3387-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 27.02.2026

Shimbhu Singh @ Shimbhu Singh Chauhan and others ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Tejbir ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate

for the appellants.

******

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants

against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District

Courts; whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for specific

performance of Agreement to Sell dated 04.02.2013, has been decreed by

both the District Courts for specific performance.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the defendants are owners in

possession of the suit property measuring 8K 19M. Vide the Agreement to

Sell dated 04.02.2013, the Appellants had agreed to sell the suit property

to the plaintiff @ Rs.19 lacs per acre i.e. for total sale consideration of

about Rs.22 lacs. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff had paid

earnest money of ₹20 lakhs in cash which had been received by Shri Vijay

Singh, on behalf of the appellants by way of earnest money. Target date

for execution of Sale Deed was set for 04.05.2013 or within 10 days from

the date of getÝng NOC from DTP by defendants. In case, the defendants

DIVYANSHI

2026.03.05 10:49

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE2##

RSA-3387-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

failed to get Sale Deed registered within the stipulated period, plaintiff

was given right to get Sale Deed executed and registered by filing specific

performance suit. It was averred in the suit that the plaintiff was always

ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had duly

appeared before the Sub Registrar on 03.05.2013 and 06.05.2013

alongwith balance sale consideration and got his AfÏdavits of Attendance

attested. However, the defendants had not turned up. Plaintiff had issued

registered Legal notice dated 10.07.2014 to the defendants and their

mother for execution and registration of Sale Deed. Plaintiff had gone to

the ofÏce of Sub Registrar even on 23.07.2014 but the defendants did not

turn up. With these pleadings, present suit was filed on 03.05.2016.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the

parties, vide judgment and decree dated 14.05.2019 the learned

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bawal had decreed the suit of the

plaintiff “to the effect that the defendants are directed to get the sale

deed executed to the extent of 7/24 share i.e. 8 Kanal 19 Marlas (suit

property) in favour of the plaintiff within the period of two months on the

payment of the balance sale consideration by the plaintiff.” The Civil

Appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the Additional District

Judge, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 14.08.2025. Hence,

present second appeal by the defendants.

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants

that the learned District Courts were in error in decreeing the suit of the

plaintiff as they failed to appreciate that the Agreement to Sell dated

DIVYANSHI

2026.03.05 10:49

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE3##

RSA-3387-2025 (O&M) - 3 -

04.02.2013 propounded by the plaintiff is in itself surrounded by

suspicious circumstances. It is submitted that in actual fact, the

Agreement to Sell dated 04.02.2013 was in respect of land measuring 14K

5 Sarsai yet plaintiff has filed the present suit only in respect of 18K 9M.

Moreover, defendants had categorically pleaded in the written statement

that not even single amount was paid by the plaintiff at the time of

alleged Agreement to Sell. This fact has not been appreciated by the

learned District Courts. It is submitted that in fact the signature of Sanwat

Singh, one of the vendors of Agreement to Sell, was forged and fabricated.

In actual fact, the plaintiff has fabricated the Agreement to Sell without

paying single penny to the defendants. Plaintiff has failed to prove

execution of the alleged Agreement coupled wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top