IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1534-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision: 25.08.2025 Rajesh Kumar ...Appellant Versus Sangeeta Devi ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjay Mi,al, Advocate for the appellant.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. Defendant of the case is before this Court against concurrent findings of the Courts below.

2. As the perusal of the paper book would reveal that a suit for specific performance regarding the property in dispute was filed by respondent-plain4ff-Smt. Sangeeta Devi, based upon on agreement to sell dated 21.01.2008 executed by Rajesh Kumar (appellant herein) in her favour. The suit was decreed on 30.08.2016 by Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narnaul. The said judgment was upheld by the First Appellate Court on 06.09.2022, thus, dismissing the appeal of the defendant appellant.

3. Assailing the concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that as per the agreement, total sale considera4on was Rs.12,50,000/- and that an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was given as earnest money. Learned counsel submits that defendant did not receive an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- through cheque No.286851 dated 09.12.2007 as this cheque was subject ma,er of another agreement to sell executed between husband of the plain4ff and father of the defendant. It is also contended that agreement to sell dated 21.01.2008 is subsequent to the cheque dated 09.12.2007 and so it cannot be considered to be a part of earnest money pertaining to the present transac4on.

4. ABer hearing learned counsel at considerable length, this Court does not find merit in the conten4on.

5. The aforesaid conten4on was raised before the First Appellate Court and while rejec4ng the same, it was observed as under:- “14. Exh.PI is the agreement to sell dated 21.01.2008 which had been executed between the plain(cid:31)ff and defendant in rela(cid:31)on to suit property. A bare glance at the recitals of said agreement in ques(cid:31)on reveal that it has been specifically men(cid:31)oned therein that Rs.6,50,000/- were being paid by the plain(cid:31)ff to the defendant in cash and an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which had already been paid to the defendant by the plain(cid:31)ff, was to be adjusted/set off as against earnest money out of total sale considera(cid:31)on of Rs. 12,50,000/-. It has also been specifically men(cid:31)oned therein that a.er this payment in cash and through cheque towards earnest money, the liability of plain(cid:31)ff under agreement in ques(cid:31)on was limited to the extent of remaining balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- only which she was to pay to the plain(cid:31)ff on the day of execu(cid:31)on and registra(cid:31)on of sale deed. It has also been specifically men(cid:31)oned therein that this agreement was being scribed and dra.ed at the instance of both the par(cid:31)es to agreement in ques(cid:31)on and that contents thereof had been read over and explained to both the par(cid:31)es to agreement in ques(cid:31)on who admi/ed the same to be correct as per their instruc(cid:31)ons. PW-1, the scribe of agreement in ques(cid:31)on, had also tes(cid:31)fied on oath that he had read over and explained the recitals of agreement in ques(cid:31)on to both the par(cid:31)es who admi/ed the same to be correct and only a.er understanding and admi1ng the correctness thereof, they had affixed their signatures thereon. He also tes(cid:31)fied that the a/es(cid:31)ng witnesses also affixed their signatures/thumb impression a.er understanding and admi1ng the correctness of contents of agreement in ques(cid:31)on and even father of defendant was present who had also signed his consent to the contents thereof. He also tes(cid:31)fied that under agreement in ques(cid:31)on, it was agreed upon by the par(cid:31)es to the agreement that only Rs.1,00,000/- remained to be paid on the date of execu(cid:31)on/registra(cid:31)on of sale deed. The scribe PW-1 tendered in evidence copy