IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.:19.09.2025 Narender …..Appellant Vs.

Shyam Sunder and Another .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. G.S. Sawhney, Advocate for the appellant.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Defendant No.2 of the suit has preferred the present Regular Second Appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the suit for specific performance, declara’on with consequen’al relief of permanent and mandatory injunc’on filed by Shyam Sunder (respondent No.1 herein) against defendant No.1 Ranjeet Singh (respondent No.2 herein) and the present appellant–defendant No.2 was decreed by the trial Court on 27.02.2024, and the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 31.07.2025.

2. The case of the plain’ff is that defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit property to him vide agreement dated 14.06.2018 for a total considera’on of ₹22,00,000/- in the presence of witnesses Naveen Bahal and Pankaj Khurana. The en’re sale considera’on was paid, for which a separate receipt was executed on the same day in the presence of witnesses. The agreement was duly aested by the Notary Public and entered in his register. Defendant No.1 also handed over the original ’tle deed of the property to the plain’ff. At the ’me of execu’on, defendant No.1’s son and defendant No.2 were also present, though they did not sign the agreement. Subsequently, in October 2018, when the plain’ff requested execu’on of the sale deed, defendant No.1 refused. A legal no’ce dated 25.10.2018 yielded no response. Therea?er, the plain’ff discovered that defendant No.1 had executed a forged sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 08.08.2018, which according to him was a sham transac’on without considera’on. Accordingly, the plain’ff sought a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 14.06.2018 and a declara’on that the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 was null and void.

3. Defendant No.1, in his wrien statement, denied execu’on of the agreement, alleging fraud on the ground that the plain’ff had taken him to the Tehsil Office on the pretext of securing a loan by mortgaging his house. He denied receipt of any considera’on. Defendant No.2, while adop’ng a similar stand, further claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for valuable considera’on.

4. The trial Court, a?er framing issues and evalua’ng the evidence, decreed the suit for specific performance vide judgment dated 27.02.2024, direc’ng both defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plain’ff and restraining them from aliena’ng the property. The appeal preferred by defendant No.2 was dismissed, and thus, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed.

5. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Courts below failed to properly appreciate the evidence, as prior to the sale deed dated 08.08.2018, defendant No.1 had already executed an agreement to sell dated 15.02.2018 in favour of the appellant, which was ignored.

6. Having examined the record, I find no merit in the submissions of learned counsel.

7. Both Courts below have rightly held that the agreement to sell dated 14.06.2018 relied upon by the plain’ff stood duly proved by the tes’mony of both aes’ng witnesses, namely, Naveen Bahal (PW-5) and Pankaj Khurana (PW-6), and by PW-8 Smt. Lalita Rani, Advocate, the Notary Public, who confirmed the aesta’on. These witnesses also corroborated that defendant No.1 received the full sale considera’on of ₹22,00,000/- in their presence. Although defendant No.1 alleged fraud, the burden was on him to establish how such fraud was commied, par’cularly when he did not deny his signatures on the agreement. Significantly, defendant No.1 did not step into the witness box to substan’ate his plea. Accordingly, the agreement dated 14.06.2018 was rightly held to be proved.

8. Defendant No.2, though appeared as a witness, failed to establish his plea of being a bona fid