IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

RSA-3096-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 27.10.2025 Jaspreet Kaur ....Appellant VERSUS Baldev Singh ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate and Ms. Bhoomika, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Nitin Mittoo, Advocate for the respondent.

(through Video Conferencing)

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant– defendant assailing the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaitu decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.2023, and the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment dated 12.05.2025, dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant and affirmed the decree of the trial court.

Brief Facts

2. The case of the plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, is that the defendant is the owner in possession of a house constructed on land measuring five marlas. On 22.11.2017, the defendant entered into an agreement to sell the said house along with all rights attached thereto to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of ₹3,00,000. Out of the total amount, the defendant received ₹2,00,000 as earnest money through cheque No. 488598 dated 22.11.2017 drawn on the State Bank of India, Branch Jaitu. It was agreed between the parties that the sale deed would be executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff on or before 20.11.2018. Though possession of the house was stated in the agreement to have been delivered to the plaintiff at the time of its execution, in fact, actual possession was not handed over. The plaintiff thus claimed possession along with the relief of specific performance. The plaintiff further asserted that he remained ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He had arranged the balance sale consideration and attended the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jaitu, on the stipulated date, i.e., 20.11.2018, along with the requisite funds and expenses for registration, but the defendant failed to appear. The plaintiff marked his presence before the Sub- Registrar, got his affidavit attested by the Executive Magistrate, and also served a legal notice upon the defendant calling upon her to execute the sale deed, but to no avail. Consequently, the suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22.11.2017 was instituted, and in the alternative, the plaintiff also prayed for recovery of ₹3,00,000 along with future interest, besides seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property.

3. In the written statement, the defendant took the plea that she is an illiterate and rustic villager who knows only to sign her name in Punjabi. It was pleaded that the alleged agreement to sell was never intended to be a sale transaction but was executed only as security for a loan transaction. The defendant stated that she had borrowed a sum of ₹1,50,000 from the plaintiff for construction of her residential house and agreed to pay ₹4,500 per month as interest. According to her, two blank signed cheques were also handed over as security, and the document relied upon by the plaintiff was merely a paper transaction executed for securing the said loan. It was further contended that the loan amount had already been repaid by the defendant by raising funds from other sources, but the plaintiff failed to return the security document and misused the same. It was also alleged that the plaintiff along with his family had assaulted the defendant and her husband, and that the police had failed to take action on their complaint. The defendant also pleaded that the alleged sale consideration of ₹3,00,000 was wholly inadequate as the property was worth around ₹15,00,000, and there was no question of selling the only residential house of the family for such a small sum. 4. Upon completion of pleadings, the following