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

Date of Decision.:07.11.2025 Mulakh Raj …..Appellant Vs.

Neelam Rani .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The present Regular Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by Neelam Rani (plain(cid:12)ff-respondent) for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.03.2012, with consequen*al relief of injunc*on, has been decreed by the trial Court on 03.05.2018, and the first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant on

08.09.2025.

2. The par*es are real sister and brother. The suit property, Plot No.171, was jointly owned by defendant Mulakh Raj, and Charanjeet Lal, husband of the plain*ff, in equal shares.

3. Plain*ff’s case is that the defendant agreed to sell his half share to her for ₹5,50,000/- vide agreement to sell dated 15.03.2012, received full sale considera*on, and handed over possession. It was agreed that the sale deed would be executed upon 30 days’ prior no*ce. Plain*ff sent such no*ce on 18.05.2016, calling upon defendant to appear before the Sub-Registrar on 21.07.2016, and marked her presence there. However, defendant failed to appear. Claiming readiness and willingness, and alleging threat of aliena*on, she ins*tuted the suit.

4. The defendant denied execu*on, asser*ng that his signatures had been taken on blank stamp papers by the plain*ff and her husband on the pretext of muta*on. He alleged fraud and denied receiving considera*on.

5. The trial Court, on apprecia*on of evidence, held that the agreement was duly proved and the plain*ff was ready and willing to perform her part. The first Appellate Court, upon re-appraisal, affirmed those findings, holding that the plea of fraud was unsubstan*ated and that execu*on and considera*on stood established.

6. Assailing the above concurrent findings, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant contends that:

(i) Plain*ff lacked financial capacity to pay ₹5,50,000/-;

(ii) Agreement was fabricated, and signatures were obtained fraudulently;

(iii) Execu*on of agreement was not proved as a?es*ng witnesses were not examined; and (iv) The unregistered agreement to sell could not confer right to specific performance.

7. Having heard counsel and examined the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal.

8. Defendant admits his signatures on the agreement (Ex.P1) but alleges fraud. His tes*mony, however, is uncorroborated. No complaint or contemporaneous ac*on was taken to challenge the alleged fraud. Once the signature on the document is admi?ed, the burden shiBs heavily upon the executant to establish fraud by cogent evidence. Mere asser*ons, unaccompanied by any suppor*ng witness or document, are insufficient.

9. The scribe (PW-6 Ankit Kumar) and the Notary Public (PW-3 Jai Singh, Advocate) both proved execu*on of the agreement. Their tes*mony, supported by register entries, affirms voluntary execu*on in the presence of the defendant. Hence, the plea of fraud stands disproved.

10. The law is se?led that an agreement to sell is not a document required by law to be a?ested, and therefore, non-examina*on of a?es*ng witnesses is immaterial. Reliance may be placed on:

(cid:1) Gurmail Singh v. Sukhdev Singh, 2022 (3) PLR 351;

(cid:1) Alka Bose v. Parmatma Devi, (2009) 2 SCC 582;

(cid:1) Mir Singh v. M/s Puri Construc(cid:29)on (P) Ltd., 2004 (4) RCR (Civil) 267 (P&H).

These authori*es have consistently held that an agreement to sell may be proved like any other wri?en instrument under Sec*on 72 of the Evidence Act, and a?esta*on is not a statutory requirement.

11. The plea of fraud must be proved with the same degree of strictness as in criminal cases [Union of India v. Chaturbhai M. Patel & Co. 1976 CLJ 166; Santokh Singh v. Sukhwinder Singh, 2013 (1) PLR 209]. The defendant’s bare statement, unsupported by evidence, does not discharge t