1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:11.02.2026 Roshan Lal and Another ...Appellants Versus Surjit Singh and Another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate and Ms. Bhumija Gupta, Advocate for appellants.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Appellants-plaintiffs are aggrieved by impugned judgment and decree dated 27.11.2025 passed by District Judge, Pathankot vide which appeal preferred by respondents-defendants against judgment and decree dated 27.02.2020 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) decreeing suit for specific performance of agreement dated 19.02.2015, was set aside and partial relief allowing refund of earnest money with 6% interest per annum was granted.

2. Simple case of appellants-plaintiffs was that they had agreed to purchase property i.e. land measuring 19 kanals 05 marlas owned by respondents-defendants vide an agreement to sell dated 19.02.2015, wherein total consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- was agreed to be paid by appellants- plaintiffs. Rs.12,00,000/- were paid as earnest money and remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. Last date fixed for execution of sale deed was settled as 31.12.2015.

3. On the other hand, respondents-defendants, though admitted having signed the agreement, but stated that the agreement was never entered with intention to sell the property rather was entered as a security towards loan of Rs.10,00,000/- which they had taken from appellants-

plaintiffs.

4. After appreciation of evidence, Court of First Instance had decreed the suit of appellants-plaintiffs for specific performance. On appeal by respondents-defendants, First Appellate Court accepted the defence taken by respondents-defendants and had reversed the findings of learned Court of First Instance by holding that the agreement was in fact a security document for securing repayment of loan taken by respondents-defendants and accordingly judgment and decree passed by Court of First Instance was modified. Appellants-plaintiffs were found entitled to recover the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- paid as earnest money under the agreement along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of suit till realization.

5. Learned counsel for appellants-plaintiffs has argued that learned First Appellate Court has erred in concluding that agreement was a security document as learned Court of First Instance had accepted the agreement after due reasoning and therefore the judgment and decree passed by learned Court of First Instance ought to have been affirmed.

6. In present case as far as execution of agreement to sell is concerned, same is not disputed. The simple case of respondents-defendants is that appellants-plaintiffs got the agreement signed to secure loan of Rs.10,00,000/- advanced by appellants-plaintiffs to them and for this reason, the consideration was shown half the price of market value in agreement and was only a security document alone. These assertions made by respondents-

defendants have been accepted by learned First Appellate Court.

7. Learned First Appellate Court has duly considered that appellants-plaintiffs’ witness namely Baldev, who appeared as PW-2 stated to be one of the attesting witness of the agreement, has accepted that the market value of the suit land was around Rs.25,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/- per acre at the time of agreement, whereas land in dispute is more than 02 acres i.e. 19 kanals 03 marlas having dairy farm over it.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for appellants-plaintiffs has referred to the valuation done by the Bank which shows valuation of land to be Rs.25,00,000/-. However, on consideration, I find that said valuation was done in the year 2010 when the loan was advanced, whereas present agreement was entered between the parties in 2015. There is no rebuttal to the assertions made by PW-2 that market value of the suit property is around Rs.25,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/- per acre at the time of agreemen