Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1995 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 137

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.1517 of 1995 (O&M)
X Obj No.4-C of 1996 (O&M) and
RSA No.1518 of 1995 (O&M)

Reserved on:02.04.2026
Pronounced on:08.04.2026
Uploaded on:09.04.2026

Gian Kaur and another ... Appellants
Versus
Surjit Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others ... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present: Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. C.S. Jattana, Advocate
for legal representatives of respondent No.1/cross-objector.
Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate and
Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 5 in RSA No.1517 of 1995 and
for respondents No.3 to 6 in RSA No.1518 of 1995.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.L. Saggar, Subhash Chander
For the Respondents: C.S. Jattana, Kanwal Goyal, Sheena Dahiya

Specific performance of an agreement to sell cannot be granted if the agreement is vague, lacks a clear description of the property, and is inconsistent with conduct, especially when a competing contract is supported by unambiguous evidence and admissions by the defendant.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Suit for specific performance - Certainty of property description - Requirement of - Held, an agreement to sell which is vague and lacks clear description of the property sought to be conveyed cannot be specifically enforced - Identity of property is an essential requirement for a decree of specific performance. (Para 14)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 91 - Performance of Contract - Admission by defendant in written statement - Where a defendant admits the claim of a plaintiff in a separate but consolidated suit, the court should decree the suit on the strength of such clear and unambiguous admission. (Para 15)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 33 - Powers of Appellate Court - Appellate court is the final court of facts - Reversal of trial court findings based on cogent and plausible reasons is sustainable unless perverse. (Para 15)

Facts of the case:
Two suits were filed for specific performance of different agreements to sell pertaining to the same property. The appellants (plaintiffs in the first suit) relied on an agreement dated 03.05.1987, while respondents (plaintiffs in the second suit) relied on an agreement dated 15.04.1987. The trial court decreed the first suit and dismissed the second. The first appellate court reversed these findings, leading to the present appeals.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court correctly found that the agreement set up by the appellants was vague due to lack of specific land details (Khasra numbers) and that the significant price disparity suggested inconsistency. Conversely, the agreement set up by the respondents was supported by an admission from the vendor and part-performance (execution of a sale deed for a portion of the land).

Issues: The main issues were the identification of the suit property, the enforceability of a vague agreement to sell, and the impact of the defendant's admission in a concurrent claim.

Ratio Decidendi: An agreement to sell cannot be specifically enforced if it is vague and fails to identify the subject property with certainty, especially when a competing agreement is backed by valid part-performance and clear admissions from the defendant.

Result: Appeals and cross-objections dismissed.

*****

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. This order of mine shall dispose of two appeals bearing RSA Nos.1517 and 1518 of 1995 as well as the cross objections, as they arise out of the same judgment and decree dated 15.05.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as the learned 1st Appellate Court). The appellants before this Court are challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.05.1995 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court whereby the Civil Appeal No.21 of 25.02.1991 filed by respondents No.2 to 5 arising out of Civil Suit No.245 of 15.06.1988 titled as Kamikkar Singh and others Vs. Surjit Singh was allowed, while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 01.02.1991 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Malerkotla (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court) and decreeing the suit for specific performance of respondents No.2 to 5 with a direction to deposit the remaining sale consideration within a period of two months and execution of sale deed by Surjit Singh-respondent No.1 in favour of respondents No.2 to 5. Vide same judgment, the learned 1st Appellate Court had dismissed the Civil Appeal No.22 of 25.02.1991 filed by respondent No.1-Surjit Singh, who had sought setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 01.02.1991 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.201 of 10.06.1987 titled as Gian Kaur etc. Vs. Surjit Singh. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being enumerated from RSA No.1517 of 1995.

2. In brief the facts are that two suits were filed for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.05.1987 and 15.04.1987 wherein the land in dispute was common. The agreement to sell dated 03.05.1987 was propounded by the appellants (plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.201 of 10.06.1987) and the agreement to sell dated 15.04.1987 was propounded by respondents No.2 to 5 (plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.245 of 15.06.1988) allegedly to be executed in their favour by one Surjit Singh-respondent No.1 (defendant in both suits). The agreement to sell dated 03.05.1987, which was subject matter of Civil Suit No.201 of 10.06.1987, pertained to land measuring 7 kanals 17 marlas, bearing Khata Khatauni Nos.238/417 and 292/513, comprised in Khasra Nos.85//4 (7-0) and 85//26/1 (7-0), situated in the revenue estate of village Kalsian. The plaintiffs therein had pleaded that the defendant executed an agreement to sell the said land in their favour @ ₹20,000/- per killa, received ₹10,000/- as earnest money, and agreed to execute the sale deed on 14.06.1987. It was further stipulated that possession of the land would be delivered at the time of execution of the sale deed. In case of failure on the part of the defendant to execute the sale deed within the stipulated period, the plaintiffs would be entitled to get the sale deed executed through the intervention of the Court, and the earnest money would stand forfeited. As the copy of jamabandi was not available, the boundaries of the land were mentioned in the agreement. The defendant failed to execute the sale deed as agreed. On 04.06.1987, the plaintiffs appeared before the office of the Sub-Registrar along with the balance sale consideration and waited till 5:00 PM, but the defendant did not turn up. Thereafter, the plaintiffs got their presence marked and issued a registered notice dated 05.06.1987 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed, but to no avail. Hence, the said suit was filed.

3. The defendant, in his written statement, denied the claim of the plaintiffs and asserted that he had never entered into any agreement to sell the suit land nor executed any such agreement in their favour. He alleged that the agreement was forged and fictitious, and that the suit deserved dismissal for want of cause of action.

4. In the connected suit i.e. Civil Suit No.245 of 15.06.1988 filed by Kamikar Singh and others, they sought specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 15.04.1987 executed by the defenda

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1995 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 137

Specific performance of an agreement to sell cannot be granted if the agreement is vague, lacks a clear description of the property, and is inconsistent with conduct, especially when a competing contract is supported by unambiguous evidence and admissions by the defendant.

Cases Referred (2)