##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

120 RSA-2427-2023 (O&M)

Date of Decision.: 09.04.2026

Gurtej Singh @ Gurtej Singh Gill and Another …..Appellants

Vs.

Charanjit Kaur and Others .….Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the appellants.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The plain(cid:30)ffs, having failed before the learned first appellate Court, are in Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment & decree dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned Addi(cid:30)onal District Judge, Moga, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants was allowed; the judgment & decree dated 03.11.2016 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit for specific performance was set aside, and the suit of

the plain(cid:30)ffs stood dismissed.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present lis is that the plain(cid:30)ffs ins(cid:30)tuted a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 21.02.2004 in respect of land measuring 93 kanal, asser(cid:30)ng that defendant No.1 had executed the agreement on her own behalf and as an alleged a6orney of the remaining defendants No. 2 to 6, and had received a sum of ₹50,000/- as earnest money. It was pleaded that the plain(cid:30)ffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and had even marked their presence before the Sub Registrar on

the s(cid:30)pulated dates, but the defendants failed to execute the sale deed.

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA-2427-2023 (O&M)

3. The defendants, contes(cid:30)ng the suit, denied the execu(cid:30)on of any agreement to sell and disputed the authority of defendant No.1 to act on behalf of the co-sharers, alleging the agreement to be forged and

fabricated.

4. The learned trial Court, upon apprecia(cid:30)on of evidence, decreed the suit for specific performance. However, the first appellate Court, being the final Court of facts, re-appreciated the en(cid:30)re evidence on record and reversed the findings of the trial Court, holding that the execu(cid:30)on of the agreement to sell had not been proved in accordance with law and that the document was surrounded by serious suspicious

circumstances.

5. Assailing the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellants-plain(cid:30)ffs has contended that the first appellate Court has misread the evidence on record and has erred in discarding the tes(cid:30)mony of the a6es(cid:30)ng witnesses, which clearly established due execu(cid:30)on of the agreement. It is further argued that once the agreement stood proved and readiness and willingness of the plain(cid:30)ffs was established, the trial Court had rightly decreed the suit and the reversal thereof is unsustainable in

law.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the file.

7. At the outset, it needs to be no(cid:30)ced that the jurisdic(cid:30)on of this Court under Sec(cid:30)on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to substan(cid:30)al ques(cid:30)ons of law. The first appellate Court is the final Court of fact, and its findings are not to be interfered with unless it is shown that the same are perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or suffer from

patent illegality.

8. In the present case, the en(cid:30)re claim of the plain(cid:30)ffs hinges upon the agreement to sell dated 21.02.2004. The first appellate Court,

Page No. 2 of 6 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.10 14:59

I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-2427-2023 (O&M)

upon a detailed scru(cid:30)ny of the evidence, has recorded a categorical finding that the execu(cid:30)on of the agreement has not been duly proved. An important aspect, which weighed with the first appellate Court is the unreliable nature of the tes(cid:30)mony of the a6es(cid:30)ng witnesses. While one of the witnesses supported the case of the plain(cid:30)ffs in examina(cid:30)on-in-chief, he m