2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 77273

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J
Purni – Appellant
Versus
Gurnam Singh – Respondent
RSA-1942-A-1986

An agreement to sell signed by the vendor and accepted by the purchaser constitutes a valid contract. Concurrent findings regarding the genuineness of such agreements and the parties' readiness and willingness to perform are final and not subject to interference in second appeals unless proven perverse.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Specific performance - Agreement to sell - Readiness and willingness - An agreement to sell signed by the vendor alone, delivered to the purchaser and accepted by the latter, constitutes a valid and enforceable contract. The failure of a purchaser to sign the agreement does not render it unenforceable if the terms are clear and the purchaser has demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform their obligations. (Paras 42, 43)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Adverse inference - Where an agreement to sell is proved through evidence of attesting witnesses and the scribe, minor discrepancies such as the absence of the vendor's thumb impression in the stamp vendor’s register do not warrant a presumption of forgery, particularly when the thumb impressions on the agreement itself are admitted or proved. (Paras 24, 44)

(C) Appeal - Scope - Regular Second Appeal - Interference with concurrent findings of fact is limited under Section 41 of the regional Courts Act. Decisions arrived at by both the trial and appellate courts based on appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or contrary to law. (Paras 41, 48)

Facts of the case:
The respondents filed a suit for specific performance against the appellant, alleging non-compliance with a registered agreement to sell despite the payment of a substantial earnest amount and the respondents’ continuous possession of the suit property. The appellant contested the claim, alleging the agreement was obtained through coercion and fraud, and argued that the agreement was invalid as it was not signed by all purchasers. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit, finding the agreement genuine and the defense to be meritless.

Findings of Court:
It was observed that the agreement was duly executed and the respondents remained ready and willing to perform their part. The possession of the land by the respondents since prior to the agreement confirmed the transaction's bona fides. The appellant's claims of fraud were inconsistent with the evidence and previously abandoned during appellate proceedings.

Issues: Whether the agreement to sell was valid and enforceable despite not being signed by all purchasers, and whether the findings regarding fraud and readiness and willingness were supported by the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A written agreement for the sale of land is a valid contract if it is signed by the vendor and accepted by the purchaser. Concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of an agreement to sell and the readiness and willingness of parties to perform their obligations are not to be disturbed in second appeals unless they are perverse or lack evidence.

Result: Appeals dismissed.