IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2735-1993 (O&M)

Date of decision: 27.04.2026 Gurbaksh Singh (deceased) through his LRs ...Appellant(s)

Versus Sardara Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. R.S. Sekhon, Advocate and Ms. Sangeeta Devi, Advocate for the appellant(s).

Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate (Through Video Conferencing) and Mr. Vardaan Seth, Advocate for the respondents.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

I N D E X Paras Pages Challenge in the present appeal 1-2 1-2 Arguments on behalf of the appellant 3-4 2-3 Arguments on behalf of the respondents 5-6 3-5 Analysis and findings 7-26 5-16 CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL

1. Defendant had filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. The same is now being pursued by the LRs of the defendant.

2. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 02.08.1993 vide which the 1^st Appellate Court had set aside the judgment of the trial Court dated 17.10.1990 and had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents and had granted a decree for possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated

16.08.1984 (Ex.P1).

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:-

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case, as per the case of the plaintiffs, the agreement was extended from 16.08.1986 to 19.06.1987 but no reason was given as to why the said extension was done. It is submitted that as per the version of the plaintiffs, the extension was sought by the present appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was tampering in the date of extension, inasmuch as, a perusal of Ex.P3 would show that the date of performance has been extended to 19.06.1987 however the figure ‘6’ is written in dark ink as compared to other figures. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in the agreement to sell, it had been mentioned that the possession has been handed over to the plaintiffs whereas PW2-Amarjit Singh in his cross-examination had admitted that the possession is with the defendant. It is further submitted that the extension (Ex.P3) is stated to be attested by one Sohan Singh however the said Sohan Singh had not been examined by the respondents-plaintiffs. It is submitted that the said circumstances clearly show that there is suspicion with respect to execution of the agreement to sell and once suspicion exists, then, the relief of specific performance of the agreement should not be granted.

4. It is submitted that in fact the defendant had been dealing with the father of the plaintiffs and in the year 1977, the present appellant had taken a loan from the father of the plaintiffs for an amount of Rs.3000/-, which amount was returned by the present appellant in May, 1987 and regarding the same receipt (Ex.D1) had been duly produced on record. It is submitted that at the time of giving of the loan, the father of the plaintiffs had taken thumb impressions of the appellant-Gurbux Singh on various papers and apparently, the said papers had been misused to convert the same into the agreement to sell (Ex.P1) and extension (Ex.P3). It is further submitted that the stamp paper for the agreement to sell dated 16.08.1984 had been purchased on 06.07.1984 i.e., a period of 40 days prior to the agreement to sell. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance should have been dismissed and at any rate, the main relief of specific performance should not have been granted. It is thus, prayed that the judgment of the First Appellate Court be set aside.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the present case, the agreement to sell dated 16.08.1984 had been duly proved on record as Ex.P1 and a perusal of the same would show that the last date for execution of the sale deed was 16.08.1986 and that the extension dat