Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 84188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J
Bimla – Appellant
Versus
Goldie – Respondent
RSA-768-2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rishma Verma
For the Respondents: Nikhil Chopra, Trishanjali, Jatin Verma
Concurrent findings of fact in lower courts are immune to interference in second appeal unless there is an error of law or procedure, and admissions in pleadings act as substantive evidence, while Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act bars subsequent challenges to stamp duty once a document is evidenced.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Suit for possession by way of specific performance - Concurrent findings of lower courts - Admission of ownership in written statement - Effect of - Mere pleading of signatures on blank papers without rebutting the admission of receipt of earnest money or the surrender of original property documents to the plaintiff - Held, findings of fact by lower courts are not to be interfered with in second appeal unless there is an error of law or procedure. (Paras 7, 20, 21, 29, 32)
(B) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 36 - Admissibility of document - Once a document is admitted in evidence and exhibited without objection, its admissibility regarding deficiency of stamp duty cannot be questioned at a subsequent stage. (Paras 13, 14, 15)
(C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 58 - Admission - Admissions in pleadings are substantive evidence and a fact admitted need not be proven. (Paras 21, 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 25.05.2011 valuing the property at Rs. 4,50,000/-. The defendant denied the execution of the agreement, claiming the plaintiff misused blank papers signed by the defendant for a loan of Rs. 50,000/-, and also challenged the adequacy of the stamp duty on the agreement. Both the trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the concurrent findings, noting that the defendant admitted ownership of the property in the pleadings. The court rejected the argument regarding stamp duty under Section 36 of the Stamp Act, finding no timely objection was raised. The court further observed that the appellant failed to prove the 'loan' theory and could not explain why original property documents were handed over to the plaintiff if it were merely a loan transaction.
Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts were perverse; whether the Agreement to Sell was inadmissible due to stamp duty deficiency; and whether the plaintiff proved the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal absent procedural error or illegality. Admission in the written statement regarding property ownership renders further proof unnecessary, and Section 36 of the Stamp Act precludes challenging stamp duty after a document is admitted into evidence.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the dispute and background of concurrent lower court decrees. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. appellant's contentions regarding ownership proof, loan context, and document admissibility. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. respondent's rebuttal concerning admissions, stamp act, and readiness/willingness. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. court's analysis of admissions and sufficiency of evidence for specific performance. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. second appellate jurisdiction and final dismissal of appeal. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
******
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff, for possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 25.05.2011, has been decreed by both the District Courts for specific performance.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed instant suit for grant of decree of possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 25.05.2011 with regard to the suit house as described in the head note of the plaint; and for grant of decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, transferring or creating any charge over the suit property; and in the alternative, decree for recovery of Rs. 3 lacs on account of double of earnest money i.e.Rs.1 lac + Rs.2 lacs Special Damages due to hike price in the house with interest thereupon.
3. It was pleaded in the plaint that defendant is owner of suit house as described in the plaint. Defendant had entered into Agreement to Sell dated 25.05.2011 with the plaintiff regarding sale of the said house for total sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-. Defendant had received earnest money of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff in the presence of marginal witnesses. Target date for execution of the Sale Deed was set for 25.07.2011. The said date by mutual consent extended thrice and finally target date was agreed to be set as 22.08.2012. Plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jalandhar alongwith balance sale consideration but the defendant did not turn up to register Sale Deed or to receive balance amount. The defendant had finally refused to perform her part of contract despite request of the plaintiff. Rather defendant threatened to alienate the house to some other person at higher rates. Hence, present suit was filed on 12.09.2012.
4. Upon notice, defendant had resisted the suit by filing written statement by denying the Agreement in question and stating that the same was a forged and fabricated document prepared by the plaintiff to grab the property of the defendant. It was further averred that defendant was in urgent need of Rs.50,000/- for which she had approached the plaintiff; and at the time of giving Rs.50,000/- to the defendant, plaintiff had got signature of the defendant and her son namely Rajesh Kumar on blank papers as security. Defendant had further averred that at the same time, she had given original papers of the suit house to the plaintiff. In the written statement Defendant had admitted that she was owner of the suit property however, denied that she has ever executed Agreement to Sell or ever received any earnest money from the plaintiff. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
5. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar had decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 22.07.2014 in the following manner: -
“14. In view of my findings on the above said issues, the suit filed by the plaintiff succeeds and is decreed with costs for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.05.2011 executed by defendant in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff is directed to deposit the remaining sale consideration within a period of one mont
