The court emphasized the requirement of substantial evidence and adherence to legal procedures in property transactions, ruling that insufficient proof renders previous judgments insupportable.

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 25th April, 2018 rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby the second appeal1 , RSA No. 4577 of 2017(O&M). preferred by the appellant-defendant was dismissed, and the judgment dated 20th March, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran2 , ‘First Appellate Court’. in Civil Appeal3 Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2016. was affirmed. The First Appellate Court dismissed the Civil Appeal preferred by the appellant- defendant and upheld the judgment and decree dated 18th February, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti, Tarn Taran4 ‘trial Court’. in Civil Suit5 Civil Suit No. 535 of 2008. filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The trial Court allowed the suit partly, directing the recovery of Rs. 16,00,000/- and the interest accrued thereupon from the appellant-defendant by way of alternative relief of recovery while denying the prayer of specific performance sought for by the respondent-plaintiff.

4. The facts in a nutshell relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.

5. The respondent-plaintiff filed the subject suit in the trial Court seeking a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 7th May, 2007,6 ‘disputed agreement’. in respect of an agricultural plot of land admeasuring 30 Kanals 8 Marlas7 ‘suit land’. located at Village Amrike, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran, Punjab. Besides the relief of specific performance, the respondent-plaintiff also sought permanent injunction for restraining the appellant-defendant from alienating the suit land and dispossessing the respondent-plaintiff from the same. In the alternative, respondent-plaintiff sought relief of recovery of Rs.19,00,000/- including the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- paid as earnest money on the date of execution of the disputed agreement along with the damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-.

6. The respondent-plaintiff averred in the plaint that the appellant-defendant, being the owner of the suit land, had agreed to sell the same to the respondent-plaintiff vide the disputed agreement wherein, the rate of the land was fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- per Killa with a condition to get the sale deed executed and registered on 19th September, 2008. As per the recitals in the disputed agreement, the appellant-defendant received a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- by way of earnest money on the date of the execution of the agreement with a further stipulation that the balance consideration would be paid on 19th September, 2008, when both the parties would appear at the Registrar office. It was further stipulated that if on the said date, the appellant-defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed then, he would become liable to return the earnest money to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- along with penalty of equal amount, totalling to Rs.32,00,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff. Even after receiving the money and the penalty, the respondent-plaintiff would be entitled to file a suit for getting the sale deed executed in his favour. This disputed agreement was attested by two witnesses namely, Major Singh (PW-4) and Balwinder Singh (PW-2).

7. It was also averred in the plaint that a part of the property was under mortgage with respondent No. 2 i.e. The State Bank of Patiala. The respondent-plaintiff claimed that he reached the Office of Joint Registrar, Khem Karan on the date stipulated in the disputed agreement i.e. 19th September, 2008 and remained present there from 09:00 am to 05:00 pm waiting for the appellant- defendant to arrive. However, the appellant-defendant did not turn up to get the sale