Dismissed¶93

Sansar Chand v. Leeladhar and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Apr 2026RSA/120/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal dismissed; specific performance of oral agreement to sell; concurrent findings of fact not disturbed; no substantial question of law; scope of interference under Section 100 CPC; Hero Vinoth (minor) vs. Seshammal (2006) 5 SCC 545 relied on; jamabandi Ext.PA defendants owners-in-possession; alleged consideration Rs.1,40,000/- unproved; fifteen-year delay/improbability; Himachal Pradesh High Court; Romesh Verma Judge; RSA No. 120 of 2021; decided 01.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Except for the bald statements of the plaintiff and his witnesses, there is nothing concrete on record to establish that any oral agreement to sell was entered into between the parties, and the payment of the sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- has likewise not been proved. ¶68

Sansar Chand Vs Leeladhar and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶93

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff proved the alleged oral agreement to sell dated 15.03.2000, the payment of the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- and the delivery of possession of the suit land, so as to be entitled to a decree of specific performance. +1 more

¶64

Court's answer

¶68

Ratio / Principle

The claim that possession of the suit property was handed over pursuant to the agreement is falsified by the jamabandi for 2009-2010 (Ext.PA), which records the defendants as owners-in-possession; possession has therefore not been proved by the plaintiff.

¶71

Key takeaways

The plaintiff's story is highly improbable: although he alleges payment of Rs.1,40,000/- on 15.03.2000, he remained silent for about fifteen years until December 2014, and no prudent man who had genuinely paid such a handsome amount would have kept quiet for fifteen years.ratio¶72
The learned courts below rightly appreciated the controversy and rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, and their findings were affirmed by the first Appellate Court.ratio¶76
Learned counsel for the appellant could point out no error, perversity or illegality in the judgments and decrees of the courts below; the findings returned by them are pure findings of facts and no substantial question of law is involved in the present case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular second appeal (RSA No. 120 of 2021), High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Romesh Verma, Judge; decided 01.04.2026. Sansar Chand (plaintiff-appellant) challenged the concurrent dismissal of his suit for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to sell land (Khata Khatauni No.39 min/44, Khasra Nos. 96, 97, 103 and 104, Muhal Shakohar/181, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi) for an alleged entire consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- said to have been paid on 15.03.2000 with delivery of possession. The Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Sundernagar (dismissal decree dated 20.03.2020) and the Additional District Judge, Sundernagar (decree dated 29.04.2021, affirming the former) found no cogent evidence of the oral agreement or the payment beyond bald statements, found the possession claim falsified by the jamabandi for 2009-2010 (Ext.PA) recording the defendants as owners-in-possession, and deemed the plaintiff's silence for about fifteen years improbable. Holding the lower courts' findings to be pure findings of fact involving no substantial question of law — relying on Hero Vinoth (minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 on the scope of interference under Section 100 CPC — the High Court dismissed the second appeal as devoid of merit.

¶1

2026:HHC:9858

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

RSA No. 120 of 2021 Reserved on: 24.03.2026 Date of Decision:01.04.2026

¶4

__________________________________________________ Sansar Chand ...Appellant. Versus Leela Dhar & another ...Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant : Mr. Amit Jamwal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate.

¶5

4._________________________________________________

¶6

Romesh Verma, Judge

¶7

The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar dated 29.04.2021, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellant/plaintiff was dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1 Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi,H.P dated 20.03.2020 was affirmed.

¶8

The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for specific performance of oral agreement to sell in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi,H.P on 19.03.2015. It

¶9

2 . 2026:HHC:9858

¶10

was averred in the plaint that the defendants are recorded owners-in-possession of the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No.39 min/44, Khasra Nos.96,97,103 and 104, measuring 03-02-01 bighas, situated in muhal Shakohar/181, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi,H.P. The defendants have sold the suit land to the plaintiff through an oral agreement to sell in the presence of the witnesses and in terms of the said agreement, the defendants received the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- on 15.03.2000 from the plaintiff in the presence of the witnesses. Further, the possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiff and no document with respect to this transaction was recorded in writing.

¶11

Consequent upon the said agreement to sell, the plaintiff with the express and implied consent of the defendants is owner of the suit land and has planted apple plants over the suit land and covered its area through barbed wires and now the plaintiff is maintaining apple orchard planted by him.

¶12

In the last week of December 2014, the plaintiff requested the defendants to execute the Sale Deed in

¶13

3 . 2026:HHC:9858

¶14

respect of the suit land, but the defendants did not pay any heed towards the request of the plaintiff, as such, legal notice for the execution of the Sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was served by the plaintiff on 31.01.2015. However, the same had no effect on the defendants.

¶15

It was further averred that the plaintiff is still ready to perform his part of the contract for execution of the Sale Deed in terms of the oral agreement. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit be decreed with costs and defendants be directed through a decree of specific performance of oral agreement to execute and register the Sale Deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

¶16

Further, decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from causing unlawful interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was also prayed with further prayer that the defendants be also restrained from alienating or creating charge over the suit land in any manner.

¶17

The suit was contested by the defendants. Preliminary objections with respect to cause of action, locus

¶18

4 . 2026:HHC:9858

¶19

standi, Court fee etc were taken in the written statement. On merits, all the averments as made in the plaint were refuted. It was stated that there was no occasion to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. It was denied that there is any sale agreement between the parties. Neither any sale consideration of any kind has been received by the defendants nor the possession of the suit land has been handed over to the plaintiff. The apple orchard was planted is being maintained by the defendants, as such, the contents of the plaint are false, concocted and incorrect. Further, it was averred that the defendants are owners of the suit land and they are cultivating the orchard and they have right to create any charge as per their will. It is the plaintiff, who is trying to dispossess the defendants under the garb of the present suit, as such, plaintiff is not entitled for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendants sought the dismissal of the suit.

¶20

The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement, wherein, all the averments as made in the plaint were reiterated.

¶21

5 . 2026:HHC:9858

¶22

Learned trial Court framed the issues on 03.08.2017

¶23

in the following manner:-

¶24

“1. Whether there was an oral agreement between the parties, as alleged? OPP

¶25

If issue No.1 is decided in affirmative, whether the defendants received entire sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- on 15.03.2000, for the suit land, as alleged? OPD

¶26

Whether plaintiff was/and is ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP

¶27

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance of contract, as alleged? OPP

¶28

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP

¶29

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

¶30

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD

¶31

Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

¶32

Relief.”

¶33

The learned trial Court directed the respective parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions and finally vide its judgment and decree dated 20.03.2020, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit as filed by the plaintiff.

¶34

Feeling dissatisfied, the plaintiff/appellant preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Additional District Judge, Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi,H.P on 24.06.2020. The First Appellate Court

¶35

6 . 2026:HHC:9858

¶36

vide its judgment and decree dated 29.04.2021 dismissed the appeal as preferred by the plaintiff/appellant. Still feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff/appellant has filed the regular second appeal in this Court.

¶37

It is contended by Sh.Amit Jamwal, learned Counsel for the appellant that the judgments and decrees as passed by the learned courts below are erroneous. He has submitted that on the basis of the oral agreement to sell, his client is entitled for decree of specific performance of agreement to sell. He has further submitted that the courts below have misread, misappreciated and misconstrued the oral as well as the documentary evidence as placed on record, as a result of which, findings as returned by the courts below are required to be quashed and set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be decreed.

¶38

On the other hand, Mr. Surya Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents have defended the judgments and decrees as passed by the learned courts below. He has submitted that the courts below have rightly appreciated the point in controversy and have rightly dismissed the suit.

¶39

7 . 2026:HHC:9858

¶40

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶41

with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the present case is finally heard at the admission stage.

¶42

It is the very case of the plaintiff that on 15.03.2000, an oral agreement to sell was entered between

¶43

the parties in the presence of the witnesses and that the entire sale consideration amount i.e. Rs.1,40,000/-stood paid to the defendants and on the spot, the possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff.

¶44

In order to corroborate his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and has placed on record his affidavit, Ext.PW1/A. In his deposition, he has deposed that the defendants have sold the suit land to the plaintiff through an oral agreement to sell in the presence of witnesses and they received the entire sale consideration amount of Rs.1,40,000/- on 15.03.2000. It has been stated in the affidavit that the said oral agreement to sell was with the express and implied consent of the defendants being owners of the suit land and thereafter, the plaintiff planted apple plants over the suit land and covered its area through

¶45

8 . 2026:HHC:9858

¶46

the barbed wires and now he is maintaining the apple orchard planted there.

¶47

In the last week of December, 2015, the plaintiff requested the defendants to execute sale deed in respect of the suit land but defendants did not pay any heed towards

¶48

the request of the plaintiffs. It was further stated that the plaintiff is still ready to perform his part of the contract of the execution of the sale in terms of the said agreement to sell. 18. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that the description of the house, which he has given in the plaint, that is over his own orchard and he is the owner of the said land.

¶49

PW-2 Chinta Devi also tendered in evidence her affidavit, Ext.PW2/A, wherein, she has stated that she knew

¶50

the parties to the suit and she has seen the suit land, over which the orchard of the apple has been grown by the plaintiff Sansar Chand. The area of the land is about 3 bighas, over which, there are 200 plants of apple and the plaintiff is owner of the said orchard. She is looking after the orchard and also working as gardener (Mali). There exists a house of Sansar Chand over the suit land, consisting of four rooms in

¶51

9 . 2026:HHC:9858

¶52

the ground floor and one room in the first story. It has further been deposed by PW-2 that the possession of the suit land is with the plaintiff and he has planted the orchard over the same.

¶53

In her cross-examination, she submitted that she is residing in the house, which has been constructed in the orchard. She stated that plaintiff resides in Mandi. She admitted that she does not know the Khasra Numbers of the suit land. She admitted that wife of the defendant No.1 Leela Dhar quarreled with the said witness. She admitted that one case under Sections 107 and 150 was registered in the Court of SDM, Sundernagar. She stated that she does not know that what is the annual yield from the said orchard. 21. The plaintiff examined PW-3 Surajmani in order to prove his case. The affidavit of the said witness is Ext.PW3/A and in his deposition, he has stated that the plaintiff Sansar Chand and defendant No.1 Leela Dhar and his deceased brother Jai Chand are the residents of village Thamari, Tehsil Nihari, Distt. Mandi,HP. Suit land was sold to the plaintiff through this witness for a consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- on 15.03.2000. He further stated that the

¶54

2026:HHC:9858

¶55

vendors have received the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- from the plaintiff in the presence of this witness and the possession of the same was also handed over to the plaintiff. The vendors Leela Dhar and Jai Chand had promised to execute the Registered Sale Deed in favour of Sansar Chand plaintiff with respect to the suit land. He further stated that with the implied and express consent of the defendants, the plaintiff has planted apple plants over the suit land. He further stated that the plaintiff is still ready to perform his part of contract for the execution of the Sale Deed.

¶56

In the cross-examination, this witness deposed that on account of the agreement to sell for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/-, Rs.70,000/ each was paid to Leela Dhar and Jai Chand and it was agreed that the registry of the same shall be executed. He admitted that no written receipt was obtained at the relevant time. He further admitted that no written agreement was executed between the parties and it was just an oral agreement to sell. He admitted that it is correct that Sansar Chand is known to him and the defendants are his relatives.

¶57

11 . 2026:HHC:9858

¶58

Plaintiff examined PW-4 Ram Chand and his

¶59

affidavit Ext.PW4/A has been placed on record. He has stated in his deposition that he knew plaintiff, who has an orchard at village Shakohar, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. He stated that he has been cutting and pruning the apple plants of orchard situated over the suit land at village Shakohar, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P at the instance of its owner Sh. Sansar Chand plaintiff.

¶60

In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he does not know what is the extent of the orchard. He has submitted that the shop of the plaintiff Sansar Chand is situated at Mandi and his house is towards Kangra.

¶61

In order to rebut the case of the plaintiff, the defendant Leela Dhar has entered in the witness box as DW1 and his affidavit Ext.DW1/A has been placed on record. He submitted that he is owner in possession of the suit land situated at Muhal Shakohar/181, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi,H.P along with other co-sharers. The defendants have planted and are maintaining apple orchard and also cultivating the same. He stated that neither he nor the other co-sharers of the suit land ever sold the suit land to the

¶62

12 . 2026:HHC:9858

¶63

plaintiff or any other such person. Further, there was no occasion to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. There is no agreement to sell between the plaintiff and the defendants and no sale consideration was received by them nor the possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiff. Rather, it is the defendants, who are the owners-inpossession of the suit land and are also cultivating the suit land/orchard and have right to create charge over the same.

¶64

The plaintiff has placed on record the copy of the notice dated 31.03.2015 Ext.PB, which is a legal notice issued to the defendants. The perusal of the case file and the record reveals that the plaintiff has based his claim on the basis of an oral agreement to sell to have been entered between the parties. The said fact has been specifically refuted by the defendants.

¶65

The case as set up by the plaintiff with respect to the execution of the oral agreement to sell and payment of sale consideration has also been denied by the defendants. Since the plaintiff has put forward the case of oral agreement to sell and payment of the sale consideration and taking possession of the suit land, so it was incumbent upon

¶66

2026:HHC:9858

¶67

the plaintiff to have pleaded and proved his case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶68

Admittedly, in the present case, the agreement to sell is oral, as alleged by the plaintiff. In order to corroborate the said oral agreement, the plaintiff was required to lead cogent and authentic evidence in order to substantiate his case. However, except the bald statement of the plaintiff and his witnesses, there is nothing concrete on record to establish that there was any agreement to sell, which was entered between the parties. To the similar extent, the payment of the sale consideration has also not been proved by the plaintiff. Though, it is the case of the plaintiff that total sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid to the defendants but said fact has been totally refuted by the defendants. No material record has been placed on record to show that any amount was paid to the defendants.

¶69

The claim as made by the plaintiff that pursuant to the execution of agreement to sell, the possession of the suit property was handed over to the plaintiff, is falsified from the copy of jamabandi, which is Ext.PA for the year 2009-2010. The said revenue record reveals that the defendants are the

¶70

14 . 2026:HHC:9858

¶71

owners-in-possession of the suit land. Therefore, the possession of the suit land has also not been proved by the plaintiff.

¶72

The story as projected by the plaintiff seems to be highly improbable because as per the case of the plaintiff, the agreement to sell was entered between the parties on 15.03.2000, and it has been stated in the plaint, which was filed after the lapse of more than 15 years that during the last week of December 2014, when the plaintiff requested the defendants to execute the sale deed, the defendants failed to pay any heed towards the request of the plaintiff. Thereafter, a legal notice for the execution of the sale deed was served on defendants on 31.03.2015. The plaintiff has not been able to establish that why he kept mum for this long period of 15 years had there been any oral agreement to sell between the parties. In case, the story of the plaintiff is accepted that he has paid Rs.1,40,000/-, which is a handsome amount, no prudent man would have kept quite for 15 years.

¶73

In the present case, admittedly, the suit has been filed in 2015 i.e. after more than 15 years from the execution

¶74

15 . 2026:HHC:9858

¶75

of the alleged oral agreement to sell. No plausible explanation is coming from the plaintiff that why he remained silent for such a long period and no steps were taken by him to redress his grievances against the defendants.

¶76

The learned Courts below have rightly appreciated the controversy in question and rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and the said findings have been affirmed by the first Appellate Court.

¶77

Learned Counsel for the appellant, could not point out any error/perversity or illegality in the judgments and decrees as passed by the learned Courts below. The findings as returned by the courts below are pure findings of facts and no substantial question of law is involved in the present case.

¶78

The Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the scope of interference under Section 100 in Hero Vinoth (minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has held as follows:-

¶79

It has been noted time and again that without insisting for the statement of such a substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal and formulating

¶80

16 . 2026:HHC:9858

¶81

the same at the time of admission, the High Courts have been issuing notices and generally deciding the second appeals without adhering to the procedure prescribed under Section 100 of the CPC. It has further been found in a number of cases that no efforts are made to distinguish between a question of law and a substantial question of law. In exercise of the powers under this section in several cases, the findings of fact of the first appellate court are found to have been disturbed. It has to be kept in mind that the right of appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with law in force at the relevant time. The conditions mentioned in the section must be strictly fulfilled before a second appeal can be maintained and no court has the power to add or to enlarge those grounds. The second appeal cannot be decided on merely equitable grounds. The concurrent findings of facts will not be disturbed by the High Court in exercise of the powers under this section. Further, a substantial question of law has to be distinguished from a substantial question of fact. This Court in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. Held that: (SCR pp.557-58)

¶82

"The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by

¶83

17 . 2026:HHC:9858

¶84

this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law."

¶85

It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at, by the last court of fact, being the first appellate court. It is true that the lower appellate court should not ordinarily reject witnesses accepted by the trial court in respect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses accepted by the trial court, the same is no ground for interference in second appeal when it is found that the appellate court has given satisfactory reasons for doing so. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences of fact are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court will not be interfered by the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. The High Court will, however, interfere where it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on

¶86

18 . 2026:HHC:9858

¶87

the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at by ignoring material evidence.

¶88

23.To be "substantial" a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law "involving in the case" there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis.”

¶89

2026:HHC:9858

¶90

No other point was urged by the learned counsel

¶91

for the parties.

¶92

The courts below have rightly adjudicated and determined the case in hand and there is no perversity or illegality in the same. Consequently, the present appeal

¶93

being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed.

¶94

Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

¶95

(Romesh Verma) Judge

¶96

April 1, 2026 (meera)

Sansar Chand v. Leeladhar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sansar Chand v. Leeladhar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Kumar Vs Aditya Negi

Mohit Vs Aditya Negi

Chandan Mehta Vs Hari Ram

Kuldeep, aged 62 years, S/o Late Sh. Duni Chand, S/o Beli Ram Vs Raghvir Singh S/o Late Sh. Duni Chand, S/o Beli Ram

NHAI Vs Sarwan Kumar

NHAI Vs Kaushalya Devi