Dismissed¶[14]

Daljeet Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2025RSA/1047/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh; RSA-1047-2023 (O&M); decided 09.07.2025 by Justice Pankaj Jain (oral). Keywords: specific performance; agreement to sell dated 05.08.2011; earnest money Rs.17 lacs; Rs.15 lacs per acre; sham transaction; agreement as security for loan; M/s Josan Trading Company; Kulbir Singh; Paramjeet Singh; Mukhtiar Singh; Daljeet Singh; Miha Singh deed writer; Notary Public; Mark PX; Mark D5; Exhibits D-1 to D-4; concurrent findings; substitution of findings in second appeal; Sub-Registrar Thanesar; legal notice 21.06.2013; Panchayat 21.11.2012; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The controversy between the parties is narrow: execution of document Exhibit P-1 and the signatures thereon are not in dispute; the only live question is the document's true nature. ¶[13]

Daljeet Singh Vs Mukhtiar Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶[14]

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 5.8.2011 with consequential relief of permanent injunction (issue framed by the Court of the First Instance and carried up through the concurrent findings). +2 more

¶[7]

Ratio / Principle

The controversy between the parties is narrow: execution of document Exhibit P-1 and the signatures thereon are not in dispute; the only live question is the document's true nature.

¶[13]

Key takeaways

The defendant's defence that Exhibit P-1 was executed to secure loan transactions could have been of some credence only if he had succeeded in proving that Kulbir Singh, Paramjeet Singh and the present plaintiff Mukhtiar Singh were partners in M/s Josan Trading Company.ratio¶[13]
The heart and soul of the defence raised by the defendant lies in the relationship between Mukhtiar Singh and M/s Josan Trading Company.ratio¶[13]
Since counsel for the defendant-appellant does not dispute that there is nothing on record to link Mukhtiar Singh with M/s Josan Trading Company, this Court finds no reason to believe the defence raised by the defendant, nor to substitute the findings recorded by the Courts below after appreciating the entire evidence.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular second appeal (RSA-1047-2023 (O&M)) by defendant Daljeet Singh against the concurrent findings under which plaintiff Mukhtiar Singh obtained specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 05.08.2011 (25 kanals 13 marlas, i.e. 1/6th share of 154 kanals; consideration Rs.15 lacs per acre; earnest money Rs.17 lacs), scribed by Deed Writer Miha Singh, notarised and mutated, with sale-deck target date 04.07.2012, plaintiff's presence marked before the Sub-Registrar, Thanesar, and legal notice dated 21.06.2013. Defendant's defence: the agreement was a sham, executed as security for borrowings from commission agents Kulbir Singh and Paramjeet Singh of M/s Josan Trading Company (plaintiff allegedly a partner), evidenced by a series of earlier agreements (Entries Exhibits D-1 to D-4, 2007–2011) and a Panchayat settlement of 21.11.2012. High Court (Pankaj Jain, J., oral): execution of Exhibit P-1 and signatures undisputed; the defence hinged entirely on proving the plaintiff's partnership in M/s Josan Trading Company; appellant's counsel conceded nothing on record links the plaintiff to the firm; the defendant's admission of execution, the PW-3/Notary Public testimony, admitted signatures on the Notary register, and Mark ‘D5’ demolished the defence; no reason found to substitute the Courts below's concurrent findings. Appeal dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications disposed off.

2025:PHHC:081738

RSA-1047-2023 (O&M)

[123] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

RSA-1047-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.07.2025

¶6

Daljeet Singh …Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

Mukhtiar Singh ….Respondent

¶9

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶10

Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate with

¶12

Mr. Abhishek Shukla, Advocate and Mr. S.S. Momi, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶15

[1] Defendant is in regular second appeal.

¶16

[2] For convenience, parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position as in the Court of the First Instance, i.e. the appellant as defendant and respondent as plaintiff.

¶17

[3] Plaintiff filed a suit seeking decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 05.08.2011, claiming that defendant agreed to sell land measuring 25 kanals 13 marlas, i.e. 1/6^th share of total land i.e. 154 kanals as detailed out in the plaint in his favour for a valuable consideration of Rs.15 lacs per acre and received earnest money of Rs.17 lacs in the presence of witnesses.

¶18

[4] As per the plaintiff, the agreement to sell was scribed on the instructions of defendant by Miha Singh, Document Writer, Thanesar and the same was entered in the register of the Deed Writer. Defendant also signed and thumb marked the revenue stamp affixed on the agreement in receipt of Rs.17 lacs. The agreement to sell was thereafter attested by

¶19

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.07.17 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and Notary Public and the same was also mutated in the register of Notary Public integrity of this document

2025:PHHC:081738

RSA-1047-2023 (O&M)

as well. The parties agreed to get the sale deed executed on or before 04.07.2012. On the target date, the plaintiff remained present before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Thanesar and got his presence marked. However, defendant failed to appear to perform his part of the contract. A legal notice dated 21.06.2013 was served upon the defendant on instructions of the plaintiff. However, defendant having failed to perform his part, plaintiff approached Court of law by filing the present suit.

¶24

[5] Suit was contested by the defendant.

¶25

[6] Signatures were admitted. However, it was claimed that agreement propounded by the plaintiff was a sham transaction. The agreement to sell was executed as security to secure borrowed amount. As per the defendant, the land of the defendant abuts that of Kulbir Singh and Paramjeet Singh. Kulbir Singh and Paramjeet Singh are the commission agents and are running a shop in the name and style of M/s Josan Trading Company at New Grain Market, Pipli. Plaintiff is also a partner in the said trading company. Defendant previously had monetary transactions with Kulbir Singh and Paramjeet Singh. It was a usual practice that defendant at the time of borrowing amounts from Kulbir Singh was asked to execute such agreement to sell to secure the amount. Defendant relied upon two transactions in the year 2007 and that dated 08.01.2009 wherein similar agreements to sell were executed by him in favour of Kulbir Singh. Defendant further pleaded that regarding his monetary transaction with Kulbir Singh and Paramjeet Singh, Panchayat was also convened on 21.11.2012 where defendant paid the whole amount in the presence of witnesses.

¶26

[7] On the basis of the pleadings, Court of the First Instance framed

¶27

the following issues:-

¶28

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.07.17 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2025:PHHC:081738

RSA-1047-2023 (O&M)

“1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 5.8.2011 with consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

¶33

2. Whether present suit is not maintainable? OPD

¶34

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD

¶35

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD

¶36

5. Whether the present suit is hopelessly time barred? OPD

¶37

6. Whether plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from the Court? OPD

¶38

7. Relief. ”

¶39

[8] While deciding Issue Nos.1 to 6, Court found that the plaintiff successfully proved execution of agreement to sell by examining Deed Writer-Miha Singh as PW-1, Notary Public-Krishan Kant Sharma as PW-2, Attesting Witness-Kulbir Singh as PW-4. It has been held that plaintiff successfully proved his presence before Sub Registrar on appointed day by way of affidavit (Exhibit P-5). In order to prove the same, he examined Gurnam Singh as PW-5 and Ram Pal Numberdar as PW-6. Trial Court after considering the evidence threadbare came to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved agreement to sell dated 05.08.2011 and that he paid earnest money of Rs.17 lacs. Having proved his readiness and willingness, he is entitled to decree of specific performance.

¶40

[9] The aforesaid findings stand affirmed in appeal preferred by the defendant.

¶41

[10] Counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings recorded by the Courts below. He submits that Miha Singh was examined by defendant as well as DW-3. It was proved from the testimony of Miha Singh that RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.07.17 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and earlier also defendant executed agreement to sell dated 30.05.2007 by integrity of this document

2025:PHHC:081738

RSA-1047-2023 (O&M)

proving Entry No.289 (Exhibit D-1), that dated 08.01.2009 by proving Entry at Serial No.13 (Exhibit D-2), that dated 07.04.2010 by proving Entry at Serial No.187 (Exhibit D-3) and that dated 18.03.2011 by proving Entry at Serial No.185 (Exhibit D-4). He submits that the series of agreements to sell executed by defendant in favour of Kulbir Singh, one of the partners of M/s Josan Trading Company, prove that the parties were having financial relations. In order to secure the borrowed amount repeated agreements to sell were executed by defendant. He thus submits that the aforesaid documentary evidence proves that the intent between the parties was to secure the borrowed amount and not to sell the land.

¶46

[11] Per contra, Mr. Jindal, Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that there is no evidence on record to establish that Mukhtiar Singh is one of the partners in M/s Josan Trading Company. He further submits that the plea raised in the written statement that in fact no earnest money was received, gets falsified from the document that has come from the custody of defendant himself in the form of Mark ‘PX’. This document when read with Mark ‘D5’ in light of the statement of defendant, sufficiently proves that not only was the amount received by the defendant, but account thereof was also kept by none else, but his wife. He thus submits that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below need not be reversed in second appeal. Re-appreciating the evidence, is beyond the scope of the second appeal.

¶47

[12] I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case.

¶48

[13] This Court finds that the controversy between the parties is quite narrow. So far as execution of document (Exhibit P-1) and the signatures thereon is concerned, the same is not in dispute. The defence

¶49

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.07.17 10:26 raised by the defendant-appellant is that the document was not created as an I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2025:PHHC:081738

RSA-1047-2023 (O&M)

agreement to sell as propounded by the defendant, but was executed with an intent to secure loan transaction. In order to prove the defence, the defendant relied upon series of agreements to sell executed by him in favour of Kulbir Singh. The aforesaid defence of the defendant could have been of some credence only when defendant had succeeded to prove that Kulbir Singh, Paramjeet Singh and present plaintiff Mukhtiar Singh were partners in M/s Josan Trading Company. The heart and soul of the defence raised by the defendant lies in relationship between Mukhtiar Singh and M/s Josan Trading Company.

¶54

[14] Counsel for the defendant-appellant does not dispute that there is nothing on record to link Mukhtiar Singh with M/s Josan Trading Company. In view thereof, this Court does not find any reason to believe the defence raised by the defendant that too by substituting the finding recorded by the Courts below after appreciating the entire evidence. The statement of the defendant admitting the execution of the document and testimony of PW-3/Notary Public and the admission of signatures on the register of Notary Public is another fatal blow to the case of the defendant. If that was not enough, Mark ‘D5’ completely demolishes the case of the defendant. Finding no merits in the present appeal, the same is dismissed .

¶55

[15] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off .

(PANKAJ JAIN)

JUDGE

09.07.2025

‘R. Sharma'

Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶61

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.07.17 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Concurrent findings of the Courts below — the trial Court's conclusion that the plaintiff proved the agreement to sell dated 05.08.2011, paid earnest money of Rs.17 lacs, and was entitled to a decree of specific performance, as affirmed in the first appeal preferred by the defendant — under challenge in this regular second appeal.¶[9]
Prior proceeding
The appellant is the defendant in a regular second appeal; for convenience the parties are referred to by their original positions (appellant as defendant, respondent as plaintiff).¶[1]
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff sued for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 05.08.2011 over 25 kanals 13 marlas (1/6th share of 154 kanals) at Rs.15 lacs per acre, having paid Rs.17 lacs earnest money.¶[3]
Prior proceeding
Defendant contested the suit; signatures were admitted but the agreement was claimed to be a sham transaction.¶[6]
Prior proceeding
Defence plea: the agreement to sell was executed only as security for borrowed amounts from Kulbir Singh and Paramjeet Singh of M/s Josan Trading Company, with whom the defendant had prior dealings and a Panchayat settlement on 21.11.2012.¶[6]
Prior proceeding
Court of the First Instance framed seven issues, led by the plaintiff's entitlement to the decree of specific performance (OPP) and objections of maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, limitation and clean hands (OPD).¶[7]
Prior proceeding
Trial Court, after threadbare consideration of evidence (Deed Writer PW-1, Notary Public PW-2, Attesting Witness PW-4, presence proof PW-5/PW-6, affidavit Exhibit P-5), concluded the plaintiff proved the agreement and earnest money and, having shown readiness and willingness, was entitled to specific performance.¶[8]
Prior proceeding
The trial Court's findings were affirmed in the first appeal preferred by the defendant; these affirmed findings are what the defendant challenges in the present second appeal.¶[9]

Daljeet Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daljeet Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puran Chand & Ors. Vs Gurna Singh & Ors.

Jasbir Singh and Ors. Vs Shabeg Singh and Ors.

Gurudwara Sahib Patshahi 10 & Ors. Vs Punjab Wakf Board & Anr.

Gurdeep Singh Vs Union of India

Navtesh Kumar Vs Union of India

Sandeep Singh and Others Vs Union of India