Baljinder Pal Singh and Anr. Vs Vikram Singh through His Lr

Th i s Regular Second Appeal is directed against the concurr e nt findings of the Courts below, whereby the sui t for possession by way of specific performance fi l ed by the plaintiffs–appellants was dismissed by the trial Co u rt vide judgment dated 22.09.2017, and the fir s t appeal preferred by them w as dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 22.1 0 .2024. 2. As s ailing the said judgments, le a rned counsel for the appella n ts contends that the Courts below failed to p roperly appreciate the oral and documentary e v idence on record and that the f indings suffer from perversity.

¶14

H o wever, after examining the ple a dings, evidence, and the findi n gs recorded by b o th Courts below, this Court fi n ds no substance in the afores a id contention.

¶15

As per the plaintiffs’ case, Vikram Singh, the predecessor-in-inter e st of the defenda n ts, had executed an agreement to sell dated 21.04.2001 in th e ir favour regardi n g the suit land for a sale co n sideration of ₹3,00,000/-. It w as alleged that th e entire sale consideration had b een paid at the time of executi o n of the agreem e nt and that Vikram Singh ha d undertaken to execute the s a le deed, as and w hen required by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also pleaded readin e ss

¶16

JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

RSA-1801 of 2025

¶19

and willingnes s and claimed to have repeate d ly approached the defendants to perform the co n tract.

¶20

Th e defendants, however, catego r ically denied the execution of the agreement to s e ll by Vikram Singh and controv e rted all other averments, seeking dismissal of th e suit.

¶21

Bo t h the Courts below, on det a iled appraisal of the eviden c e, recorded conc u rrent findings that the plaintiff s failed to prove due execution of the agreement to sell.

¶22

Th i s Court finds no infirmity in th e conclusion. Once the defenda n ts specifically denied the execution of the agree m ent, the burden squarely lay o n the plaintiffs t o prove it in accordance with S e ctions 67 and 68 of the Evide n ce Act. Yet, non e of the attesting witnesses t o the alleged agreement w e re examined. No h andwriting/fingerprint expert w as examined to establish that the signatures on the document belonged to Vikr a m Singh. In the absence of such essential evide n ce, the plaintiffs failed to disc h arge the foundational burden of proving due ex e cution.

¶23

Ev e n otherwise, the suit was ho p elessly barred by limitation. The agreement wa s dated 21.04.2001. Under its terms, the vendor was required either to retu r n the amount or execute th e sale deed by 20.04.2003. The plaintiffs them s elves pleaded that Vikram Sin g h failed to return the amount by the said date. In cross-examination, PW5 R avinder Pal Singh (one of the plaintiffs) admi t ted that in 2003 itself Vikram Singh refused to execute the s a le deed. This amounted to a clear refusal, giving cause of action at that stage.

¶24

Sti l l further, plaintiffs pleaded th a t they approached Vikram Singh 10–15 times. T h ey stated that even on 09.05.2006 the sale deed was refused on account of lack of NOC from Town Planning Department. Despite this admitted refusal, no suit was filed for years thereafter, as the present suit was filed only in April 2013, w h ich is well beyond the three-year limitation prescribed un d er Article 54 of th e Limitation Act. Mere oral ass e rtions of repeated approaches d o not extend or s a ve limitation.

¶25

JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

RSA-1801 of 2025

¶28

Th e re is yet another circumstance, which seriously dents the plaintiffs’ version. On specific query by this Court, learned counsel for the appellants con c eded that possession of the suit property was never delivered to the plaintiffs. I f indeed the entire sale consi d eration of ₹3,00,000/- had been paid in 2001, i t is wholly unnatural that th e plaintiffs would neither receive possession nor insist upon a registered sale deed for more than 12 years. T h is aspect further reinforces the concurrent findi n g that the plaintiffs’ story is n ot probable.

¶29

In v iew of the aforesaid discussio n , this Court finds that the findi n gs recorded by t h e trial Court and the First Appellate Court are well reason e d, based on prop e r appreciation of evidence, a n d call for no interference in the limited jurisdic t ion under Section 100 CPC. No substantial question of law ari s es for considerati o n.

¶30

Consequently, finding no merit in t he appeal, the same is dismiss e d. Pending applic a tions, if any, also stand dispose d of.

¶31

			(DEEPAK GUPTA)
13.11.2025			JUDGE
*Jiten*
	Wh ether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Wh ether reportable	: Yes/No

¶32

JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Baljinder Pal Singh and Anr. v. Vikram Singh through His Lr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljinder Pal Singh and Anr. v. Vikram Singh through His Lr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aflatoon Vs Surti etc.

(O&M) Jamna Dass Vs State of Haryana and Others

(O&M) Balwinder Singh Vs Hira Lal

Mohan Lal Vs Vinod Kumar

Gina Vs Ranjit Singh and Ors.

Kesar Singh and Ors. Vs Jaspal Singh and Ors.