Nihal Kaur and Ors. (B.O.) Vs Gurdev Singh and… — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Nihal Kaur and Ors. (B.O.) Vs Gurdev Singh and… — Specific Performance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the judgments and decrees dated 24.12.1988 and 26.08.1998 of the courts below stand affirmed, sustaining the decree for possession by way of specific performance in favour of respondent No.1 Gurdev Singh.

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 executed the agreement dated 29.05.86 in favour of Gurdev Singh on receipt of Rs.10,000/- as earnest money? (OPP) +7 more

Court's answer

Execution of agreement Ex.P1 has been established beyond doubt; PW1, PW2 and PW3 consistently and undiscreditedly testified that the defendants executed the agreement in their presence and received ₹10,000 earnest money.

Ratio / Principle

Having considered rival submissions, the Court found no merit in the Regular Second Appeal; the concurrent findings of both courts below are based on sound appreciation of evidence and do not warrant interference.

Key takeaways

Illiterate/rustic attesting witnesses may not recall exact dates or formal details, but that does not discredit their testimony where the material fact — that the defendants executed Ex.P1 and affixed thumb impressions in their presence — remains consistent.ratio¶52
Once the attesting witnesses have been examined and have consistently proved execution of the agreement to sell in the presence of the parties, the absence of the scribe in the witness box is not fatal; hence non-examination of scribe Kulwant Rai does not weaken the plaintiff's case.ratio¶54
PW4, handwriting and fingerprint expert, opined that thumb impressions Q1 and Q3 were identical with specimen S1; once two clear and identical matches are found, the non-comparability of one blurred impression (Q2) because of excess ink does not discredit the document and strengthens the inference that Ex.P1 bears genuine thumb impressions of defendant Gurchand Singh.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Specific performance — Agreement to sell dated 29.05.1986 (Ex.P1) over 10 kanals 17 marlas for ₹28,481.25/- (₹2100/- per killa) with ₹10,000/- earnest money — Execution proved by consistent testimony of attesting witnesses PW2 Sadha Ram and PW3 Harchand Singh corroborated by fingerprint expert PW4 (impressions Q1 and Q3 identical with specimen S1; blurred Q2 immaterial) — Non-examination of scribe Kulwant Rai not fatal once attesting witnesses prove execution — Illiterate witnesses' inability to recall exact dates immaterial — After execution is established, burden of proving forgery/blank-paper theory lies on defendants; bare denials insufficient — Plaintiff's presence before Sub Registrar, Lehra with ₹25,000/- balance on 10.06.1986, evidenced by Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, satisfies Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Gurmail Singh v. Jagdish Pal Singh, 2018(3) RCR (Civil) 658 distinguished — Coparcenary plea an afterthought; issue-framing application dismissed 30.08.1988 attained finality — Co-sharer competent to alienate undivided share, transfer operating subject to adjustment in partition — Objections of valuation, non-joinder and locus standi concurrently rejected — Concurrent findings free from illegality or perversity; RSA dismissed and decrees dated 24.12.1988 and 26.08.1998 affirmed.

Issues for consideration

8 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 executed the agreement dated 29.05.86 in favour of Gurdev Singh on receipt of Rs.10,000/- as earnest money? (OPP)¶22
The court held
Execution of agreement Ex.P1 has been established beyond doubt; PW1, PW2 and PW3 consistently and undiscreditedly testified that the defendants executed the agreement in their presence and received ₹10,000 earnest money.ratio¶52
2.
Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing, and still ready and willing, to perform his part of the contract? (OPP)¶22
The court held
The plaintiff's readiness and willingness stands proved — he remained present before the Sub Registrar with balance sale consideration and witnesses on the date fixed while the defendants defaulted — and the requirement of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is fully satisfied.ratio¶57
3.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of the contract dated 29.5.86, or in the alternative a decree for recovery of Rs.20,000/-? (OPP)¶23
4.
Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? (OPD)¶26
5.
Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? (OPD)¶27
6.
Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? (OPD)¶27
7.
Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? (OPD)¶28
The court held
The plea of coparcenary property is an afterthought; the application to frame an issue to prove the coparcenary nature was dismissed by the trial court on 30.08.1988, no appeal was filed, the order attained finality, and the coparcenary nature of the property remains unproved on record.ratio¶60
8.
Whether there are material alterations in the agreement dated 29.05.86 and the same is a forged and fabricated document? (OPD)¶29
The court held
Once execution is established, the burden shifts upon the defendants to prove their plea of forgery or blank papers; no such evidence was brought on record, and mere denials by DW2 cannot outweigh the expert's testimony and the evidence of the attesting witnesses.ratio¶55