13.11.2025 Baljinder Pal Sing l Singh & Anr. Vikram Singh (sin Rs. (since deceased) v. CORAM: HON’BL PTA N’BLE
Case Details
RSA-1801 of 202 2025 IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 25 RSA No. 1801 of 2025 2025 Decided on: 13.11.2025 Baljinder Pal Sing l Singh & Anr. Vikram Singh (sin Rs. (since deceased) through his LRs. Versus CORAM: HON’BL PTA N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate Present:- Mr. for the appellants. for t *** DEEPAK GUPTA, TA, J. …Appellant llants …Respondent ents This Regular Second Appeal is d This is directed against the concurren rrent findings of the C e Courts below, whereby the suit f uit for possession by way of specifi ecific performance file
Legal Reasoning
filed by the plaintiffs–appellants w ts was dismissed by the trial Cour ourt vide judgment d nt dated 22.09.2017, and the first first appeal preferred by them wa was dismissed by the the First Appellate Court on 22.10.2 .10.2024. 2. Assailing the said judgments, lear Assa learned counsel for the appellant llants contends that t at the Courts below failed to pro and properly appreciate the oral and documentary evi evidence on record and that the fin e findings suffer from perversity. 3. However, after examining the plead How leadings, evidence, and the finding dings recorded by both both Courts below, this Court find esaid finds no substance in the aforesaid contention. 4. As per the plaintiffs’ case, Vikram Si As p m Singh, the predecessor-in-interes erest of the defendant dants, had executed an agreement ent to sell dated 21.04.2001 in thei their favour regarding ding the suit land for a sale consi onsideration of ₹3,00,000/-. It wa was alleged that the e the entire sale consideration had be ution d been paid at the time of execution of the agreemen ment and that Vikram Singh had ad undertaken to execute the sal sale deed, as and wh when required by the plaintiffs. P ffs. Plaintiffs also pleaded readines iness JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 3 RSA-1801 of 202 2025 and willingness a ess and claimed to have repeatedly ts to tedly approached the defendants to perform the cont contract. 5. The defendants, however, categoric The gorically denied the execution of th f the agreement to sel o sell by Vikram Singh and controver overted all other averments, seekin eking dismissal of the s he suit. 6. Both the Courts below, on detai Both ence, etailed appraisal of the evidence recorded concurr current findings that the plaintiffs iffs failed to prove due execution o on of the agreement to nt to sell. 7. This Court finds no infirmity in the c This the conclusion. Once the defendant ants specifically denie enied the execution of the agreem y on eement, the burden squarely lay on the plaintiffs to p to prove it in accordance with Sec ence Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act. Yet, none ne of the attesting witnesses to were to the alleged agreement were examined. No ha o handwriting/fingerprint expert wa t the was examined to establish that the signatures on th n the document belonged to Vikram such ikram Singh. In the absence of such essential evidenc dence, the plaintiffs failed to discha ischarge the foundational burden o en of proving due exec execution. 8. Even otherwise, the suit was hope Even . The opelessly barred by limitation. The agreement was as dated 21.04.2001. Under its t uired its terms, the vendor was required either to return turn the amount or execute the the sale deed by 20.04.2003. Th The plaintiffs themse mselves pleaded that Vikram Singh ingh failed to return the amount b nt by the said date. te. In cross-examination, PW5 Ra 5 Ravinder Pal Singh (one of th the plaintiffs) admitt mitted that in 2003 itself Vikram Si m Singh refused to execute the sal sale deed. This amoun ounted to a clear refusal, giving cau g cause of action at that stage. 9. Still further, plaintiffs pleaded that Still Singh that they approached Vikram Singh 10–15 times. The . They stated that even on 09.05.20 d on 5.2006 the sale deed was refused on account of lack o ck of NOC from Town Planning De itted Department. Despite this admitted refusal, no suit w it was filed for years thereafter, as nly in , as the present suit was filed only in April 2013, whic which is well beyond the three- -year limitation prescribed unde nder Article 54 of the the Limitation Act. Mere oral assert es do ssertions of repeated approaches do not extend or sav r save limitation. JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 3 RSA-1801 of 202 2025 10. There is yet another circumstan Ther stance, which seriously dents th the plaintiffs’ versio rsion. On specific query by this his Court, learned counsel for th r the appellants conce nceded that possession of the suit suit property was never delivered to the plaintiffs. If . If indeed the entire sale conside been sideration of ₹3,00,000/- had been paid in 2001, it , it is wholly unnatural that the ceive he plaintiffs would neither receive possession nor in or insist upon a registered sale dee deed for more than 12 years. Thi . This aspect further re er reinforces the concurrent finding ding that the plaintiffs’ story is no s not probable. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, In vi ion, this Court finds that the finding dings recorded by the the trial Court and the First App ned, Appellate Court are well reasoned based on proper er appreciation of evidence, and the and call for no interference in the limited jurisdictio iction under Section 100 CPC. No s o substantial question of law arise rises tion. for consideration 12. Consequently, finding no merit in th Cons ssed. in the appeal, the same is dismissed Pending applicat lications, if any, also stand disposed sed of. 13.11.2025 Jiten Whe Whe hether speaking/reasoned hether reportable : Yes/No : Yes/No (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.14 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 3