IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Mahabir Singh (deceased) through v. RSA-185-1996
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Mahabir Singh (deceased) through LRs Dharambir Singh (deceased) through LRs and Others Vs. RSA-185-1996 . . . . Appellants . . . . Respondents Reserved on: 04.12.2025 Pronounced on: 08.12.2025 Pronounced fully/opera8ve party: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with Ms. Priyanka Kansal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, advocate for respondent No.1 (i). Mr. Lajpat Rai Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The plain/ff, Mahabir Singh, has approached this Court in the present second appeal, challenging the reversal of the decree passed in his
Legal Reasoning
favour by the trial court. His suit for specific performance had been decreed on 09.02.1995 by the Trial Court. However, the first appellate court, by judgment dated 26.10.1995, allowed the appeal filed by defendant Nos.2 to 4 and dismissed the suit in its en/rety. 2. To avoid any ambiguity, the par/es are referred to by their original descrip/on before the trial court. The en/re record, as available on DMS, has been duly perused. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.08 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-185-1996 3.1 Plain8ff’s Case: Mahabir Singh (plain/ff) and Dharambir Singh (defendant No.1) are real brothers. The plain/ff alleged that defendant No.1, being the owner of the suit property situated in Village Gochhi, Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak, comprising 59 Kanals 3 Marlas of agricultural land, a residen/al house (marked ABCD in site plan Ex.P2), and a Gher (marked ABCD in site plan Ex.P3), had agreed to sell the same to him. This agreement to sell, dated 21.10.1989 (Ex.P1), was allegedly executed for total sale considera/on of ₹1,00,000/-, out of which ₹20,000/- was paid as earnest money. The s/pulated date for execu/on of the sale deed was fixed as 15.06.1990. 3.2 According to the plain/ff, he duly presented himself before the Sub-Registrar, Beri, on the appointed date, ready with the balance considera/on. However, defendant No.1 did not appear. Subsequently, the plain/ff learnt that defendant No.1 had sold 32 Kanals of the suit land to defendant Nos.2 to 4 for a considera/on of ₹1,60,000/- vide sale deed dated 28.05.1991 (Ex.P4). He then ins/tuted the present suit seeking (i) specific performance of the agreement dated 21.10.1989, and (ii) a declara/on that the subsequent sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 was illegal and void. 4.1 Defendant No.1 did not contest the suit and was proceeded against ex parte. 4.2 Contes8ng Defendants’ Stand: Defendant Nos.2 to 4 in their wriBen statement asserted that they had purchased 32 Kanals of the land lawfully, for valuable considera/on, and without any no/ce of the alleged prior agreement. They alleged that the agreement relied upon by the plain/ff was a forged and fabricated document, created in collusion between the two brothers. They accordingly claimed the protec/on of being bona fide purchasers and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Findings of the Trial Court: Upon evalua/ng the pleadings of the par/es and the evidence led by them, the trial court held that the agreement dated 21.10.1989 (Ex.P1) stood duly proved and further held that defendant NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.08 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 7 RSA-185-1996 Nos.2 to 4 were not bona fide purchasers. The suit was thus decreed on 09.02.1995. 6. Findings of the Appellate Court: However, in appeal filed by defendants N: 2 to 4, the learned Addi/onal District Judge took a different view. While affirming the finding that agreement Ex.P1 was proved to have been executed by defendant No.1, the appellate court observed that the agreement did not contain any descrip/on whatsoever of the agricultural land intended to be sold - neither khasra numbers nor khewat, khatauni, or boundaries. The appellate court further held that the sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4 was executed almost a year aFer the target date of the agreement and so, not in haste as was observed by trial court; and that the vendees had no no/ce, actual or construc/ve, of the alleged prior contract. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 were accordingly held to be bona fide purchasers for value, leading to a dismissal of the plain/ff's suit in toto, vide judgment dated 26.10.1995. 7.1 Appellant’s Conten8ons : Assailing the appellate court’s judgment,
Legal Reasoning
learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that once both courts had concurrently held the agreement (Ex.P1) to be duly executed, the appellate court erred in denying specific performance. It is argued that the trial court had correctly discarded the sale deed dated 28.05.1991, par/cularly no/ng (i) the suspicious choice of aBes/ng witnesses from different villages despite the availability of the Numberdar from the same village, (ii) the absence of any bona fide inquiries by the vendees, and (iii) the fact that one of the vendees was a resident of the same village and thus, presumably aware of the prior agreement. Ld. Counsel contends that the sale deed was the result of collusion between defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 to 4. 7.2 Alterna/vely, it is argued that even if defendant Nos.2 to 4 were considered bona fide purchasers to the extent of 32 Kanals, the plain/ff was at least en/tled to specific performance for the remaining por/on of the property owned by defendant No.1. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.08 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 7 RSA-185-1996 7.3 8.1 Prayer is accordingly made to restore the judgment of Trial Court. Respondents’ Conten8ons : Defendant Nos.2 to 4 maintained that the appellate court has correctly held them to be bona fide purchasers. It is pointed out that the revenue records disclosed nothing regarding the alleged agreement, and no circumstance existed to put defendant Nos.2 to 4 on inquiry. They asserted that the alleged agreement between two brothers was deliberately kept secret. 8.2 Ld. counsel for defendant No.1, though the said defendant had not appeared before the trial court, argued that an appellant may s/ll defend the decree on the exis/ng record. It was emphasised that agreement Ex.P1 failed to specify, which land to the extent of 9.5 acres was agreed to be sold, and that the total land owned by defendant No.1 was in fact less than the land described in the agreement, rendering it inherently uncertain and unenforceable. 9. Court’s Considera8on : This Court has considered the rival submissions and carefully examined the en/re record. 10. There is no jus/fica/on to disturb the concurrent finding regarding the execu/on of agreement Ex.P1. The scribe (PW-1), an aBes/ng witness (PW- 2), and a handwri/ng expert (PW-3) all supported the plain/ff’s case. Defendant No.1 neither filed a wriBen statement nor entered the witness box, and so, an adverse inference under Sec/on 114(g) of the Evidence Act is well jus/fied. 11. However, the mere proof of execu/on of an agreement does not automa/cally en/tle a plain/ff to the relief of specific performance, as it is an equitable remedy subject to strict judicial scru/ny, par/cularly regarding the certainty of the terms of the contract, readiness and willingness, and the rights of third par/es. 12. A closer scru/ny of agreement Ex.P1 raises legi/mate doubts about its authen/city and /ming. The document is wriBen on a plain sheet bearing only an adhesive revenue stamp, without a proper stamp paper. The scribe NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.08 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 7 RSA-185-1996 failed to produce any register showing its contemporaneous execu/on. Given that the par/es are real brothers, the possibility of a document being created later i.e., aFer the sale deed in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4, cannot be ruled out. Although the Court refrains from formally declaring the agreement collusive, the surrounding circumstances cast a significant shadow on its genuineness. 13. Pleas Bona Fide Purchasers : Even assuming agreement Ex.P1 to be genuine, the appellate court’s finding that defendant Nos.2 to 4 are bona fide purchasers deserves affirma/on. The revenue records (Jamabandi and muta/ons, Ex.P5–P7) depicted defendant No.1 as the owner in self-cul/va/ng possession. There was no entry, remark, or encumbrance indica/ng any prior agreement. Under Sec(cid:7)on 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a transferee is expected to exercise such diligence as an ordinary prudent purchaser would. This ordinarily involves verifying the /tle of the transferor and the revenue entries. Unless there are suspicious circumstances, a purchaser is not required to go beyond the apparent /tle of the transferor. 14. The appellate court rightly noted that the sale deed dated 28.05.1991 (Ex.P4) was executed almost one year aFer the date fixed for performance under agreement Ex.P1, nega/ng allega/ons of undue haste. The mere fact that the aBes/ng witnesses belonged to nearby villages does not by itself cast suspicion on the sale deed, par/cularly when two vendees were from the same village as one of the witnesses. 15. The law is consistent to the effect that where there exists no circumstance to put the purchaser on inquiry, and the /tle appears clear on the record, the purchaser is en/tled to the protec/on accorded to a bona fide transferee for value. 16. Uncertainty and Vagueness of the Agreement : The most crucial infirmity in the plain/ff’s case lies in the uncertainty and indefiniteness of the agreement itself. The agreement recites a total area of 9.5 acres, whereas the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.08 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 7 RSA-185-1996 plain/ff’s own claim in the plaint pertains to 59 Kanal 3 Marla (i.e., 7 acre 3 Kanal 3 Marla). No explana/on emerges for this discrepancy. More importantly, no khasra numbers, boundaries, or iden/fying par/culars were provided, which is contrary to the strict requirement that a contract sought to be specifically enforced must be definite and capable of execu/on. 17. The legal precedents such as: Surjit Singh and another v. Manohar Lal and others, 2004(3) RCR (Civil) 761; Bhagwan Singh (deceased) represented by LRs v. Nawab Mohammad I!ikhar Ali Khan and others, 1984 RRR 532; Megh Raj v. Subhash Rani and others, 2012 (2) PLR 392; and Smt. Sant Kaur (deceased) thr LRs v. Balwinder Singh and others, 2016 (4) Law Herald 2832, all affirm the principle that an agreement lacking essen/al par/culars concerning the iden/ty of the property is uncertain and unenforceable. The court cannot, by adducing oral evidence or conjecture, create clarity where the par/es themselves have failed to do so. Sec/on 29 of the Contract Act reinforces this by declaring agreements void, where meaning is uncertain or not capable of being made certain. 18. In the light of this legal posi/on, it has been rightly held by the first appellate court that the agreement Ex.P1 suffers from incurable vagueness and is therefore incapable of enforcement, either wholly or partly. The argument that the plain/ff should at least be granted a decree for the land remaining aFer excluding the 32 Kanals sold to the bona fide purchasers cannot be accepted. Courts cannot rewrite contracts or infer terms not agreed upon between the par/es. 19. Conclusion : For all the reasons as discussed above, this Court finds no infirmity in the judgment of the first appellate court. The findings regarding the bona fide status of defendant Nos.2 to 4 and the unenforceability of the agreement Ex.P1 due to inherent vagueness are legally sound and supported by both precedent and principle. The plea for par/al specific performance is equally untenable. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.08 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 6 of 7 RSA-185-1996 20. Consequently, the present second appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree of the appellate court are affirmed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 08.12.2025 Nee(cid:7)ka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes/No Yes/No Uploaded on: 08.12.2025 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.08 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 7 of 7