09.07.2025 Vijay Pal Narender Singh v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 110 RSA-2401-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision.:09.07.2025 Vijay Pal Narender Singh Vs. …..Appellant .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Legal Reasoning
Present:- Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant of the case against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for specific performance based upon agreement to sell dated 27.08.2014 filed by plain*ff Narender Singh (respondent herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 21.12.2019, and the appeal filed by the defendant- appellant was dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 14.02.2023, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard at considerable length and paper-book perused. 3. As per plain*ff, defendant being owner of the suit land agreed to sell the same to him for considera*on of ₹30,00,000/- vide an agreement dated 27.08.2014. An amount of ₹28,60,000/- was paid to the defendant as earnest money vide a separate receipt. Balance sale considera*on was agreed to be paid at the *me of execu*on and registra*on of sale deed, for which purpose 27.08.2015 was agreed to be the target date. Plain*ff NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.10 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2401-2023 (O&M) -2- reached the office of Sub-Registrar on 27.08.2015 for ge8ng the sale deed executed in his favour along with balance sale considera*on and other expenses but defendant failed to turn up. Plain*ff got served legal no*ce dated 07.09.2015 asking the defendant to get executed and registered the sale deed within 15 days but defendant failed to do so. Plain*ff contended that he was always ready and willing and s*ll ready and willing to perform his part of contract but defendant failed to abide by the terms of agreement. 4. The stand of the defendant- appellant was that he never executed the agreement. In fact, he used to borrow money from plain*ff from *me to *me. He had borrowed an amount of ₹2,50,000/- on monthly interest @ 1 per cent. Plain*ff asked him to execute a document as security. In that document, defendant men*oned an amount of ₹2,86,000/- by adding ₹30,000/- as interest of one year and ₹6,000/- as expenses for registra*on, which he (defendant) signed in good faith and which document was later on misused by the plain*ff. Defendant denied having received earnest money of ₹28,60,000/- or having delivered the possession to the plain*ff. He accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par*es was taken on record. Both the Courts below held that plain*ff had successfully proved his case. The Courts disbelieved the stand of the defendant. As such, the judgment dated 21.12.2019 of the trial Court decreeing the suit was upheld by the first Appellate Court. 6. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated and that in fact, it was a financial transac*on for which the plain*ff got executed a security document. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.10 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2401-2023 (O&M) -3- 7. AAer perusing the en*re paper-book, this Court does not find merit in the conten*on of learned counsel. 8. As no*ced by the Courts below, agreement dated 27.08.2014 (Ex.P1) is registered document. Receipt of earnest money of ₹28,60,000/- is Ex.P2. Both these documents are proved not only by the tes*mony of plain*ff but further by the tes*mony of PW-2 Vinod Kumar, Advocate, who had draAed the same, as per the instruc*ons of the par*es and the agreement was later on got registered in the office of Joint Sub-Registrar, Tigaon. He further deposed that earnest money of ₹28,60,000/- was received by the plain*ff vide receipt (Ex.P2). One of the aGes*ng witness (PW-3) also corroborated this version of the plain*ff regarding execu*on of the agreement (Ex.P1) and payment of earnest money vide receipt (Ex.P2). According to him, an amount of ₹18,60,000/- was paid by the plain*ff to the defendant in his presence, whereas defendant had told him that he had already received ₹10,00,000/- through RTGS. PW-4 Ranbir Singh, an official of the Sub-Registrar, Tigaon proved due registra*on of agreement (Ex.P1) in their record. 9. The stand of the defendant to the effect that he had borrowed an amount of ₹2,50,000/- and that plain*ff had got executed the security document for an amount of ₹2,86,000/- was found to be absolutely not proved, considering his own admission to the effect that he had received an amount of ₹10,00,000/- through RTGS in his account. He did not refer about the said payment even in his wriGen statement. Defendant even admiGed to have received an amount of ₹2,50,000/- in cash from the plain*ff. Not only this, though defendant pleaded that he used to borrow the amount from the plain*ff from *me to *me but during his cross-examina*on, he conceded that he had never borrowed any amount from the plain*ff, which further falsified his version. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.10 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2401-2023 (O&M) -4- 10. First Appellate Court rightly observed that agreement (Ex.P1) being a registered document, there was presump*on under Sec*on 60 of the Registra*on Act regarding the endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar to the effect that it was executed and the contents of the same are correct. Registra*on of a document in itself is a solemn act and there is a presump*on of valid execu*on of such a document. Heavy onus lies upon a person, who wants to rebut the said presump*on or who alleges fraud. Defendant- appellant uGerly failed to rebut the said presump*on. 11. On account of en*re discussion as above, this Court does not find any ground whatsoever to disturb the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are found to be based upon proper apprecia*on of evidence on record. No merits. Dismissed.
Decision
All the miscellaneous applica*on(s), if any, stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE July 09, 2025 Nee*ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Whether Reportable NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.07.10 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document