The High Court
Case Details
RSA No.271 2713 of 2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STA HARYANA AT CHAN E STATES OF PUNJAB AND HANDIGARH 123 Shamsher Sin her Singh Krishan Kum n Kumar RSA N RSA No.2713 of 2025 (O&M) Reserv Reserved on:06.08.2025 Pronounced on:18.08.2025 Prono Vs ...Appellant ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMA AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate vocate for the appellant. Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the respondent. -.- AMARINDE INDER SINGH GREWAL J. 1. The instant regular second app y the d appeal has been preferred by the appellant-def defendant against the concurrent fi y the rrent finding of fact rendered by the learned trial trial Court and the learned 1st vide Appellate Court, Karnal vide judgments a nts and decrees dated 14.11.2022 ively .2022 and 14.05.2025 respectively whereby the y the suit for specific performance o ntial ance of contract with consequential relief of perm f permanent injunction filed by the been y the respondent-plaintiff has been decreed and and the appellant-defendant has b and has been directed to execute and register the s r the sale deed qua the suit property - operty in favour of the respondent- plaintiff as pe ff as per terms and conditions of agree ment agreement to sell Ex.P4 on payment of balance sa nce sale consideration within three mo ssing ree months from the date of passing of the judgm judgment and decree by the learned h the arned trial Court, failing which the respondent- -plaintiff was held entitled to get t ough o get the sale deed executed through the process o cess of court. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.19 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.271 2713 of 2025 (O&M) -2- 2. In brief, the facts as culled out that d out from the paper book, are that the appellan pellant-defendant, being owner in p .996, r in possession of House No.996, Sector-6, Urb , Urban Estate, Karnal measuring 14 ards ing 144 sq. mtrs. i.e.172.22 sq yards as per sale d sale deed bearing Vasika No.944/1 d with 44/1 dated 7.5.2007 registered with the office of ice of Sub Registrar, Karnal, entered with tered into an agreement to sell with respondent-
Facts
-plaintiff on 25.6.2015 for a tota s.55 a total sale consideration of Rs.55 lakhs qua the ua the suit property and paid Rs.10 ut of s.10 lakh as earnest money, out of which Rs.5 l Rs.5 lakh was paid in cash and Rs.5 eque Rs.5 lakh was paid through cheque No.9563470 3470 dated 25.6.2015 drawn from Pu , om Punjab National Bank, Sector-6, Urban Estate Estate, Karnal. The target date for exe sale for execution and registration of sale deed was fi as fixed as 24.5.2016. The appell e of appellant-defendant at the time of execution of ion of this agreement had disclosed tha SBI, sed that he had taken loan from SBI, Karnal and h and he will repay the same prior to th ilure r to the target date but on his failure to do so, ano another agreement to sell dated 10 the ated 10.5.2016 was executed by the appellant-def defendant in favour of the resp suit e respondent-plaintiff qua the suit property for ty for a total sale consideration of ived on of Rs.55 lakh and he received another Rs.6 r Rs.6 lakh as earnest money from resp e of respondent-plaintiff at the time of execution of ion of second agreement.Thereafter, the , the respondent-plaintiff and the appellant-def defendant had applied for permissi ty in ermission to sell the suit property in the office of ice of HUDA, Karnal for which the sited h the respondent-plaintiff deposited Rs.5,750/- as as administrative fee on 9.3.2017 - .2017 with the consent of appellant- defendant and and necessary documents were als rties. ere also executed by both the parties. On the targe target date i.e. 9.4.2017, the office was office of Sub Registrar, Karnal was closed on acc account of being Sunday. On 10.4. intiff 10.4.2017, the respondent-plaintiff reached the o the office of Sub Registrar, Karnal d but arnal for execution of sale deed but PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.19 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.271 2713 of 2025 (O&M) -3- the appellant pellant- defendant did not turn up fo f the up for performing his part of the contract and t and thus, the respondent-plaintiff go way got his presence marked by way of an affidavi ffidavit which was attested by the Exe The e Executive Magistrate, Karnal. The respondent- -plaintiff contacted the appellant ution ellant-defendant regarding execution of sale deed deed on which the appellant-defendan ount fendant disclosed that some amount was still outs ill outstanding against him in the off ue to he office of HUDA, Karnal, due to which, permi permission letter could not be issued. intiff ssued. Thus, the respondent-plaintiff again deposi deposited a sum of Rs.38,986/- on 19 arnal on 19.5.2017 with HUDA, Karnal and thereafte ereafter, again requested the appellant sale llant-defendant to execute the sale deed in his f n his favour but he lingered upon the r the on the matter on one pretext or the other, as he as he became dishonest due to steep ri perty teep rise in the price of suit property and refused t used to perform his part of the contra t has contract. Hence, the present suit has been filed. 3. The appellant-defendant contes ritten contested the suit by filing written statement, ta ent, taking preliminary objections qua ility, ns qua jurisdiction, maintainability, limitation, lo locus standi and cause of action. itted action. On merits, it was submitted that the agre e agreement to sell dated 25.6.2015/ ut a .2015/10.5.2016 was nothing but a result of fra of fraud. The respondent-plaintiff the intiff is a money lender and the appellant-def defendant took loan of Rs.5 lakh r on lakh from him which was later on repaid. The a The appellant-defendant never execu in r executed any agreement to sell in favour of the the respondent-plaintiff. At the ti Rs.5 the time of extending loan of Rs.5 lakhs, the re the respondent-plaintiff took signatur dant ignatures of the appellant-defendant on some blan e blank papers, stamp papers and bla hen nd blank cheques as security. When the appellant pellant-defendant repaid the loan amo gned n amount, he demanded his signed documents ba back from the respondent-plaintif to do laintiff, which he flatly refused to do PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.19 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.271 2713 of 2025 (O&M) -4- on the ground ground that the said documents got mi - got misplaced. Then, the respondent- plaintiff conv ff converted these documents in the in the shape of agreements to sell in question. Lo . Loan was taken on the suit pro d by uit property which was repaid by defendant on ant on 17.11.2015 and thus, plea take that ea taken by respondent-plaintiff that the sale deed e deed could not be executed as there w n the re was an outstanding loan on the suit property operty, cannot be believed at all. The filed The respondent-plaintiff had filed another case r case under section 138 of Negotiabl the gotiable Instruments Act against the appellant-def defendant for a sum of Rs.5 lakh n the lakh, which is still pending. In the second agree agreement dated 10.5.2016 as alleged there alleged by respondent-plaintiff, there is no mention ention of first agreement dated 25.6. that 25.6.2015 and thus, it is clear that these agreem greements to sell are result of frau the f fraud. On these submissions, the appellant-def defendant prayed it of that suit of f be the respondent-plaintiff be dismissed. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, foll From t d by es, following issues were framed by the learned tr rned trial Court:- 1) Wh Whether the plaintiff is entitled ific titled to a decree for specific performance of contract of sale per ith ale dated 25.06.2015 along with permanent injunction restraining per ing ing the defendant from alienating the suit property as prayed for? OP the 2) Wh Whether the suit is not legally mai OPP m? maintainable in the present form? OPD OP 3) Wh Whether the plaintiff has no cause ent cause of action to file the present suit? OPD suit 4) Wh Whether the present suit is not prop of properly valued for the purpose of jurisdiction? OPD juri 5) Wh 6) Rel Relief Whether the suit is barred by law? w? OPD PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.19 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.271 2713 of 2025 (O&M) -5- 5. Qua issue No.1, the learned trial Cour Qua is al as l Court after appreciating the oral as well as docum documentary evidence placed before vour efore it, returned a finding in favour of the respon respondent-plaintiff and against the lding the appellant-defendant by holding that the respo e respondent-plaintiff has discharged h ving rged his burden of proof by proving that agreeme reements Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 were dul - re duly executed and the appellant- defendant fai ant failed to perform his part of the c d the f the contract and therefore, held the respondent- -plaintiff entitled to specific perf nt to ic performance of the agreement to sell Ex.P4. I .P4. Issues Nos. 2 to 5 were not press ts by t pressed at the time of arguments by the appellant ellant-defendant and thus, the suit wa y the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid jud id judgment and decree passed by the peal by the learned trial Court, an appeal was preferred eferred by defendant, which was also gular s also dismissed. Hence, the regular second appea appeal. 6.
Legal Reasoning
“5. It is settled law that remedy an edy for specific performance is an equitable remedy and is in the ich the discretion of the court, which discretion requires to be exe led exercised according to settled principles of law and not arb der arbitrarily as adumbrated under Section 20 of the Specific Relief t’). elief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’). Under Section 20, the court is no ust is not bound to grant the relief just because there was a valid agree of greement of sale. Section 16(c) of the Act envisages that plaintiff he ntiff must plead and prove that he had performed or has always to ways been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of be s of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than th of an those terms the performance of which has been prevented or w he or waived by the defendant. The continuous readiness and wil the willingness on the part of the plaintiff is a condition preceden ific edent to grant the relief of specific performance. This circumstance nd ance is material and relevant and is required to be considered by or d by the court while granting or refusing to grant the relief. If th ver If the plaintiff fails to either aver or prove the same, he must f the ust fail. To adjudge whether the plaintiff is ready and willing the ling to perform his part of the contract, the court must take int t of e into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequen ng quent to the filing of the suit along with other attending circu of ircumstances. The amount of consideration which he has to of s to pay to the defendant must of necessity be proved to be availa the vailable. Right from the date of the execution till date of the decree dy cree he must prove that he is ready and has always been willing the ling to perform his part of the contract. As stated, the factum o ess m of his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the con ith contract is to be adjudged with reference to the conduct of ing of the party and the attending circumstances. The court ma nd may infer from the facts and PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.19 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.271 2713 of 2025 (O&M) -12- circumstances whether the plain ays plaintiff was ready and was always ready and willing to perform his his part of the contract.” 14. In Kamal Kumar v. Premlata the lata Joshi (2019) 3 SCC 793, the Hon’ble Supr le Supreme Court has observed as unde as under:- “7. It is a settled principle of l of of law that the grant of relief of specific performance is a discr ief. discretionary and equitable relief. The material questions, which a for ch are required to be gone into for grant of the relief of specific per performance, are: 7.1. First, whether there exists a act ists a valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purc /purchase of the suit property. 7.2. Second, whether the plainti ing aintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract dy ract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part a art as mentioned in the contract. 7.3. Third, whether the plaintiff h art tiff has, in fact, performed his part of the contract and, if so, how a hat ow and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and w as nd whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of th of the contract; 7.4. Fourth, whether it will be e f of be equitable to grant the relief of specific performance to the pla in plaintiff against the defendant in relation to suit property or it w hip it will cause any kind of hardship to the defendant and, if so, how the ow and in what manner and the extent if such relief is eventually ally granted to the plaintiff; 7.5. Lastly, whether the plainti ny aintiff is entitled for grant of any other alternative relief, namely, etc. ely, refund of earnest money, etc. and, if so, on what grounds. 8. In our opinion, the aforement the entioned questions are part of the statutory requirements [See Sec of Sections 16(c), 20, 21, 22, 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and s A and Forms 47/48 of Appendices A to C of the Code of Civil Proced ave ocedure]. These requirements have to be properly pleaded by th ive y the parties in their respective pleadings and proved with the nce the aid of evidence in accordance PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.19 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.271 2713 of 2025 (O&M) -13- with law. It is only then the C its e Court is entitled to exercise its discretion and accordingly gran ific grant or refuse the relief of specific performance depending upon th ties n the case made out by the parties on facts.” 15. It was a specific case of the re t the the respondent-plaintiff that at the time of execu f execution of first agreement to sell da - sell dated 25.06.2015, the appellant- defendant ha ant had disclosed that he had taken l d he aken loan from SBI, Karnal and he will repay th pay the same prior to the registration e for tration of sale deed, target date for which was f was fixed as 24.05.2016 and since cond since he failed to do so, second agreement to ent to sell dated 10.05.2016 was e for was executed and target date for execution o ion of sale deed was fixed as 0 the as 09.04.2017. Thereafter, the respondent- -plaintiff and the appellant-defend f the defendant applied for transfer of the suit property roperty in the name of the respond e of spondent-plaintiff in the office of HUDA, Karn , Karnal where the respondent-plainti as plaintiff had deposited Rs.5750/- as administrativ istrative fee on 09.03.2017. The respo nt to respondent-plaintiff came present to the office o fice of Sub Registrar, Karnal for on l for execution of sale deed on 10.04.2017 a 2017 as 09.04.2017 was Sunday but th d not but the appellant-defendant did not turn up and h and hence, respondent-plaintiff got m ay of f got marked his presence by way of an affidavit, idavit, which was attested by the E rnal. the Executive Magistrate, Karnal. Thereafter, re fter, respondent-plaintiff again contact t for contacted the appellant-defendant for registration o ation of sale deed but he stated that p ot be that permission letter could not be issued as the as there is some outstanding amount intiff mount. So, the respondent-plaintiff deposited a s ted a sum of Rs.38,986/- on 19.05.201 arget 05.2017 i.e. after expiry of the target date i.e.09.04 .09.04.2017 with HUDA, Karnal. T spect al. The original receipts with respect to amounts o unts of Rs.5750/- and Rs.38,986/-, Ex vely, , Ex.P7 and Ex.P7/A respectively, PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.19 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.271 2713 of 2025 (O&M) -14- deposited wi with respect to suit property by th h the by the respondent-plaintiff with the office of HU of HUDA, Karnal were in possessio ntiff, ssession of the respondent-plaintiff, which reflec reflects that he actually deposited wise osited the said amount, otherwise original rece l receipts would not have been in his d not in his possession and he would not have been de een deposited the aforesaid amount, h were unt, had the agreements to sell were not executed ecuted and the appellant-defendant wa perty ant was not ready to sell the property to the respo respondent-plaintiff. Hence, condu intiff conduct of the respondent-plaintiff showed that d that he was always ready and willi f the d willing to perform his part of the contract and ct and it was the appellant-defendant the endant, who neither turn up on the target date no date nor got ready to perform his part o iting s part of the contract after depositing of amount f ount for transfer of the suit property ntiff. roperty by the respondent-plaintiff. Therefore, in ore, in the opinion of this Court, issue ided , issue No.1 has rightly been decided by the learne learned trial Court in favour of the re ainst the respondent-plaintiff and against the appellant pellant-defendant and upheld by the l y the learned 1st Appellate Court in rt in appeal. 16. In view of the judgments pass reme ts passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pan Pankajakshi (Dead) through Lega ers Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandri ndrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 15 hvi C 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh a gh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 ad) 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LR LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead ers, (dead) through LRs and others, questions of ns of law are not required to be frame e the framed in second appeal before the Punjab and H and Haryana High Court whose jur d by ose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of ions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Courts Act, 1918. PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.19 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.271 2713 of 2025 (O&M) -15- 17. As an upshot of above discussio ality cussion, this Court finds no illegality and perversit rversity in the concurrent finding of fa ourts of fact rendered by both the Courts below and th and the same is upheld. The regular se ular second appeal is dismissed. 18. Pending misc. application(s), if a
Arguments
Learned counsel for the appellan the ppellant-defendant submitted that the appellant-def defendant had specifically pleaded iff is eaded that the respondent-plaintiff is a money len ey lender, who had given a loan of - an of Rs.5 lakhs to the appellant- defendant an ant and in lieu thereof, he had obtaine - obtained signatures of the appellant- defendant on ant on blank papers, stamp papers ever, and blank cheques. However, when the afo the aforesaid amount was not paid, f intiff paid, firstly the respondent-plaintiff filed a compl complaint against the appellant-defen f the defendant under Section 138 of the Negotiable I able Instruments Act and secondly, gned ondly, converted the blank signed papers of the of the appellant-defendant into alleged and alleged agreements to sell Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Both Both the learned Courts below hav esaid w have brushed aside the aforesaid fact, especia specially keeping in view the admi - admission of PW-3 in his cross- examination ation that the respondent-plaintiff wa ss of tiff was engaged in the business of money lendin lending. It was further submitted th sell itted that if at all, agreement to sell PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.19 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.271 2713 of 2025 (O&M) -6- dated 25.06.2 5.06.2015 was executed to purchase time chase the property, then a long time of 11 months onths’ time should not be fixed for by for execution of the sale deed by the responde spondent-plaintiff, which clearly sh gned rly shows that the blank signed documents k ents kept for security were converted The verted into agreement to sell. The respondent- -plaintiff had not appeared on the and on the target date i.e. 24.05.2016 and mentioned th ned that a fresh agreement was exe s on as executed between the parties on 10.05.2016 d 016 due to non-payment of SBI loan was I loan, however, the said loan was already paid paid by the appellant-defendant on 1 uced nt on 17.11.2015 and also produced copy of NOC f NOC from the bank by way of add first of additional document but the first Appellate Co ate Court dismissed the said applicati n of lication. There was no mention of the first agre st agreement in the second agreemen s.11 eement and thus, payment of Rs.11 lakhs given given in cash was mentioned in the total in the second agreement and total amount paid t paid was mentioned as Rs.16 lakhs ment lakhs whereas in the first agreement it was men mentioned that Rs.5 lakhs was given was s given in cash and Rs.5 lakhs was given through hrough cheque, thus, if calculation of ment ion of amount in both the agreement is made, then e, then it comes to Rs.21 lakhs i.e. mo erted i.e. more than what has been averted by the respon respondent-plaintiff. Agreements to s and ts to sell were drafted by PW-2 and not PW-5, w 5, who admitted that there is no me n the no mention of first agreement in the second agree agreement and there are marginal c ct to ginal contradictions with respect to cash paymen ayment in both agreements. It was als rove as also submitted that onus to prove readiness and ss and willingness to perform the co - the contract was on the respondent- plaintiff and ff and in the absence of any proof rega ey to of regarding availability of money to pay the bala e balance sale consideration, both th vely oth the Courts below have gravely erred in deci n deciding the issue No.1 in favour . In vour of the respondent-plaintiff. In support of his t of his contention, learned counsel for elied sel for the appellant-defendant relied PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.19 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.271 2713 of 2025 (O&M) -7- upon the jud he judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme oya preme Court passed in Abdullakoya Haji and oth d others Vs. RubisTharayil and an and d another (2019) 17 SCC 216and the judgment ent passed by a Coordinate Bench ani Bench of this Court in Veena Rani Vs. Suraj Ba j Bansal passed in RSA No.5027 o 2025 027 of 2017 decided on 08.04.2025 (2025 NCPH NCPHHC 48821).There is no explana was xplanation as to why target date was fixed after 11 fter 11 months from the date of execu sell f execution of first agreement to sell and further the respondent-plaintiff agreed sale d to defer the execution of sale deed again gain for almost 11 months after cond after execution of alleged second agreement to ent to sell, which proves that the all were the alleged agreements to sell were disputed. In d. In support of his argument, he re f the , he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supr le Supreme Court passed in Lakha Sin nd a Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh and another 2024 2024 (4) RCR (Civil) 427. 7. Per contra, learned counsel a - el appearing for the respondent- plaintiff argu argued that judgments and decree rned decrees passed by both the learned Courts below below are based on correct apprec and appreciation of facts and law and therefore, do re, do not require any interference cond rence in the instant regular second appeal, thus, , thus, prayed for dismissal of the same e same. 8. I have heard learned counsel gone for the parties and have gone through pape h paper book with their able assistance ited. istance as well as the case laws cited. 9. First of all, learned counsel fo t has sel for the appellant-defendant has disputed the d the execution of agreements to sel and to sell dated 25.06.2015 Ex.P3 and 10.05.2016 E 6 Ex.P4 on the ground that the re oney the respondent-plaintiff is a money lender and in and in lieu of offering loan facility of R some ity of Rs.5 lakhs, he got signed some blank papers apers from the appellant-defendant, w into ant, which were later converted into aforemention entioned agreements to sell. It was laint was also argued that a complaint PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.19 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.271 2713 of 2025 (O&M) -8- under Section Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrum y the nstruments Act was also filed by the respondent- -plaintiff when the cheque of Rs.5 r the f Rs.5 lakhs given as security for the loan was dis as dishonoured. As regards the is g of the issue with respect to filing of complaint un aint under Section 138 of the Negot the Negotiable Instruments Act by the respondent- -plaintiff, the said complaint was eque nt was filed on dishonor of cheque bearing No.8 g No.894110 dated 18.12.2017 of Rs eque of Rs.5 lakhs whereas the cheque given at the at the time of execution of agreeme aring reement to sell Ex.P3 was bearing No.956470 470 dated 25.06.2015, therefore, has fore, the appellant-defendant has miserably fai bly failed to prove that the cheque giv dant ue given by the appellant-defendant as security fo rity for loan and the cheque issued by or an by the respondent-plaintiff for an amount of Rs t of Rs.5 lakhs at the time of execution s one ecution of agreement to sell, was one and the same same. 10. Furthermore, if the agreements were ements to sell Exs.P3 & P4 were forged and f and fabricated as the blank signed - igned documents by the appellant- defendant an ant and cheques as security of loan the f loan obtained by him from the respondent- -plaintiff were converted into a it is into agreement to sell, then it is beyond comp comprehension as to why he had mo 1, to had moved an application, Ex.P1, to the Estate Of tate Officer, HUDA, Karnal seeking pe ouse king permission to transfer the house in the name name of the respondent-plaintiff, by ntiff, which also accompanied by affidavit Ex.P it Ex.P2 of the appellant-defendant st mnly dant stating therein that he solemnly affirmed and and declared that he has executed a ouse uted a transfer permission of House No.996, Sect , Sector 6, Urban Estate, Karnal in fa on of l in favour of Krishan Kumar son of Sh. Indraj S draj Singh i.e. respondent-plaintiff thout intiff in sound mind and without pressure of re of any person. The said affidav the affidavit was duly attested by the Executing M ting Magistrate, Karnal. Furthermore, upon rmore, the stamps papers whereupon PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.19 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.271 2713 of 2025 (O&M) -9- agreements t ents to sell Ex.P3 and P4 were exec d on e executed were itself purchased on 25.06.2015 2015 and 10.05.2016 respectively dant tively by the appellant-defendant himself. PW f. PW-2 Kewal Krishan in his cross at he cross examination submitted that he knew the ap the appellant-defendant by face and sell e and both the agreements to sell Ex.P3 and P4 and P4 were written by him and in on as a d in one of the agreements, he was a witness also. s also. It was also further stated that th hand that the stamp paper was in the hand of appellant ellant-defendant. He also stated tha was ted that apart from him, there was another witn r witness of the agreement namely V long ely Vijay Kumar, who came along with the resp e respondent-plaintiff. Both PW-2 an sion 2 and PW-3 stated that dimension of currency n ency notes were of Rs.500 each. PW n his PW-3 Dilbag Singh Mann in his cross-examin xamination stated that respondent-pla the plaintiff gave Rs.5 lakhs to the appellant-def defendant in cash and a cheque of R The ue of Rs.5 lakhs in front of him. The onus to prov o prove that a fraud was played upo - ed upon him was on the appellant- defendant, w nt, which he miserably failed to prove o prove. 11. The second issue for conside rt is onsideration before this Court is whether the r r the respondent-plaintiff was ready a part eady and willing to perform his part of the contr contract, which is essential ingred king ingredient to prove while seeking specific perfo c performance of agreement to sell? ss is sell? Readiness and willingness is enshrined un ed under clause (c) of Section 16 of 1963 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and, therefor erefore, it would be apt to reproduc cific produce Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, w Act, which is as under:- “16. Personal bars to relief. contract cannot be enforced in f a elief. Specific performance of a in favour of a person- (a) who has obtained substitu under section 20; or act stituted performance of contract PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.19 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.271 2713 of 2025 (O&M) -10- (b) who has become incapable essential term of, the contract t performed, or acts in fraud of t variance with, or in subversion established by the contract; or ble of performing, or violates any ny act that on his part remains to be be at of the contract, or wilfully acts at be sion of, the relation intended to be (c) who fails to prove that he been ready and willing to perfo contract which are to be perfor the performance of which has be defendant. ays he has performed or has always perform the essential terms of the the erformed by him, other than terms ms the as been prevented or waived by the Explanation.-For the purposes o ses of clause (c). (i where a contract involves th essential for the plaintiff to actu to deposit in court any money e court; s the payment of money, it is not not or actually tender to the defendant or the ey except when so directed by the (ii) the plaintiff must prove perf willingness to perform, the co construction.” nd performance of, or readiness and rue e contract according to its true 12. The provisions of Section 16 ( Act n 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act envisage tha that the respondent-plaintiff must had must plead and prove that he had performed or ed or has always been ready and w ntial and willing to perform the essential terms of the of the contract which are to be perfor uous performed by him. The continuous readiness an ess and willingness on the part of ition art of the plaintiff is a condition precedent to ent to grant the relief of specific perf as to ic performance. The question as to whether the r the onus was discharged by the pla upon he plaintiff or not will depend upon the facts and ts and circumstances of each case and a can se and no straightjacket formula can be laid down down to assess the same. 13. The ordinary rule is that spe d be at specific performance should be granted. It ou d. It ought to be denied only when eq nt to en equitable considerations point to its refusal an sal and the circumstances show that te an w that damages would constitute an PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.19 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.271 2713 of 2025 (O&M) -11- adequate reli te relief. The Hon’ble Supreme Cou R. e Court in N.P. Thirugnanam v. R. Jagan Moha ohan Rao (Dr) (1995) 5 SCC 115 has held as under:-
Decision
(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (AMARIND RINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE August 18, 2 Pankaj* , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.08.19 19:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh