Balvir Kaur v. Harjinder Singh and others
Case Details
RSA-3720-2025 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 134 RSA-3720-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.11.2025 Balvir Kaur ...Appellant(s) Vs. Harjinder Singh and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Ms. Harshmir Kaur Swaitch, Advocate for the appellant. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-13609-C-2025 Prayer in this applica琀椀on 昀椀led under Sec琀椀on 151 CPC is for condona琀椀on of delay of 32 days in re昀椀ling the accompanying appeal. 2. 3. Heard. For the reasons men琀椀oned in the applica琀椀on which is duly
Legal Reasoning
dismissed on the short ground that this Court in Regular Second Appeal has limited jurisdic琀椀on to interfere in the concurrent 昀椀ndings of facts returned by the learned Courts below. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Shivali Enterprises v. Godawari (Deceased) (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 2034559 has held that no ma琀琀er howsoever incorrect or grossly erroneous the concurrent 昀椀ndings of the learned courts below may be, this Court in the Second Appeal can interfere in the concurrent 昀椀ndings only where there is an error in law or procedure. In the present case, no such error in law and procedure has been made out by learned counsel for the appellants. 13.
Arguments
supported by an a昀케davit of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 32 days in re昀椀ling the appeal is condoned. RSA- 3720-2025 (O&M ) Present Second Appeal has been 昀椀led by the plain琀椀昀昀 against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby suit 昀椀led by the appellant for speci昀椀c performance of Agreement to Sell dated 20.01.2010; OR suit for recovery of total sale considera琀椀on DIVYANSHI 2025.11.20 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3720-2025 (O&M) - 2 - of Rs.8,50,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a.; and suit for permanent injunc琀椀on, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. 2. It is inter alia submi琀琀ed by learned counsel for the appellant that defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the house in ques琀椀on to the plain琀椀昀昀 for a total sale considera琀椀on of Rs.8,50,000/- in respect of which Agreement to Sell dated 20.01.2010 has been executed. Admi琀琀edly, the en琀椀re sale considera琀椀on was paid by the plain琀椀昀昀. However, defendant No.1 had refused to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plain琀椀昀昀. Moreover, ld. Courts below have wrongly discarded the evidence produced by the appellant to prove beyond doubt that the Agreement to Sell is a valid one. Hence, present suit was ins琀椀tuted on 22.01.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the case of the respondents/defendants that defendant No.1 had returned the sale amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to the plain琀椀昀昀 vide Receipt dated 10.09.2010 in cash, is not believable and is clouded under suspicious circumstances as the said Receipt is not signed by defendant No.1. The said Receipt is only signed by interested witnesses Harjinder Singh and Amarjit Singh, who are both related to defendant No.1. As such, defendants have been unable to prove that the sale amount of Rs.8,50,000/- was returned to the plain琀椀昀昀. 4. It is further contended that even the alleged thumb impression of the plain琀椀昀昀 upon the Receipt dated 10.9.2010 has been misconstrued by the learned Courts below. It was the clear case of the plain琀椀昀昀 that defendant No.1 had taken signatures of the plain琀椀昀昀 on blank DIVYANSHI 2025.11.20 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3720-2025 (O&M) - 3 - papers by sta琀椀ng that it is required for Numberdar. In her replica琀椀on, plain琀椀昀昀 had categorically denied her thumb impression upon the Receipt Ex.D1. As such, appellant could not have been non-suited on the basis of Receipt Ex.D1. Learned Courts below have ignored the speci昀椀c plea taken by the appellant that Receipt Ex.D1 is shown to be prepared under suspicious circumstances which the defendant No1. has been unable to prove beyond doubt. Accordingly, suit of the plain琀椀昀昀 could not have been dismissed. 5. It is accordingly prayed that the present Appeal be allowed; and the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below be set aside. 6. No other argument is raised on behalf of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case 昀椀le in great detail. I 昀椀nd no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. 7. The admi琀琀ed factual posi琀椀on is that the Agreement to Sell dated 20.01.2010 Ex.P1 has been duly proved on record. It is also admi琀琀ed that Rs.1 lac was paid by the plain琀椀昀昀 by way of earnest money on 20.01.2010 itself at the 琀椀me of execu琀椀on of Agreement to Sell. Therea昀琀er, vide Endorsement dated 11.06.2010 Ex.P2, a further sum of Rs.1 lac was paid to defendant No.1; and vide endorsement dated 23.01.2010 Ex.P3, the remaining amount of sale considera琀椀on of Rs.6,50,000/- was paid to defendant No.1. Defendants No.1 and 2 in their wri琀琀en statements have admi琀琀ed the above documents and had DIVYANSHI 2025.11.20 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3720-2025 (O&M) - 4 - admi琀琀ed the receipt of Rs.8,50,000/- from the plain琀椀昀昀. Ownership of defendant No.1 over the suit property is also admi琀琀ed. 8. Thus, the only dispute in the en琀椀re case is that as per defendants No.1 and 2 they had already returned the amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to the plain琀椀昀昀 on 10.09.2010 as proved from the original Receipt dated 10.09.2010 Ex.D1 produced by the defendants. To prove the said Receipt, defendants had examined DW2 Harjinder Singh and DW3 Amarjit Singh, who are the a琀琀es琀椀ng witnesses to the said Receipt. Both the said witnesses have categorically deposed that the Receipt dated 10.09.2010 was executed by the plain琀椀昀昀 a昀琀er receipt of amount of Rs.8,50,000/-. Arguments of the plain琀椀昀昀 that the said Receipt Ex.D1 is surrounded in suspicious circumstances, as the same is not signed by defendant No.1; and because the a琀琀es琀椀ng witnesses are interested witnesses; are liable to be rejected in view of the fact that Receipt dated 10.09.2010 Ex.D1 bears the thumb impression of the plain琀椀昀昀. Moreover, DW1 Navdeep Gupta, Handwri琀椀ng and Fingerprint Expert, Pa琀椀ala had tendered into evidence his report and digital photographic enlargements as Ex.D2 to Ex.D6 with the opinion that thumb impression on Receipt dated 10.09.2010 is that of the plain琀椀昀昀. 9. It is important to note that plain琀椀昀昀 led no evidence in rebu琀琀al to prove that thumb impression on the Receipt, was not her own. Rather, plain琀椀昀昀 in her evidence in rebu琀琀al has admi琀琀ed that her thumb impression was taken by the defendant No.1 under the pretext that he was to take numberdari of her mother. On repeated Court queries, DIVYANSHI 2025.11.20 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3720-2025 (O&M) - 5 - learned counsel for the appellant has admi琀琀ed that plain琀椀昀昀 did not examine any witness in rebu琀琀al to disprove the authen琀椀city of Receipt or her thumb impression thereupon. Plain琀椀昀昀 has further admi琀琀ed in her cross-examina琀椀on that she did not remember as to when the defendant had obtained her thumb impression on the pretext of Numberdari of her mother. She did not remember the date, month or the year on which her thumb impression was fraudulently obtained by Harjinder Singh. Plain琀椀昀昀 could not inform as to who was present at the 琀椀me when her thumb impression was allegedly taken by defendant No.1. No reasons have been given by learned counsel for the plain琀椀昀昀 as to why plain琀椀昀昀 did not lead any evidence in rebu琀琀al to counter the report of the Handwri琀椀ng Expert DW1 produced by the defendants. The Courts below have therefore, rightly concluded that the plain琀椀昀昀 came up with the improved version that her thumb impression was taken by defendant No.1 under the pretext of Numberdari of her mother. Thus, Agreement to Sell was proved to have been cancelled by the plain琀椀昀昀 as she had received back the sale considera琀椀on amount of Rs.8,50,000/-. 10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the plain琀椀昀昀 in her replica琀椀on had denied her signature/thumb impression upon Receipt Ex.D1. However, it is recorded in impugned judgments that during her cross-examina琀椀on, plain琀椀昀昀 has stated that she did not 昀椀le any replica琀椀on to the wri琀琀en statement 昀椀led by defendant No.1. DIVYANSHI 2025.11.20 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3720-2025 (O&M) - 6 - 11. Learned counsel for the plain琀椀昀昀 is also unable to reconcile the contradic琀椀ons and discrepancies in the various stands taken by the plain琀椀昀昀 from 琀椀me to 琀椀me in respect of the Receipt; as also the thumb impression of the plain琀椀昀昀 on the Receipt Ex.D1. 12. Even otherwise, present Second appeal is liable to be
Decision
In view of the above, I 昀椀nd no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below. The present Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed. 14. Pending applica琀椀ons, if any, stand disposed of. 11.11.2025 Divyanshi (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No DIVYANSHI 2025.11.20 12:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document