Jile Singh v. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Applica(cid:26)on stands disposed of accordingly. Main case.: The defendant–appellant is before this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The suit for specific performance filed by the plain(cid:26)ff– respondent Ram Kumar was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.10.2019, which was affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the defendant– appellant on 11.07.2022.

2. The case set up by the plain(cid:26)ff was that the defendant, being owner of the suit land, agreed to sell the same for a total sale considera(cid:26)on of ₹3,85,000/- vide agreement to sell dated 19.09.2016. Out of the total NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.15 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4464-C-2023 in/and RSA-1181-2023 (O&M) considera(cid:26)on, a sum of ₹3,10,000/- was paid as earnest money at the (cid:26)me of execu(cid:26)on of the agreement. The balance sale considera(cid:26)on was agreed to be paid at the (cid:26)me of execu(cid:26)on and registra(cid:26)on of the sale deed, for which 19.03.2017 was fixed as the target date. Since 19.03.2017 happened to be a holiday, the plain(cid:26)ff appeared before the office of the Sub-Registrar on the next working day i.e. 20.03.2017, remained present for the en(cid:26)re day, and got his presence marked before the Execu(cid:26)ve Magistrate. The defendant, however, failed to appear. Claiming con(cid:26)nuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and alleging breach on the part of the defendant, the plain(cid:26)ff ins(cid:26)tuted the suit for specific performance on 27.07.2017.

3. The defendant contested the suit by denying execu(cid:26)on of the agreement to sell. It was pleaded that the amount men(cid:26)oned in the agreement was in fact an outstanding loan allegedly advanced by the plain(cid:26)ff to the defendant’s father, which stood repaid along with interest, and that the agreement was a result of misrepresenta(cid:26)on. The defendant categorically denied any inten(cid:26)on or agreement to sell the suit property and sought dismissal of the suit.

4. Upon framing of issues and appraisal of evidence, the learned trial Court returned a categorical finding that the execu(cid:26)on of the agreement to sell dated 19.09.2016 (Ex.P-1) stood duly proved, and that the plain(cid:26)ff had successfully established his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. Consequently, the suit was decreed. The First Appellate Court independently re-appreciated the evidence and concurred with the findings of the trial Court.

5. Assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the appellant has primarily contended that: a) The plain(cid:26)ff failed to prove his con(cid:26)nuous readiness and willingness as mandated under Sec(cid:26)on 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; and b) The plain(cid:26)ff did not issue any legal no(cid:26)ce prior to filing the suit, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.15 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4464-C-2023 in/and RSA-1181-2023 (O&M) which, according to the appellant, vi(cid:26)ates the claim for specific performance.

7. This Court finds no merit in the submissions raised. The execu(cid:26)on of the agreement to sell dated 19.09.2016 (Ex.P- 1) stands proved beyond doubt. The plain(cid:26)ff appeared as PW-1 and supported the execu(cid:26)on of the agreement as well as payment of earnest money. His tes(cid:26)mony finds corrobora(cid:26)on from PW-3 Singh Raj Yadav, the deed writer, who categorically deposed that he had scribed the agreement at the instance of the par(cid:26)es. Further, PW-2 Gopal Krishan Sanghi, the Numberdar and one of the aIes(cid:26)ng witnesses, unequivocally supported the plain(cid:26)ff’s case and deposed that the defendant executed the agreement to sell in favour of the plain(cid:26)ff for sale of 02 kanals of land, receiving ₹3,10,000/- as earnest money.

8. Although the defendant examined DW-2 Sheo Ram, another aIes(cid:26)ng witness, to deny payment of earnest money, his tes(cid:26)mony does not advance the defence. DW-2 admiIed his signatures on the agreement as well as the endorsement regarding payment of ₹3,10,000/-. His aIempt to explain the endorsement by sta(cid:26)ng that it was made at the asking of the plain(cid:26)ff has rightly been disbelieved by the Courts below, being wholly unnatural and unsupported by any cogent evidence. Once execu(cid:26)on of the agreement and signatures thereon stand admiIed, the onus heavily lay on the defendant to disprove the transac(cid:26)on, which he has miserably failed to discharge.

9. As regards readiness and willingness, the conduct of the plain(cid:26)ff clearly sa(cid:26)sfies the requirement of Sec(cid:26)on 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The plain(cid:26)ff’s presence before the Sub-Registrar on 20.03.2017, the very next working day aKer the target date, coupled with geLng his presence marked before the Execu(cid:26)ve Magistrate, cons(cid:26)tutes strong and contemporaneous evidence of his readiness and willingness. The suit was ins(cid:26)tuted within about four months of the target date, further reinforcing NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.15 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-4464-C-2023 in/and RSA-1181-2023 (O&M) the bona fides of the plain(cid:26)ff.

10. The conten(cid:26)on regarding absence of legal no(cid:26)ce is also misconceived. There is no statutory mandate requiring issuance of a legal no(cid:26)ce as a condi(cid:26)on precedent for filing a suit for specific performance. What is material is the conduct of the par(cid:26)es and the plain(cid:26)ff’s ability and willingness to perform his obliga(cid:26)ons, which stand fully established in the present case.

11. The findings returned by the Courts below are pure findings of fact based on proper apprecia(cid:26)on of oral and documentary evidence. No perversity, misreading of evidence, or substan(cid:26)al ques(cid:26)on of law has been demonstrated. It is well seIled that this Court, in exercise of jurisdic(cid:26)on under Sec(cid:26)on 100 CPC, does not re-appreciate evidence merely because another view may be possible.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the concurrent, well-reasoned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applica(cid:26)on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. January 14, 2026 Nee(cid:26)ka Tuteja (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Whether Reportable NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.01.15 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document