Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharmender Kumar vs Sombir And Others on 28 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
129 RSA-1591-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision.: 28.04.2026
Dharmender Kumar .....Appellant
Vs.
Sombir and Others .....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Tapan Kumar, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by defendant No.3 assailing the judgment & decree dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed and the judgment & decree dated 24.10.2017 passed by the learned trial Court decreeing the suit for possession by way of specific performance, was affirmed.
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudica2on of the present appeal are that the plain2ff ins2tuted a suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 22.07.2013 allegedly executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of land measuring 16 kanals for a total sale considera2on of ₹15,00,000/-. A sum of ₹2,00,000/- was paid as earnest money and the date for execu2on and registra2on of the sale deed was fixed as 22.01.2014. It was pleaded that the plain2ff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had even appeared before the Sub-Registrar on the s2pulated date, but the defendants failed to execute the sale deed. It was further NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.29 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1591-2026 (O&M) alleged that in order to defeat the rights of the plain2ff, defendants No.1 and 2 executed a release deed dated 29.01.2014 in favour of defendant No.3, which was claimed to be illegal and not binding upon the rights of the plain2ff.
3. Upon no2ce, defendants contested the suit by denying the execu2on of the agreement to sell and pleaded that the transac2on was in fact a mortgage for securing a loan of ₹2,00,000/-. Defendant No.3 (appellant herein) claimed himself to be a bona fide transferee on the strength of the release deed executed in his favour.
4. On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial Court framed necessary issues and, a=er apprecia2on of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the par2es, decreed the suit holding that the agreement to sell stood duly proved; that the plain2ff had established his readiness and willingness, and that the defence set up by the defendants was not worthy of acceptance. The appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court by affirming the findings recorded by the trial Court.
5. Assailing the above concurrent findings, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the Courts below have erred in law in decreeing the suit, as the agreement to sell is a forged and fabricated document and the transac2on in ques2on was merely a mortgage. It is further contended that no considera2on was paid to the defendants and that the appellant, being a transferee by virtue of a release deed, has acquired valid 2tle. It is also argued that the evidence on record has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper-book.
7. At the outset, it needs to be no2ced that the scope of Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.29 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1591-2026 (O&M) interference in a Regular Second Appeal under Sec2on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited only to substan2al ques2ons of law. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are not to be interfered with unless the same are shown to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence.
8. In the present case, both the Courts below, on the basis of cogent evidence, have concurrently held that the agreement to sell dated 22.07.2013 was duly executed by defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of the plain2ff. The said finding is based upon the tes2monies of aAes2ng witnesses, the deed writer and the stamp vendor, whose statements have remained consistent and unshaken. Even otherwise, material admissions made during the course of evidence lend further support to the case of the plain2ff.
9. The plea raised by the appellant that the agreement to sell is in fact a mortgage transac2on is found to be wholly untenable. The defence taken is self-contradictory inasmuch as, on one hand, the document is alleged to be forged and on the other hand reliance is placed upon the same to contend that it represents a mortgage. Such mutually destruc2ve pleas cannot be accepted in law. Moreover, a reading of the document as a whole clearly shows that it contains all the essen2al ingredients of an agreement to sell, including fixa2on of total sale considera2on, payment of earnest money, s2pula2on of a specific date for execu2on of the sale deed and a clause regarding forfeiture of earnest money, which are wholly inconsistent with the nature of a mortgage transac2on.
10. The finding recorded by the Courts below with regard to readiness and willingness of the plain2ff is also borne out from the record. The plain2ff not only pleaded but also proved that he remained present before the Sub-Registrar on the s2pulated date and took necessary steps to perform his part of the contract. There is no material on record to suggest Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.29 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1591-2026 (O&M) that the plain2ff ever resiled from the agreement.
11. The conten2on of the appellant that he has acquired valid 2tle on the basis of the release deed is equally devoid of merit. The agreement to sell in favour of the plain2ff is prior in 2me. Any subsequent transfer made in favour of the appellant cannot defeat the prior contractual rights of the plain2ff. Such transfer would necessarily be subject to the outcome of the suit and cannot confer any beAer 2tle upon the appellant.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is evident that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on proper apprecia2on of evidence and seAled principles of law. No perversity or illegality has been pointed out which may warrant interference by this Court. The en2re endeavour of the appellant is to seek re-apprecia2on of evidence, which is not permissible within the limited scope of jurisdic2on under Sec2on 100 CPC.
13. No substan2al ques2on of law arises for considera2on in the present appeal.
14. Consequently, the present Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are affirmed.
All the miscellaneous applica2on(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 28, 2026 Nee2ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.29 16:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document