[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yash Pal vs Ram Krishan Through Lrs on 10 December, 2025
RSA-1240-2025 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(131) RSA-1240-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-10.12.2025
Yash Pal
... Appellant
Versus
Ram Kishan (since deceased) through his LRs
... Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
1. This Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as "RSA")
has been instituted assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered
by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff
seeking possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell
dated 21.07.2014 has been decreed in his favour. The appellant/defendant,
being aggrieved by the affirmation of the trial Court's findings by the first
appellate Court, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the
legality, propriety, and correctness of the said concurrent decisions.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit seeking
specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 21.07.2014 pertaining to
the suit property, the particulars of which stand fully delineated in the head-
note of the plaint. The appellant/defendant contested the suit by filing a
written statement, wherein he raised preliminary objections relating to
1 of 5
maintainability, locus standi and absence of cause of action. On merits, his
principal defence was that he had obtained a friendly loan of ₹5,00,000 on
21.05.2012 and, as collateral for the said loan, had executed an agreement to
sell in respect of the suit property, which was duly registered in the office of
the Sub-Registrar, Farrukhnagar. He further pleaded that after repayment of
the entire loan amount along with interest totalling ₹6,28,000, he requested
the plaintiff to arrange cancellation of the earlier agreement. According to
the appellant, although both parties visited the office of the Sub-Registrar for
such cancellation, the plaintiff, acting with mala fide intent and in collusion
with the attesting witnesses, procured execution of another agreement to sell
dated 21.07.2014 instead of recording cancellation of the previous
agreement. It was thus alleged that the subsequent agreement sought to be
enforced is the product of fraud and breach of trust.
2.1. Both parties were granted full opportunity to adduce evidence
pursuant to the framing of issues. Upon consideration of the entire material
on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant was
dismissed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings,
the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present Regular
Second Appeal.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at considerable
length and have undertaken a meticulous and comprehensive examination of
the entire record.
4. The concurrent judgments and decrees have been impugned on
the grounds that both the Courts below failed to properly appreciate and
evaluate the evidence available on record. It is contended that the material
2 of 5
on file sufficiently establishes that the agreement to sell dated 21.07.2014 is
a product of fraud, and therefore, 'fraus et jus nunquam cohabitan'-fraud
and justice can never dwell together. It is further urged that the learned Civil
Judge did not exercise judicial discretion in a fair and judicious manner.
According to the appellant, the respondent/plaintiff has also failed to prove
his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract,
inasmuch as mere presence in the office of the Sub-Registrar does not, by
itself, satisfy the statutory requirement of readiness and willingness. It is
additionally argued that possession of the suit land has all along remained
with the appellant/defendant, which, as per the appellant, negates the very
existence of any genuine agreement to sell in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff or any intention on the part of the appellant to transfer
the suit property.
5. The Courts below have failed to appreciate the legal
significance and evidentiary value of the earlier agreement dated
21.05.2012, nor have they applied the heightened degree of judicial scrutiny
mandated in cases where allegations of fraud are raised. It is a well-settled
principle that when a plea of fraud is specifically taken, the Court is duty-
bound to examine the material on record with exceptional care and caution,
for 'fraus omnia vitiat'-fraud vitiates every solemn act.
6. Upon a comprehensive and minute examination of the entire
record, it becomes evident that the execution of the agreement to sell dated
21.07.2014 stands unequivocally admitted by the appellant/defendant. He
has neither disputed his signatures nor denied his presence before the deed-
writer or the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration. Being a registered
3 of 5
instrument, the agreement carries with it a statutory presumption of
genuineness under the law.
6.1. Furthermore, PW-Karam Singh (Numberdar) and PW-Mangal
Singh, the marginal witnesses, have unequivocally testified on oath that the
contents of the agreement were read over to both parties as well as to the
witnesses, and that all of them appended their signatures in the presence of
each other. Their testimony also establishes that Exhibit P-2 was prepared at
the instance and on the instructions of the appellant-Yashpal.
6.2. The deed-writer corroborates this position by deposing that the
appellant approached him for preparation of an agreement and thereafter
mentioned the issue of cancellation of the earlier agreement to sell. This
evidence collectively demonstrates that the subsequent agreement was duly
and consciously executed by the appellant/defendant after cancellation of the
earlier agreement.
6.3. The Courts below have rightly recorded categorical findings
that the appellant admitted his signatures/thumb impressions on the
documents executed before the Sub-Registrar. He also acknowledged that he
was fully aware of the nature and contents of Exhibit P-2 (Wasika No. 1256
dated 21.07.2014). Significantly, he conceded that whenever a document is
written in Hindi, he affixes his signatures only after reading and
understanding it. Since Exhibit P-2 is in Hindi, and the appellant admittedly
reads and writes Hindi, the plea that the document was executed without
knowledge of its contents, or under the impression that it pertained merely to
cancellation of the previous agreement, is wholly untenable.
6.4. Once a document is duly registered, the law presumes that the
parties voluntarily appeared before the Sub-Registrar, that the contents of the
4 of 5
document were explained to them, and that the executant affixed his
signatures or thumb impressions only after admitting the correctness of the
recitals. The appellant has failed to rebut this statutory presumption.
6.5. In view of the consistent and well-reasoned findings recorded
by both Courts below, and in the absence of any perversity or illegality, no
substantial question of law arises for consideration in this Regular Second
Appeal. The appeal is, therefore, devoid of merit and stands dismissed.
7. Since the main matter has been adjudicated and stands
concluded by the dismissal of the present appeal, all pending miscellaneous
applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly, as no further
orders are required to be passed therein.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
10.12.2025 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
5 of 5
