Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rattan Singh Through His Lrs vs Rajinder Singh Through His Lrs And ... on 7 November, 2025
RSA-3795-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
RSA-3795-2025 (O&M)
Date of decision: 07.11.2025
Rattan Singh (since deceased)
Through his LRs . . . . Appellants
Vs.
Rajinder Singh (since deceased)
Through his LRs and others . . . . Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Present: - Mr. Ashwani Kumar Antil, Advocate,
for the appellants.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
CM-13908-C-2025
This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, seeking condonation of delay of 93 days in filing the appeal.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, supported by
affidavit of one of the appellants-Harpreet Kaur, the same is allowed and
the delay of 93 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
RSA-3795-2025 (O&M)
The defendants-appellants are in second appeal against
reversal of the trial court's decree. The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent
Rajinder Singh for possession by way of specific performance of agreement
to sell dated 23.07.2002, with consequential relief of injunction, was
dismissed by the trial court on 27.05.2019. However, the first Appellate
Court reversed those findings and decreed the suit on 05.05.2025.
2. One Gurmukh Singh was the owner of a kacha dwelling house
measuring 112 sq. yards within the abadi deh of village Jandli, Ambala,
besides agricultural land including khasra No. 91. After his death, the estate
devolved equally upon his two sons -- Rajinder Singh (plaintiff) and
1 of 4
RSA-3795-2025
Kuldeep Singh. On the death of Kuldeep Singh, his share devolved upon his
widow Smt. Kiran Bala and their three children (defendants - the present
appellants).
3. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants and their mother
were in dire financial need and, therefore, agreed to sell their share to him
for ₹ 56,000/- through a written agreement dated 23.07.2002. Vacant
possession of the plot was delivered to the plaintiff and a partition wall
demarcating the shares was constructed. Because of a temporary
governmental ban on registration of sale deeds in that area, execution was
postponed until the ban was lifted. After the death of Smt. Kiran Bala on
06.05.2013, her share stood mutated in favour of the appellants. Despite
repeated requests, they refused to execute the sale deed, compelling the
plaintiff to file the present suit.
4. The defendants were duly served but chose not to appear and
were proceeded ex parte. The trial court, on perusal of the ex parte
evidence, dismissed the suit holding that ownership of the property in the
name of Gurmukh Singh was not established.
5. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. The first Appellate Court
issued notice, and the defendants appeared through counsel and contested
the matter.
6. Upon re-appraisal of evidence, the appellate Court found that:
The revenue record clearly reflected ownership of Gurmukh Singh
and subsequent inheritance by Rajinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh.
The agreement to sell was duly proved and executed by both sides.
Plaintiff had been put in possession and had constructed a wall,
which was later demolished by the defendants, resulting in a police
complaint.
Consequently, the appellate Court decreed the suit for specific
performance, holding that the trial court had erred in misreading evidence.
2 of 4
RSA-3795-2025
7. Assailing the above reversal, learned counsel for the appellants
contends that the First Appellate Court mis-appreciated the evidence and
wrongly reversed a well-reasoned trial court judgment.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and examined
the record. The arguments are devoid of merit.
9. The appellate Court rightly relied upon the Jamabandi and
mutation records produced by the plaintiff, proving ownership of Gurmukh
Singh and subsequent inheritance by his two sons. Once title and
succession stand evidenced by revenue entries, the trial court's contrary
finding was clearly erroneous.
10. The agreement to sell dated 23.07.2002 bears signatures of
both parties. Its execution was supported by oral and documentary
evidence and remained unrebutted, since the defendants neither filed any
written statement nor examined any witness. It is well settled that once
execution of a written contract is proved, the onus shifts on the executant
to disprove it.
11. The plaintiff's possession and construction of the partition
wall, corroborated by independent evidence and the police complaint,
constitute acts of part-performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of
Property Act, further evidencing readiness and willingness as required
under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
12. The defendants neither denied the agreement
contemporaneously nor produced any evidence rebutting plaintiff's
version. Their silence and failure to challenge the alleged transaction for
nearly two decades amount to acquiescence. The presumption of truth
attached to the revenue record under Section 44 of the Punjab Land
Revenue Act, 1887 also supports the plaintiff's case.
13. It is thus found that the findings recorded by the first Appellate
Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles
of specific performance. The appellate Court correctly held that ownership
3 of 4
RSA-3795-2025
of Gurmukh Singh and succession through Rajinder Singh and Kuldeep
Singh stood proved; that execution of the agreement was established; and
that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part.
14. These are pure findings of fact. No perversity, misreading of
evidence, or substantial question of law, has been demonstrated, calling for
any interference by this court.
15. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the
well-reasoned judgment of the first Appellate Court. The appeal, being
devoid of merit, is dismissed.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
07.11.2025 JUDGE
Vivek
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? No
4 of 4
