Punjab-Haryana High Court
Beant Singh vs Bikramjit Singh And Others on 10 November, 2025
RSA-3708-2025 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:154239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-3708-2025 (O&M)
Beant Singh . . . . Appellant
Vs.
Bikramjit Singh and Others . . . . Respondent
****
Reserved on: 07.11.2025
Pronounced on: 10.11.2025
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued by:- Mr. Kaminder Singh, Advocate
for the appellant - defendant.
Mr. G.S. Salana, Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 & 2 - plain)ffs/Caveators.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The defendant Beant Singh is before this Court in the present Regular
Second Appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2023
passed by the learned Addi)onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, as
affirmed in appeal by the learned Addi)onal District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib on
09.10.2025, whereby the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated
19.06.2018 filed by the plain)ffs - Bikramjit Singh and another (now respondents)
was decreed.
2. The plain)ffs had filed a suit seeking specific performance of
agreement to sell dated 19.06.2018 executed by defendant No. 1 Beant Singh
(appellant herein) and three others namely, Gurdarshan Singh, Hardeep Singh
and Saudagar Singh regarding agricultural land along with allied facili)es for a
considera)on of ₹ 19 lakh per killa, out of which ₹ 16 lakh was paid as earnest
money by way of cheques. The date for execu)on of sale deed was fixed as
PAGE N: 1 OF 4 PAGES
1 of 4
RSA-3708-2025 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:154239
20.08.2018. On the said date, the plain)ffs appeared before the Sub-Registrar but
the defendant failed to turn up, whereaCer the plain)ffs got their presence
recorded. Though, Gurdarshan Singh, Hardeep Singh and Saudagar Singh had
already executed sale deed in favour of the plain)ffs in respect of land owned by
them as per their shares, but defendant No.1 failed to perform his part of the
contract despite con)nued readiness and willingness on the part of the plain)ffs.
3. The defendant - appellant, while admiDng his signatures and
encashment of the cheques, resisted the suit alleging that the agreement was
fabricated by the plain)ffs by taking advantage of his addic)on to liquor; that his
signatures had been obtained on blank papers; and that no considera)on had
been received consciously.
4. ACer framing issues and taking evidence, both the Courts below,
aCer detailed apprecia)on of evidence, concurrently held that the defendant
admiFed encashment of cheques for ₹ 16 lakh, thereby acknowledging receipt of
earnest money; that his signatures appeared on all pages of the agreement, even
on the reverse of stamp papers purchased by him; that no evidence, medical or
otherwise, was produced to prove intoxica)on or incapacity; and that his habitual
execu)on of sale deeds (as reflected in jamabandi Ex.P-8) belied the plea of
ignorance or decep)on. The plea of hardship was also rejected, no)ng that the
defendant's family was financially stable, his son being seFled abroad and
daughter well-educated, and that the defendant had repeatedly alienated land
parcels earlier. Accordingly, the suit for specific performance was decreed, and
the first appellate Court dismissed his appeal.
5. Submissions before this court: Learned counsel for the appellant has
reiterated the very same conten)ons urged before the lower Courts to the effect
that the agreement to sell was forged and fabricated, obtained under
intoxica)on, not executed before a regular deed writer, and that one aFes)ng
witness was related to the plain)ff, while another was not fully cross-examined. It
is further contended that the non-framing of an issue on hardship vi)ates the
trial, and that the rate and place of execu)on, creates suspicion regarding
genuineness of the document. It is also urged that execu)on of sale deed
PAGE N: 2 OF 4 PAGES
2 of 4
RSA-3708-2025 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:154239
pursuant to agreement will cause hardship to the appellant and that he is ready
to return double the amount of earnest money.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the plain)ffs (respondents -
caveators before this court) has supported the concurrent findings, contending
that all these pleas were examined threadbare and found baseless; that the
defendant's conduct and admissions defeats his plea of fraud, par)cularly when
other co-owners Gurdarshan Singh, Hardeep Singh and Saudagar Singh, who were
party to the agreement along with the appellant, have already executed sale deed
in favour of the plain)ffs in respect of land owned by them as per their shares;
and so, no substan)al ques)on of law arises.
7. Court Analysis: Having heard learned counsel for both sides and
perused the record, this Court finds no infirmity in the concurrent findings
warran)ng interference.
8. It is not in dispute that the defendant encashed the two cheques
totalling ₹ 16 lakh, forming part of the considera)on recited in the agreement to
sell. Once receipt of considera)on and signatures on the document are admiFed,
the burden to prove fraud or incapacity squarely shiCs upon the defendant.
However, the defendant led no cogent evidence to show that he was incapable of
understanding the transac)on. His own tes)mony and that of his wife Baljeet
Kaur (DW2) negate the plea of signing under intoxica)on. The finding of both
Courts that this defence was a mere aCerthought is well-reasoned and founded
on record.
9. Non-examina)on of the scribe does not vi)ate execu)on once
aFes)ng witnesses and par)es' admissions establish the document. Rela)onship
of one witness to a party is also no ground to discard aFesta)on in absence of
proven animus or contradic)on. The place of execu)on being Amloh rather than
Fatehgarh Sahib is immaterial, as par)es are free to execute contracts at any
convenient place. Varia)on in the rate of land vis-à-vis subsequent sale deeds
does not render the agreement invalid.
PAGE N: 3 OF 4 PAGES
3 of 4
RSA-3708-2025 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:154239
10. The argument regarding absence of a specific issue is misconceived.
The ques)on of hardship is encompassed within the broader issue of en)tlement
to specific performance. Moreover, the defendant failed to prove any factual
hardship, as his con)nuous sale of other parcels and stable family background
negate this plea.
11. The conten)on that the appellant is willing to refund or even pay
double the earnest money cannot be accepted as a subs)tute for performance of
a valid and enforceable contract. Specific performance is an equitable but
discre)onary remedy governed by provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Once
the contract is proved genuine, and the plain)ffs have established constant
readiness and willingness, the defendant cannot, by an unilateral offer of refund,
defeat their contractual right. It has been consistent posi)on of law that mere
readiness to return the advance does not ex)nguish the plain)ffs' right to specific
performance. Equity does not assist a party who is himself in breach. In the
present case, the plain)ffs have been found con)nuously ready and willing, while
the defendant's default is deliberate. Hence, his offer to refund double the
amount is lacking any equitable merit.
12. In view of above discussion, this Court finds that the findings
recorded by both Courts below are based on a correct and concurrent
apprecia)on of oral and documentary evidence. No perversity, misreading, or
misapplica)on of law is shown. The seFled principle is that concurrent findings of
fact cannot be interfered with, in a second appeal unless they are palpably
perverse or founded on no evidence. None of these con)ngencies arise herein.
13. Conclusion : Consequently, this Court finds no substan)al ques)on of
law arising for determina)on. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The judgments
and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby affirmed. Pending
miscellaneous applica)ons, if any, stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
10.11.2025 JUDGE
sarita
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
PAGE N: 4 OF 4 PAGES
4 of 4
