[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasbir Singh Alias Ashveer vs Rajender on 8 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
108 RSA-4534-2025
Date of decision: 08.01.2026
Jasbir Singh @ Ashveer
. . . . Appellant
Vs.
Rajender
. . . . Respondent
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Present: - Mr. Sarvesh Malik, Advocate, for the appellant.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The present appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of
fact recorded by the Courts below. The suit for possession by way of specific
performance instituted by the plaintiff-Rajender was decreed by the learned
Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.08.2024. The appeal preferred
by the defendant was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on
17.07.2025, thereby affirming the decree passed by the Trial Court. The
defendant has approached this Court assailing the said concurrent judgments.
2. The suit was founded upon an agreement to sell dated
07.11.2014, whereby the defendant agreed to sell the suit property to the
plaintiff for a total sale consideration of ₹14,25,000/-. A sum of ₹8,78,000/-
was paid as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement. The
date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 07.10.2015,
on payment of the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff pleaded and
proved that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the
contract and that on the stipulated date, he remained present in the office of
the Sub Registrar along with the balance sale consideration and necessary
expenses, but the defendant failed to turn up. Even the legal notice issued
prior to the institution of the suit evoked no response, leaving the plaintiff
with no option but to seek specific performance of the contract.
1 of 4
RSA-4534-2025 2026:PHHC:000691
3. In the written statement, the defendant took a categorical stand
denying execution of any agreement to sell. He denied having purchased any
stamp paper, denied his thumb impressions on the document and also denied
receipt of any earnest money. On the basis of such pleadings, he prayed for
dismissal of the suit.
4. Upon framing of issues and appreciation of the evidence led by
the parties, the learned Trial Court returned a finding that the execution of
the agreement to sell stood duly proved and that the plaintiff had successfully
established his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.
These findings were affirmed by the First Appellate Court after re-
appreciation of the entire evidence on record.
5. While assailing the concurrent findings, learned counsel for the
defendant raised two principal contentions. Firstly, it was argued that as per
the decree dated 20.08.2024, the plaintiff was required to get the sale deed
executed within a period of 60 days, but having failed to do so, the decree
could not be sustained. This contention, however, does not withstand
scrutiny. The record reveals that before the expiry of the said period of 60
days, the defendant himself filed an appeal on 20.09.2024. Once the decree
was put under challenge by the defendant, the plaintiff could not have
proceeded with the execution of the sale deed. A party cannot be permitted
to take advantage of his own act so as to defeat the rights flowing from a
decree. The plea of non-compliance raised by the defendant is, therefore,
wholly misconceived.
6. The second contention raised was that the agreement in
question was not intended to be acted upon as an agreement to sell but was
executed merely as a security for repayment of a loan of ₹8,78,000/- allegedly
taken by the defendant from the plaintiff. This plea has been rightly rejected
by the First Appellate Court. In the written statement, the defendant had
completely denied the execution of the agreement to sell. However, during
the course of evidence, he admitted his thumb impressions on the agreement
and shifted his stand by alleging that the document was executed as a
security for a loan. Such a defence was clearly beyond the pleadings and no
2 of 4
RSA-4534-2025 2026:PHHC:000691
amendment of the written statement was ever sought. It is well settled that
evidence beyond pleadings cannot be looked into and a party cannot be
allowed to set up a case in evidence which is inconsistent with its pleadings.
7. The First Appellate Court has meticulously analysed the evidence
led by the plaintiff. The plaintiff examined himself, an attesting witness, the
deed writer who drafted the agreement, and a handwriting and fingerprint
expert. The deed writer proved the drafting of the agreement and the
relevant entry in his register, while the expert categorically opined that the
disputed thumb impressions matched the admitted ones. In view of such
cogent and reliable evidence, the execution of the agreement to sell stood
conclusively established. Even otherwise, by taking the plea that the
agreement was executed as a security for a loan, the defendant himself
admitted execution of the document.
8. The allegation of fraud and misuse of the agreement was also
rightly repelled by the Courts below. Fraud is a serious allegation which
requires strict proof. Mere assertions, without any supporting evidence, are
wholly insufficient. The defendant neither pleaded the particulars of fraud
nor led any substantive evidence to establish the same. The burden to prove
fraud lay squarely upon him, which he failed to discharge.
9. It is also evident that the defendant adopted inconsistent and
mutually destructive stands--first denying execution of the agreement
altogether and later admitting execution while attributing a different purpose
to it. A litigant who keeps changing his stand to suit the exigencies of the
moment cannot be believed, nor can such conduct form the basis for
upsetting well-reasoned concurrent findings.
10. The findings recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First
Appellate Court are pure findings of fact, based on proper appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence. No perversity, illegality or misapplication of law
has been pointed out which would warrant interference by this Court. In the
absence of any substantial question of law or exceptional circumstance, this
Court is bound to respect the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
3 of 4
RSA-4534-2025 2026:PHHC:000691
11. Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is
dismissed.
All the pending misc. Applications also stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
08.01.2026 JUDGE
Vivek
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
4 of 4
