[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdial Singh vs Munshi Singh on 6 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-894-1995 (O&M) and
XOBJ-13-C-1996
Gurlal Singh . . . . Appellant
Vs.
Munshi Singh through his LRs . . . . Respondent
RSA-3456-1997
Gurlal Singh . . . . Appellant
Vs.
Surjit Singh through his LRs and Others . . . . Respondents
****
Reserved on: 25.02.2026
Pronounced on: 06.03.2026
Pronounced fully/opera;ve part: Fully
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Argued by:- Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Senior Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Mandeep K. Sajjan, Advocate and
Mr. Vikram K. Bishnoi, Advocate for
the respondent.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
This order shall dispose of RSA 894-1995 & connected cross-ob-
jec/ons, filed by the respondent, besides RSA 3456-1997, pertaining to the
same subject ma4er.
2. The present Regular Second Appeal [RSA 894-1995] has been pre-
ferred by the plain/ff Gurlal Singh, assailing the concurrent findings recorded
by both the Courts below [Trial court : dated 12.01.1993; and appellate court :
09.02.1995], whereby his suit for specific performance of agreement to sell
1 of 9
RSA-894-1995 (O&M) and
XOBJ-13-C-1996
RSA-3456-1997
dated 12.09.1989 was declined, though a decree for refund of the earnest
money along with interest was granted in his favour.
3. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the par/es shall be re-
ferred to as per their status before the learned trial Court. The trial Court
record, as available on DMS, has been duly perused.
4.1 Plain ff's Case : As per pleaded case of the plain/ff, the defendant
Munshi Singh [Respondent through his LRs herein], agreed to sell suit land mea-
suring 10 Kanal 12 Marla, situated in the revenue estate of village Dharamkot,
Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur for a total sale considera/on of ₹45,000/-. The
agreement to sell was executed on 12.09.1989 (Ex.P1). At the /me of execu/on
of the agreement, an amount of ₹7,000/- was paid as earnest money. It was fur-
ther agreed that ₹15,000/- would be paid on 20th Maghar, 2046 Bikrami; and
the remaining sale considera/on would be paid at the /me of execu/on and
registra/on of the sale deed, for which 20.06.1990 was fixed as the target date.
The plain/ff pleaded that the amount of ₹15,000/- was paid on 05.12.1989
against a separate receipt.
4.2 According to him, he remained ready and willing to perform his
part of the contract. On 20.06.1990, the plain/ff appeared before the Joint Sub-
Registrar, Dharamkot, along with the balance sale considera/on and waited for
the defendant, who failed to appear. The plain/ff marked his presence. He again
appeared on 21.06.1990 before the Sub-Registrar and waited, but the defen-
dant did not turn up. Subsequently, on 25.06.1990, the plain/ff issued a legal
no/ce calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. In response, the de-
fendant admi4ed execu/on of the agreement but pleaded inability to appear on
the s/pulated date due to illness. The defendant expressed readiness and will-
ingness to execute the sale deed on or before 12.07.1990. It is further pleaded
that, in terms of the mutual understanding, both par/es visited the office of the
Sub-Registrar on 09.07.1990. They went to Moga and purchased stamp papers
at the rate fixed by the Government. ThereaLer, they returned to Dharamkot for
2 of 9
RSA-894-1995 (O&M) and
XOBJ-13-C-1996
RSA-3456-1997
execu/on of the sale deed. However, according to the plain/ff, the defendant
absconded from the office of the Sub-Registrar without execu/ng the sale deed.
4.3 On these averments, asser/ng con/nuous readiness and willing-
ness on his part and alleging breach by the defendant, the plain/ff ins/tuted the
suit seeking a decree for specific performance of the agreement.
5.1 Defendant's Stand : The defendant Munshi Singh (now repre-
sented through his legal representa#ves), contested the suit by raising serious
allega/ons regarding the very execu/on and validity of the agreement. It was
pleaded that the defendant was addicted to opium and liquor and had been
borrowing small amounts from Bahadur Singh, father of the plain/ff, who is a
money lender, from /me to /me. In that regard, he referred to Pronote dated
05.12.1988 for ₹3,000/-; Pronote dated 04.03.1989 for ₹3,000/-; and Pronote
dated 05.06.1989 for ₹5,000/-. The defendant alleged that on 02.08.1989, Ba-
hadur Singh sought renewal of the loan claiming that the outstanding amount
had swelled to ₹7,000/-.
5.2 It was further alleged that Bahadur Singh a4empted to procure a
giL deed in favour of his son (the plain/ff) concerning the suit land in lieu of the
loan amount. According to the defendant, when the said a4empt failed, Ba-
hadur Singh, on the pretext of renewal of the loan, obtained the defendant's
signatures on blank or incomplete papers and later fabricated the alleged agree-
ment to sell in favour of the plain/ff. The defendant further alleged coercion
and criminal in/mida/on. He pleaded that he had been kidnapped by the plain-
/ff and others, taken to the Mand area, mercilessly beaten, confined, and
threatened with death, and under such duress compelled to execute a docu-
ment for ₹15,000/- purportedly as renewal of the loan. Similarly, it was alleged
that on 09.07.1990 he was again forcibly taken to Moga, kept in fields under
threat, and later brought near the office of the Sub-Registrar. He claimed that he
managed to escape from the spot fearing further coercion and threats not to
contest the an/cipated li/ga/on.
3 of 9
RSA-894-1995 (O&M) and
XOBJ-13-C-1996
RSA-3456-1997
5.3 It was also pleaded by defendant that suit land is ancestral/co-
parcenary property and that he alone did not have the right to alienate the
same in absence of any legal necessity.
5.4 With this stand and denying the genuineness and voluntariness of
the agreement to sell, and alleging fabrica/on, coercion, and fraud, the defen-
dant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6.1 Findings of the Courts Below : Upon framing of the necessary is-
sues and apprecia/on of the evidence led by the par/es on record, the trial
Court returned a categorical finding that the defendant had, in fact, executed an
agreement to sell dated 12.09.1989 in favour of the plain/ff in respect of the
suit land for a total sale considera/on of ₹45,000/-. It was further held that out
of the agreed considera/on, the defendant had received a sum of ₹22,000/-
from the plain/ff. The trial Court also recorded a clear finding that the plain/ff
had successfully proved his con/nuous readiness and willingness to perform his
part of the contract and that he remained ready and willing even at the /me of
adjudica/on.
6.2 However, despite recording findings in favour of the plain/ff re-
garding execu/on of the agreement and readiness and willingness, the trial
Court declined the discre/onary relief of specific performance upon the finding
that the suit property was ancestral in nature and that the defendant held the
same as a coparcener to the extent of his share. It was further held that by
virtue of a prior family se4lement (Ex.D6), the defendant had already trans-
ferred his interest in the suit property in favour of his sons, and muta/on pur-
suant thereto had also been sanc/oned. In view of the said family arrangement,
the trial Court concluded that the defendant had ceased to be owner of the suit
property and, therefore, was not competent to enter into an agreement to sell
in respect thereof.
4 of 9
RSA-894-1995 (O&M) and
XOBJ-13-C-1996
RSA-3456-1997
6.3 On the basis of this finding of want of /tle and competency, the
trial Court held that specific performance could not be granted, notwithstanding
proof of execu/on of the agreement and readiness & willingness on the part of
the plain/ff. Consequently, the suit was decreed on 12.01.1993 only to the lim-
ited extent of alterna/ve relief, gran/ng recovery of ₹22,000/- along with pro-
por/onate costs and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of ins/tu-
/on of the suit /ll realiza/on.
7.1 Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.01.1993, both
par/es preferred separate appeals.
7.2 The defendant challenged the finding of the trial Court, whereby
execu/on of the agreement to sell dated 12.09.1989 had been held proved
against him. The plain/ff, on the other hand, assailed the denial of specific per-
formance, contending that once execu/on of the agreement and his con/nuous
readiness and willingness had been established, there was no legal jus/fica/on
to decline the principal relief.
8.1 The learned First Appellate Court, upon re-apprecia/on of the evi-
dence, affirmed the finding of the trial Court that the defendant had indeed exe-
cuted the agreement to sell dated 12.09.1989 in favour of the plain/ff. The find-
ing that the suit property was ancestral in character was also upheld. The Appel-
late Court further concurred with the trial Court in holding that, in view of the
prior family se4lement and muta/on sanc/oned thereunder, the defendant
lacked competency to convey /tle in the suit property, and therefore, the plain-
/ff was not en/tled to a decree for specific performance.
8.2 However, the First Appellate Court modified the decree to the ex-
tent of interest. It held that the plain/ff would be en/tled to recovery of
₹22,000/- along with propor/onate costs and interest calculated as follows:
x Interest @ 12% per annum on ₹7,000/- from 12.09.1989 to 04.12.1989;
and
5 of 9
RSA-894-1995 (O&M) and
XOBJ-13-C-1996
RSA-3456-1997
x Interest @ 12% per annum on ₹22,000/- from 05.12.1989 /ll realiza/on.
8.3 Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed,
while the appeal filed by the plain/ff was partly allowed only to the limited ex-
tent of modifica/on in the rate and manner of calcula/on of interest, vide com-
mon judgment and decree dated 09.02.1995.
9. Against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, the
plain/ff has approached this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal. De-
fendant on the other hand filed cross-objec/ons.
10. Undisputed Findings : At the very outset, it deserves to be no/ced
that certain findings have a4ained finality. The concurrent finding of both the
Courts below that the agreement to sell dated 12.09.1989 was duly executed by
defendant Munshi Singh in favour of the plain/ff is not under challenge before
this Court. Likewise, the finding that the plain/ff had proved his con/nuous
readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract has also not been
disputed. Although cross-objec/ons were filed ques/oning the ancestral nature
of the suit property, the said conten/on has not been pressed during the course
of arguments. Thus, the finding that the suit property was ancestral/coparce-
nary in nature stands concluded.
11. Submissions of Appellant : The only submission advanced by
learned counsel for the appellant-plain/ff is that once execu/on of the agree-
ment and readiness & willingness stood proved, the Courts below were not jus-
/fied in declining the relief of specific performance. It is argued that even if the
defendant was found to be owner of a lesser share, a decree for specific perfor-
mance to the extent of his share ought to have been granted. Reliance has been
placed upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Rakesh Kumar vs. Satpal
1986 PLJ 515; and upon Hukum Chand vs. Hari Singh (dead) thr LRs, 2007(5)
RCR (Civil) 403 to contend that par/al enforcement is permissible and that mere
possibility of third-party rights is no ground to deny specific performance.
6 of 9
RSA-894-1995 (O&M) and
XOBJ-13-C-1996
RSA-3456-1997
12. Response of Respondent : Per Contra, learned counsel for the re-
spondent-defendant submits that prior to execu/on of the agreement to sell,
Munshi Singh had already divested himself of ownership by virtue of a family
se4lement dated 20.03.1989 (Ex.D6), whereunder the suit property had fallen
to the share of his sons and they had been put in possession. It is contended
that once the defendant had no subsis/ng right, /tle or interest in the property
on the date of agreement, no decree for specific performance could legally be
granted. It is further pointed out that the decretal amount as awarded by the
First Appellate Court has already been deposited and received by the plain/ff.
12. Having considered the rival submissions and carefully examined
the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal.
13. Considera on by this Court : It is an admi4ed posi/on that the
sons of Munshi Singh had ins/tuted an independent civil suit [CS No. 313-1 of
1990-1995] seeking declara/on that the suit property was ancestral coparce-
nary property and that a family se4lement dated 20.03.1989 had taken place,
whereby the property had fallen to their share and they had become owners in
possession. In that suit, the present appellant Gurlal was impleaded as a defen-
dant and contested the proceedings. ALer framing issues and recording evi-
dence, the trial Court held that the property was ancestral in nature, that the
family se4lement dated 20.03.1989 stood duly proved, and that Munshi Singh,
having divested himself of ownership prior to 12.09.1989, had no authority to
execute the agreement to sell in favour of Gurlal. A decree of declara/on dated
22.09.1995 was accordingly passed holding the agreement to sell to be null and
void. The appeal [CA No.33 of 1995-1997] filed by Gurlal was dismissed and the
findings a4ained finality. The connected second appeal [RSA No. 3456-1997]
arising therefrom is also being disposed of herein.
14. The principal conten/on raised before this Court is that the
Yadasht dated 20.03.1989 required compulsory registra/on and therefore,
could not confer /tle upon the sons of Munshi Singh.
7 of 9
RSA-894-1995 (O&M) and
XOBJ-13-C-1996
RSA-3456-1997
15. This argument is wholly untenable. The law rela/ng to family ar-
rangements is well se4led by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kale and others vs.
Deputy Director of Consolida on and others, AIR 1976 SC 807, wherein it has
been authorita/vely held that a family arrangement may be oral and that regis-
tra/on is required only if the document itself creates or ex/nguishes rights in
immovable property. Where a document merely records a prior oral se4lement
or serves as a memorandum of an already concluded arrangement acknowledg-
ing pre-exis/ng rights, it does not require registra/on.
16. In the present case, both the Courts below, on apprecia/on of the
tes/mony of the scribe and marginal witnesses and upon examina/on of the
contents of the Yadasht, have concurrently held that the document was only a
memorandum recording an already concluded family se4lement. The sons, be-
ing coparceners in ancestral property, had antecedent rights therein. The se4le-
ment merely defined and acknowledged those pre-exis/ng rights. Such a finding
is essen/ally one of fact and no perversity has been shown so as to warrant in-
terference in second appeal.
17. Once it is held that by virtue of the family se4lement dated
20.03.1989 the sons of Munshi Singh had become owners in possession of the
suit property, it necessarily follows that on the date of execu/on of the agree-
ment to sell dated 12.09.1989, Munshi Singh had no subsis/ng right, /tle or in-
terest in the property. The relief of specific performance is discre/onary and eq-
uitable in nature. A Court cannot compel transfer of property by a person, who
had no transferable interest at the /me of the contract. The principle permiRng
specific performance to the extent of a vendor's share would apply, where the
vendor had an exis/ng share capable of conveyance. It has no applica/on,
where the vendor had already divested himself of all rights prior to the agree-
ment. In such circumstances, there was nothing which could be specifically en-
forced.
8 of 9
RSA-894-1995 (O&M) and
XOBJ-13-C-1996
RSA-3456-1997
18. The argument that the plain/ff is en/tled to challenge the family
se4lement is equally devoid of merit. The se4lement was entered into between
coparceners having pre-exis/ng rights and had taken place prior in /me to the
agreement to sell. The plain/ff Gurlal, being a stranger to the coparcenary, can-
not impeach a bona fide family arrangement, which has already been upheld in
declaratory proceedings to which he was a party.
19. The findings regarding ancestral nature of the property, validity of
the family se4lement, and absence of /tle in Munshi Singh on the date of
agreement are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below
and affirmed in independent proceedings. No substan/al ques/on of law arises
for considera/on under Sec/on 100 CPC. What is sought is essen/ally re-appre-
cia/on of evidence, which is impermissible in second appeal.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in
the judgments & decrees passed by the Courts below declining the relief of spe-
cific performance and gran/ng refund of the amount received under the agree-
ment along with interest.
21. Consequently, RSA No.894 of 1995, RSA No.3456 of 1997 and the
connected cross-objec/ons are dismissed. A photocopy of this judgment be
placed on the file of the connected case.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
06.03.2026
Nee#ka Tuteja
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
Uploaded on.: 06.03.2026
9 of 9
