Harpal Singh v. Om Parkash Adopted Son Of Kakainwali @ Kakowali

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 23.04.2026 Harpal Singh ...Appellant

Versus

Om Parkash and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Advocate for the appellant.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plain0ffs-appellants have filed the present Regular Second Appeal assailing the judgment & decree dated 10.02.2026 passed by the learned Addi0onal District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, whereby the appeal preferred against the judgment & decree dated 16.11.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar, came to be dismissed. By virtue of the said concurrent findings, the suit filed by the plain0ffs for recovery of ₹6,80,000/- on the basis of an alleged agreement to sell stands dismissed.

2.

The case of the plain0ffs, as set up before the Courts below, was that the defendant had entered into an agreement to sell dated 25.02.2011 in respect of land measuring 302 Kanals 03 Marlas at the rate of ₹4,25,000/- per acre and had received a sum of ₹5,00,000/- as earnest money. The target date for execu0on of the sale deed was fixed as 05.05.2012. It was pleaded that the plain0ffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but the defendant failed to honour the agreement and, therefore, they became en0tled to recover the earnest money along with interest.

[2] 3.

The defendant contested the suit by denying the very execu0on of the agreement and alleging that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers and misused.

4.

The trial Court, upon apprecia0on of the evidence, dismissed the suit. In appeal, the learned First Appellate Court re-appraised the en0re material on record and, while holding that execu0on of the agreement to sell stood proved, nonetheless affirmed dismissal of the suit by returning a categorical finding that the plain0ffs failed to establish their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract and that, in terms of the agreement, the earnest money stood forfeited. 5.

Assailing the above judgments, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that once the execu0on of the agreement to sell stood proved by the First Appellate Court, the plain0ffs were en0tled to a decree for recovery of the earnest money and the Courts below erred in denying the same. It has been contended that the findings regarding readiness and willingness are erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record.

6.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. 7.

At the outset, it is necessary to note that the jurisdic0on of this Court under Sec0on 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to adjudica0on of substan0al ques0ons of law. It is not open to this Court to re-appreciate evidence or to subs0tute its own conclusions for those concurrently or even independently recorded by the Courts below, unless such findings are shown to be perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or suffering from patent illegality.

8.

In the present case, the learned First Appellate Court has, in

[3] fact, granted par0al benefit to the plain0ffs by reversing the finding of the trial Court on the aspect of execu0on of the agreement to sell. However, the grant of relief does not follow merely from proof of execu0on of an agreement. The plain0ffs were required to further establish that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract within the s0pulated 0me.

9.

A careful perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court shows that the finding regarding absence of readiness and willingness is based on a detailed and reasoned apprecia0on of evidence. The Court has no0ced that the plain0ffs failed to prove availability of the amount of ₹11,00,000/-, which was required to be paid as part considera0on on the s0pulated date. The evidence led by the plain0ffs regarding their financial capacity was found to be vague and unsubstan0ated. The plain0ffs could not furnish cogent details regarding the alleged sources of funds and even material witnesses were withheld. Further, no convincing evidence was produced to show that the said amount was ever actually offered to the defendant.

10.

The First Appellate Court has also examined the conduct of the plain0ffs in marking their presence before the Sub Registrar and has rightly concluded that such conduct, in the absence of proof of financial readiness, was merely a self-serving aIempt to create evidence. These findings are purely findings of fact based on apprecia0on of the evidence on record. 11.

Once it is held that the plain0ffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, the consequence flowing from the terms of the agreement necessarily follows. The agreement itself s0pulated that in the event of failure on the part of the plain0ffs to make the s0pulated payment, the earnest money would stand forfeited. The enforcement of

[4] such a contractual s0pula0on cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to law in the absence of any plea or proof that the same was penal or unconscionable.

12.

The argument raised on behalf of the appellants essen0ally seeks re-apprecia0on of evidence and subs0tu0on of findings recorded by the First Appellate Court. Such an exercise is impermissible in second appeal. No material has been pointed out to show that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or that any relevant evidence has been ignored. 13.

The en0re controversy raised in the present appeal revolves around apprecia0on of evidence and factual determina0on of readiness and willingness, which do not give rise to any substan0al ques0on of law. 14.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warran0ng interference in exercise of jurisdic0on under Sec0on 100 CPC. No substan0al ques0on of law arises for considera0on. 15.

Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. Pending applica0ons, if any, also stand disposed of. 23.04.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No