Jameel Ahmed v. Hasan Mohammad

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 08.05.2026 Jameel Ahmed ...Appellant

Versus

Hasan Mohammad

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant assailing the judgment & decree dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Addi4onal District Judge, Palwal, whereby the appeal filed by the plain4ff-respondent was allowed, the judgment & decree dated 09.02.2023 passed by the learned trial Court were set aside, and the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.02.2021 was decreed. 2.

Briefly stated, the plain4ff ins4tuted a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.02.2021 alleging that the defendant, being owner to the extent of 1/4th share measuring 7 kanal 4 marla out of the suit land, agreed to sell the same for a total sale considera4on of ₹11,70,000/-. An amount of ₹1,00,000/- was allegedly paid as earnest money and the target date for execu4on and registra4on of the sale deed was fixed as 19.05.2021. The plain4ff pleaded that he remained present before the office of Sub Registrar, Hathin on the s4pulated date along with balance sale considera4on and expenses, but the defendant failed to appear. Legal no4ce dated 01.06.2021 was thereaCer issued calling upon the defendant to perform his part of the contract, but to no avail. Consequently, the suit came to be filed.

[2] 3.

The defendant contested the suit by denying execu4on of the agreement to sell altogether. His defence was that he had merely borrowed a sum of ₹1,00,000/- from the plain4ff at the 4me of marriage of his daughter and had put his thumb impressions on blank papers as security, which were subsequently misused by the plain4ff for fabrica4ng the agreement and receipt in ques4on.

4.

ACer framing issues and taking evidence led by the par4es, the learned trial Court, on apprecia4on of evidence, declined the relief of specific performance and instead granted only a money decree. However, in appeal, the learned first Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit for specific performance aCer holding that the agreement to sell stood duly proved, the defence raised by the defendant was unreliable and the plain4ff had established his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. 5.

Assailing the above reversal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the first Appellate Court erred in reversing the well reasoned findings recorded by the trial Court. It is contended that the plain4ff failed to establish his con4nuous readiness and willingness as mandated under Sec4on 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is further argued that mere presence before the Sub Registrar through an affidavit was insufficient proof of financial capacity. Learned counsel would further submit that the agreement itself was a fabricated document prepared on blank papers obtained from the defendant in connec4on with a loan transac4on.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper-book.

7.

At the outset, it deserves to be no4ced that the jurisdic4on of

[3] this Court under Sec4on 100 CPC is confined only to examina4on of substan4al ques4ons of law. Concurrent or even reversed findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse, based upon misreading of evidence or suffering from patent illegality.

8.

The learned first Appellate Court, being the final Court of facts, has minutely examined the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. The plain4ff examined not only himself but also the scribe RafiK Ahmed, Advocate (PW3) of the agreement and one of the aHes4ng witnesses, namely Noor Islam (PW4). The scribe specifically deposed that the agreement and receipt were wriHen by him, the contents thereof were read over to the par4es and thereaCer signatures/thumb impressions were affixed in his presence. The aHes4ng witness fully supported execu4on of the agreement and payment of earnest money. Nothing material could be elicited during their cross-examina4on so as to discredit their tes4monies. 9.

On the contrary, the defence version put forth by the defendant was rightly disbelieved by the learned first Appellate Court. All defence witnesses admiHedly had no personal knowledge regarding the alleged loan transac4on and merely deposed on the basis of what had been told to them by the defendant. Their evidence was thus purely hearsay in nature. More importantly, the defendant himself admiHed during crossexamina4on that the marriage of his daughter had taken place about four months prior to the alleged transac4on, thereby materially weakening his plea that the loan was taken for marriage expenses. The contradic4on in the defendant's own stand regarding repayment of loan was also rightly no4ced by the first Appellate Court.

10.

This Court finds no perversity in the finding recorded by the

[4] learned first Appellate Court that the agreement in ques4on was a genuine agreement to sell and not a security document in rela4on to a loan transac4on.

11.

The conten4on regarding absence of readiness and willingness is equally devoid of merit. Once the defendant had completely denied execu4on of the agreement itself, the plea regarding inadequacy of readiness and willingness loses substan4al force. Even otherwise, the plain4ff produced affidavit evidencing his presence before the Sub Registrar on the s4pulated date and also proved issuance of legal no4ce calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed. The defendant neither appeared before the Sub Registrar nor replied by expressing any willingness to execute the sale deed upon payment of balance considera4on. 12.

Significantly, no specific issue regarding readiness and willingness appears to have been framed by the trial Court, yet findings adverse to the plain4ff were recorded on that aspect by making observa4ons regarding alleged lack of financial capacity. The learned first Appellate Court rightly held that such findings could not have been returned without puLng the plain4ff to no4ce through a properly framed issue. The said view is in consonance with seHled principles of civil jurisprudence.

13.

Equally untenable was the approach adopted by the trial Court in declining specific performance on the ground that grant of such relief was discre4onary. ACer the amendment introduced in the Specific Relief Act with effect from 01.10.2018, the legisla4ve intent has clearly shiCed towards enforcement of contracts as a rule, subject only to limited excep4ons contained in Sec4ons 11(2), 14 and 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The agreement in the present case admiHedly pertains to the year

[5] 2021 and is therefore, governed by the amended provisions. The learned first Appellate Court was thus jus4fied in holding that the refusal of relief merely on supposed equitable discre4on was legally unsustainable. 14.

Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any material illegality, perversity or misreading of evidence in the judgment passed by the learned first Appellate Court. The findings recorded therein are based upon proper apprecia4on of evidence and seHled principles of law.

15.

No substan4al ques4on of law, much less any substan4al ques4on of law arising for considera4on under Sec4on 100 CPC, arises in the present appeal.

16.

Consequently, the present Regular Second Appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applica4ons, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

08.05.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No