Jeet Singh @ Jit Singh v. Rattan Kumar Etc

IN T

Jeet Singh @ Jit Rattan Kumar an

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

for

Mr

Mr

for

Ser

vid MANDEEP PA

1.

The appellant/defend the learned Low dismissed the a passed by the le performance of Brief facts

2.

Bri filed a suit for s the alternative

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da t Singh (since deceased) through VERSUS nd Another

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Aakash Singla and Mr. Ankus the appellant. r. Arihant Jain, Advocate with r. Kanish Jindal and Mr. Rishav J contesting respondent No.1. rvice of respondent No.2 dispens de order dated 12.09.2025 -.- ANNU,J. e present Regular Second A dant assailing the concurrent find wer Appellate Court vide judgm appeal filed against the judgm earned Trial Court, vide which t agreement to sell dated 15.06.20 ief facts of the case are that the specific performance of agreem for recovery of ₹6,50,000/-. I

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-3584-2015 (O&M) served on:-15.09.2025 ate of Decision : 17.09.2025 h LRs ....Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU h Singla, Advocates Jain, Advocates sed with Appeal has been filed by dings of the Courts below, wher ment and decree dated 10.03.20 ment and decree dated 29.05.20 the suit of the plaintiff for spec 004 was decreed. plaintiff/respondent Rattan Kum ent to sell dated 15.06.2004 and t is the case of the plaintiff t

eby cific mar d in

defendant No.1 kanals 17 marla 2003. On 15.06. measuring 16 k No.56, Khasra N situated at villag of ₹1,70,000/- p and executed an deed on or befo Longowal and w agreement. All t of the land was that in case defe

15.06.2006, the Court, and in c forfeited. Defen No.2 prior to e remained ready after informing Registrar, Long duty and registr No.1 did not tu attested affidavi readiness and w

is the owner to the extent of h as situated at village Takipur as .2004, defendant No.1 entered in kanals 18 marlas, being half s No.125, Khasra No.2/12 as deta ge Takipur, Tehsil and District S per killa. He received a sum of ₹3 n agreement to sell dated 15.06 ore 15.06.2006. The agreement w was witnessed. Defendant No.1 a the terms and conditions were re delivered at the time of executi endant No.1 failed to get the sale plaintiff could get the sale deed case the plaintiff failed to do s ndant No.1 also agreed to get t execution of the sale deed. The and willing to perform his part defendant No.1, the plaintiff w gowal, with the balance sale con ration, and remained present th urn up. The plaintiff got his pres it from the Executive Magistra willingness to perform his part of

half share out of land measuring per Jamabandi for the year 200 nto an agreement of sale of the la share out of land bearing Khew ailed in the headnote of the pla Sangrur, with the plaintiff at the r 3,25,000/- in cash as earnest mon .2004, agreeing to execute the s was executed between the partie affixed his thumb impression on educed into writing. The possess ion of the agreement. It was agr e deed executed and registered up executed through the agency of o, the earnest money would st the land redeemed from defend e plaintiff asserted that he alw t of the agreement. On 15.06.20 went to the office of the Joint S nsideration and expenses for sta here for the whole day. Defend sence marked and also obtained ate to that effect. He reiterated f the contract but as defendant N

g 99 02– wat aint, rate ney sale s at sion reed p to f the dant ways 006, Sub amp dant d an his No.1

failed to execu compelled to fil

3.

Up It was denied th was denied that executed any ag agreement is no connivance with the defendant. T the alleged agre who was a com between 1990 a various papers pleaded that the for preparing t possession of th he continued to denied that the India, and, there to execution of t

4.

Rep written statemen

ute the sale deed despite rep e the present suit. on notice, defendant No.1 appea hat he executed any agreement t he ever received ₹3,25,000/- a greement in favour of the plainti ot genuine and is the result of fra h the witnesses, has prepared th The defendant asserted that he n eement. He explained that he use mmission agent at Anaj Mandi, L and 2003, and the plaintiff used such as stamp papers, bahi, p e plaintiff might have misused s the alleged agreement to sell he land was delivered to the plain o be in possession and cultiva land had been mortgaged with efore, the question of redeeming the sale deed did not arise. plication was filed by the plain nt were denied and those of the p

peated requests, the plaintiff w ared and filed his written stateme to sell in favour of the plaintiff as earnest money on 15.06.2004 iff. It was pleaded that the dispu aud and fabrication. The plaintiff he same which is not binding up never put his thumb impression ed to visit the shop of the plaint Longowal, for the sale of his cr d to take his thumb impressions printed forms, receipts, etc. It w such thumb-impressed blank pap . It was specifically denied t ntiff. The defendant maintained t ating the suit property. He furt defendant No.2, the State Bank the land from defendant No.2 pr ntiff wherein the allegations in plaint were reiterated.

was ent. f. It 4 or uted f, in pon n on tiff, rops s on was pers that that ther k of

5.

Fro

¶1w

¶15OP 2 W his 3 W so, 4 W OP 5 R

6.

In Sharma, the scri execution and p who proved tha Kamlesh Kaur, plaintiff was m Handwriting An impression on th the plaintiff him

7.

In about the defend any agreement

om the pleadings of the parties, th whether defendant No.1 entere

06.2004 and received a sum o PP. Whether the plaintiff always rem part of the contract? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entitled t to what extent? OPP. Whether the plaintiff has no caus PD Relief. order to prove his case, the ibe of the agreement, PW2 Jagji payment of consideration, PW3 at he sold the stamp papers of Clerk, who proved the affidavit marked before the Joint Sub nd Fingerprint Expert from Pa he agreement to sell was of the d mself, who reiterated the case. rebuttal, the defendant examine dant's possession of the suit pro to sell, DW2 Vinod Kumar, C

he following issues were framed ed into an agreement to sell da of ₹3,25,000/- as earnest mon mained ready and willing to perfo to damages in the alternative, an se of action to file the present su plaintiff examined PW1 Sat it Singh, an attesting witness to 3 Om Prakash, the Stamp Vend the agreement to defendant, PW t through which the presence of Registrar, PW5 Navdeep Gup atiala, who opined that the thu defendant, and PW6 Rattan Kum ed DW1 Buta Singh, who depo operty and that he had not heard Clerk, Market Committee, Cheem

d: ated ey? orm nd if uit? Pal dor, W4 pta, umb mar, osed d of ma,

who stated that Takipura Brothe Findings of the

8.

The appreciating the the agreement. plaintiff's case sale of stamp p showing plainti expert, establish the defendant. P defendant failed to substantiate h obtained thumb Buta Singh's ev heard of the agr sell crops up to establish how th to any authority stated possessio and thus posses plaintiff had pro With these findi

t the defendant used to sell his ers, Longowal, and DW3 Jeet Sin e trial Court e learned Trial Court, after he e evidence led, held that the plai PW1, the scribe, and PW2, th regarding execution and consid papers to the defendant. PW4 K iff's presence before the Sub R hed that the thumb impression o PW6, the plaintiff, reiterated the d to rebut the evidence regarding his theory that the plaintiff, bein impressions on blank papers. T vidence was confined to posse reement. DW2 Vinod Kumar onl o 2001 at the plaintiff's shop. he plaintiff misused blank paper y alleging forgery. The Court o n was delivered, there was no re ssion of plaintiff was not prov oved readiness and willingness t ings, the suit was decreed.

crops up to the year 2001 at M ngh is defendant No.1 himself. earing counsel for the parties intiff had duly proved execution he attesting witness, supported deration. PW3 Om Prakash prov Kamlesh Kaur proved the affida Registrar on 15.06.2006. PW5, on the agreement to sell was tha e pleadings. On the other hand, the taking of thumb impressions ng a commission agent, fraudulen The Trial Court observed that DW ssion and he admitted he had ly proved that the defendant used The defendant himself could rs and he never filed any compla observed that although the plain ecital in the agreement to that eff ed. However, it was held that to perform his part of the contr

M/s n of ved avit t of s or ntly W1 not d to not aint ntiff fect,

Findings of the

9.

Fee

29.05.2012 pass learned Lower A that the plea of With regard to t portion of cons plausible that sin to enable redem meritless. Conse of the Trial Cou

10.

Fee present RSA ha notice of motion dated 09.09.201 would be prepar with interest as payment. It was plaintiff was ba had obtained du Court according substantial ques

¶1ma

e Lower Appellate Court eling aggrieved by the above sed by the learned trial Court, T Appellate Court discarded the t f fraud was not believable as th the long period fixed for executi sideration being paid, the Cour nce the land was mortgaged with mption before execution. The C equently, the appeal was dismiss urt were affirmed. eling aggrieved by the concurren as been filed by the defendant n, substantial questions of law w

¶15It was observed that couns red to pay the amount mentione the Court may determine from th also urged that the decree for sp ased upon use of thumb impress uring his transactions with the de gly observed that the case wil tions of law: Whether the Courts below aterial available in the case tha

said judgment and decree da The defendant filed an appeal. T theory of blank papers. It observ here was no evidence to support ion of the sale deed despite a ma rt found the plaintiff's explanat h the bank, parties fixed a long d Court held that this objection w sed on 10.03.2015 and the findi nt findings of the Courts below, t/appellant. At the time of issu were framed by this Court vide or el for the appellant stated that ed as advance i.e. ₹3,25,000/- alo he date of agreement till the date pecific performance obtained by sions on papers which the plain efendant as commission agent. T ll be considered on the follow w failed to recognise the intrin at would show that there was

ated The ved t it. ajor tion date was ngs uing rder t he ong e of ntiff This wing

rela onl by def

¶2of p spe Submissions of

11.

Lea Courts below ha of the alleged a Section 111 of transaction claim not properly con genuine, execu agreement for s consideration of paid on 15.06. according to th earnest money, w of merely ₹35,0 was not a genuin the course of a

ationship as vendor/vendee betw ly an indebtedness which was s the plaintiff by using some fendant which the plaintiff had ac Whether the defendant's con possession of the property did no d coming to Court with unclean ecific performance. f learned counsel for the appell arned counsel for the appellan ave wrongly and illegally decree agreement to sell. The present the Evidence Act operates and med by a commission agent from nsidered and appreciated the fact ution of the sale deed could o long a period as two years, es f ₹3,59,125/-, a substantial pay .2004 and only an amount of he plaintiff. No prudent person, would agree to postpone the sale 000/-. All this, learned counsel ne sale, rather, the alleged agree fiduciary relationship, plaintiff

ween the parties, and if at all, it w ought to be converted fraudulen of the thumb impressions of ccess to. nduct in making a case of deliv ot amount to projecting a false c hands to deny the plaintiff relie lant nt/defendant argued that both ed the suit for specific performa case, he submitted, is one wh d is one of a fiduciary/blank-pa m his client. The lower Courts h t that if the alleged agreement w not have been postponed in specially when out of the total s yment of ₹3,25,000/- was allege f ₹35,000/- remained to be p having paid such a large sum e date for two years for the paym argued, shows that the transact ement P1 was falsely created dur being a commission agent and

was ntly very case f of ance here aper have were sale edly paid m as ment tion

defendant an a sometimes adva security. The pr money-lending, sell the land wh with regard to th 35 of the impu surmises and co paying the loan. date. Learned c where the Supre the Courts belo submitted that th 504) is distingui filed suit promp and a half years two years goe discretionary re given by the pla (the target date This circumstan transaction.

12.

Reg the appellant po

agriculturist. The defendant us ances, and the plaintiff used to o resent case, learned counsel urg not of sale. The defendant, bein hich was his livelihood. The app he fixation of a long date for the ugned judgment, is, counsel s onjectures. One can free a prope . The encumbrance could not hav counsel relied upon Tej Ram v eme Court denied specific perfor ow because of delay and doub he judgment relied upon by the l ishable because in that case the p ptly, unlike the present case wher . Learned counsel argued that th es to the root of the case a elief under Section 20 of the S aintiff to the defendant for exec ) or thereafter, despite the alle nce, he submitted, creates grave garding the mortgage of the land ointed out that according to the

sed to take inputs on credit obtain blank signed stamp papers ged, is a case of breach of trust ng an agriculturist, was not likely proach of the lower appellate co e sale deed, as adopted in paragr submitted, perverse and based erty from encumbrance in a day ve been the reason for fixing a lo v. Patti Ram, 1997 AIR SC 27 rmance and set aside the decrees btful conduct of the plaintiff. lower appellate court (2011 (1) C plaintiff had served legal notice re there was delay of more than o he postponement of the sale date and disentitles the plaintiff fr pecific Relief Act. No notice w cuting the sale deed on 15.06.20 ged large payment of ₹3,25,00 doubt about the genuineness of d with the bank, learned counsel Jamabandi for the year 2002–20

s as t or y to ourt aph on y by ong 702, s of He C C one for rom was 00/-.

(Exhibit P29) th P1, the alleged there is merely sale date appea obtained at the mortgage would produced any J was obtained in before entering appellant submi undue advantage

13.

Lea relationship betw evidenced on th the Punjab Agri the alleged atte examination cou Rather, PW2 sta commission age indeed a comm evidence proper leaving the cruc

14.

Lea illustrations) wh

he land was encumbered with th agreement, does not specifically a vague clause that the encumb ars. This, he submitted, indicate e time of the alleged agreem d have been specifically mentio amabandi obtained on or befor n 2007. Any prudent purchaser into such a transaction, but n itted that the plaintiff misused bl e of a dominant fiduciary positio arned counsel for the appella ween plaintiff and defendant of he file by registers and documen icultural Produce Markets Act, esting witness of the agreeme uld not deny that the plaintiff de ated that he had not sold his cro ent, this, appellant's counsel arg mission agent. The lower appe rly and returned no specific fin cial question unadjudicated. arned counsel relied upon Secti hich reads as follows:-

e bank for ₹2,25,000/-. Yet Exh y refer to a mortgage with SBI brance would be cleared before es that no Jamabandi was actua ment, otherwise particulars of oned. Further, the plaintiff has re the alleged agreement. Ex.P would have obtained proof of t no such proof was produced. T lank signed stamp papers by tak on. ant next urged that the fiduci f commission agent and farme nts of the market committee un namely Exhibits D2 to D13. Ev ent, PW2 Jagjit Singh, in cro ealt in commission agency busine op to the plaintiff but to some ot gued, implies that the plaintiff w ellate court did not examine t nding on this pivotal issue, ther ion 111 of the Evidence Act (w

hibit ally not P-29 title The king iary er is nder ven oss-ess. ther was this eby

"11 rela fait in a of con

(a) a s

(b) que fait

15.

He onus on the dom He relied on K 4351, submittin challenged on th to establish the this onus. Hen discretionary rel

16.

On that the plaintiff document and t

¶11Proof of good faith in tra ation of active confidence-Wher th of a transaction between parti a position of active confidence, t the transaction is on the part nfidence. Illustr The good faith of a sale by a cli suit brought by the client. The b e transaction is on the attorney. The good faith of a sale by a so estion in a suit brought by the so th of the transaction is on the fat argued that once a fiduciary or d minant party to prove the genui Krishna Mohan Kaul v. Pratim ng that where a person in a he ground of fraud, the burden li validity of the document, and t nce, learned counsel argued, lief in specific performance. n the question of delivery of pos f's pleading that possession was the Trial Court itself noted tha

ansactions where one party is re there is a question as to the go ies, one of whom stands to the ot the burden of proving the good fa ty who is in a position of ac rations ient to an attorney is in question burden of proving the good faith on just come of age to a father is on. The burden of proving the go ther." dominant relationship is shown, ineness of the transaction is hea ma Mittal & Ors., (2003) AIR position of active confidence ies heavily upon the dominant pa the plaintiff has failed to discha the plaintiff is not entitled ssession, learned counsel conten delivered was not borne out by at possession was not proved.

s in ood ther faith tive n in h of s in ood avy. SC e is arty arge to ded

further argued t perform his part

17.

Wi agreement P1, unreliable. PW5 defendant) were positively about Exhibit P1; Q1 Q3 (allegedly o agreement, Q4 a the back of the which is materia the defendant, l thumb impressio are not proved established. Thi performance.

18.

An third page of Ex defendant. This fiduciary relatio not be blank an been completed indicates that th

that the plaintiff failed to prov t of the agreement. th respect to the thumb impr learned counsel pointed out th 5 himself admitted that impress e not clear for comparison and t those impressions. There are appears on the first page; Q2 ( of defendant) appearing on the appears on back side of 1st page second page; and Q6 on the bla al for completing the sale contra likewise, Q5 could not be said ons on the front and back of pag to be those of the defendant, th is, counsel argued, disentitles th n important circumstance, learn xhibit P1 is blank except for the a s, he urged, supports the blank onship: had there been a genuin nd bearing thumb impressions, d in full. The presence of a bla humb impressions may have been

ve his readiness and willingness ressions appearing on the alleg hat the evidence of expert PW5 sions Q3, Q5 and Q6 (allegedly for that reason he could not op six alleged thumb impressions (allegedly of attesting witness) second page which completes of agreement to sell, Q5 appears ank third page. PW5 stated that Q act, could not be identified as tha d to be of the defendant. Once ge 2 which is the most relevant p he agreement cannot be said to he plaintiff to a decree of spec ned counsel submitted, is that alleged thumb impression Q6 of k-paper theory arising out of e transaction, the third page wo instead the document would h ank page with a thumb impress n taken earlier on blank papers

s to ged 5 is y of pine on s on Q3, at of age o be cific f the ould have

later used to fab both Courts bel after the writing on the back of th origin of the do his register (Ex plaintiff withhe vendor register (

19.

Lea that whether the was no vendor-misused to co defendant's con Court with uncle Submissions of

20.

Lea argued that there rightly held that once execution appearing on th established. Eve were heavily ink non-comparabil proof of other im

bricate Exhibit P1. This aspect, c low. Further, nothing proves tha g of the document. Moreover, th he stamp papers, which PW3 Om ocument. PW3's cross-examinat xhibit D1), including entries n eld comparison of thumb impr (Exhibit P2), which invites adve arned counsel for the appellant th e Courts below failed to recogni -vendee relationship but rather onvert an indebtedness and th nduct of asserting delivery of ean hands. f learned counsel for the respon arned counsel for the respond e is no illegality in the judgment t execution of the agreement to s is proved by the presence of th he first page and on other page en if some impressions on the se ked and not comparable, this w ity of some impressions does mpressions. It was further argue

counsel argued, has been ignored at the said impressions were tak e absence of the vendor's signat m Prakash sold, indicates suspici tion revealed many irregularities not signed by purchasers, and ression at relevant entry with rse inference. hus pressed the substantial quest ise intrinsic material showing th a commission-farmer relations he related question whether possession amounts to coming ndent dent/plaintiff, on the other ha ts passed by the Courts below. Th ell stands proved on the record, humb impressions of the defend s of the agreement, the contrac econd page or on the backs of pa would not amount to proof of fra not negate the comparability ed that the defendant failed to pr

d by ken ture ious s in tion here ship g to and, hey dant ct is ages aud,

that there was n of commission a a commission a pointed out that might have use learned counsel report. Findings

21.

I h carefully.

22.

For concurrent judg sustained and th P-1 such as to performance.

23.

Fir confidence and commission-age is manifest from D-2 to D-13). T central factual negativing the e explanation bee defendant that p

no vendor-vendee relationship or agent and farmer. Even if a com agent is not precluded from ente t in the written statement the de ed some thumb-impressed blank l submitted, is binding and ou have considered the rival con r the reasons set out below, th ments/decrees impugned in this hat substantial doubt has been ca o disentitle the plaintiff to th st, the evidence on the record e d dominance between the parti ent and the defendant as an agric m the market registers and relat The lower Courts below have si matrix. Neither has any m existence of commission-agent tr en given for the many entries point to frequent commercial de

r that the true relationship was t mmission-agent relationship exist ering into a contract of sale. It w efendant admitted that the plain nk papers, and such an admissi utweighs the expert's inconclus ntentions and perused the rec his Court is of the view that s Regular Second Appeal cannot ast upon the genuineness of Exh he discretionary relief of spec establishes a relationship of act ies, the plaintiff functioning a culturist/client and that relations ed documents on the file (Exhib ingularly failed to grapple with t meaningful finding been recor ransactions nor has any satisfact and documents produced by ealings between the parties. O

that ted, was ntiff ion, sive cord t be hibit cific tive as a ship bits this ded tory

such a fiduciary Section 111 of asserting the i correspondingly material, that th or misused in co

24.

Sec record, believab Courts below h impressions (PW impressions ma concludes and o to comparison a other impression that the third pa That circumstan into a multipart and at the least vendor signatur papers sold by P to procure and register (Exhibi discredited the such material in

y/dominant relationship is shown f the Evidence Act that the ev nstrument (here, the plaintiff y heavier and he must prove he document was executed freely onsequence of the dominant posi cond, the "blank-paper" theory a ble and supported by a constel ave not adequately examined. W-5) is far from conclusive. The arked Q2, Q3 and Q5 on 2nd on the back-side of 2nd page of a and therefore cannot be positive ns are also non-comparable. It age of Exhibit P-1 is essentially nce i.e a blank sheet bearing a th t instrument is, in ordinary com calls for explanation. Equally d res or corroborative entries on PW-3 (the stamp vendor) and the place before Court the comp it P-2/D-1 register) which, if expert's comparison. The delib nvites a strong adverse inference

n, the legal position is clear, as videntiary burden upon the pa f asserting Exhibit P-1) becom e, by cogent and unimpeacha y and knowingly and not fabrica ition. advanced by the defendant is, on llation of circumstances which The expert evidence on the thu e expert himself admits that cru d page of Ex.P-1, the agreem agreement Ex.P-1 are not amena ely attributed to the defendant, t is a matter of prime significa blank save for a thumb-mark (Q humb-impression later incorpora mmercial practice, highly suspici disquieting is the absence of regu the back of the individual sta e unexplained failure of the plain parative entries from the vendo produced, might have assisted berate or negligent withholding e against the plaintiff. In short,

per arty mes able ated umb cial ment able ance Q6). ated ous ular amp ntiff or's d or

pattern of impre inability to iden earlier thumb-m realistic and cre

25.

Thi deepen the dou possession. The plaintiff's allega

26.

The substantial paym improbable and sum as earnest protracted defer disclosure of en shows encumbra Exhibit P-1 itsel than a specific omission is mat examined title p reliance upon c redemption from proof and amou equitable relief.

essions, the lacunae in the vendo ntify the essential impressions c marks on blank papers subsequen dible explanation. ird, the plaintiff's own conduc ubt. The agreement contains e Trial Court itself recorded tha ation of delivery is unsupported b e long postponement of the s ment of ₹3,25,000 being alleged unexplained. A prudent purcha t money, would not pass imm rment without contemporaneous cumbrances. Although the Jama ance with the bank, it was obtain lf contains only a vague clause a reference to the very mortga terial and inconsistent with the prior to entering into a sale transa conjecture that the long date m the bank is not supported b unts to speculation and such su

or's documentation and the expe combine to make the hypothesis ntly used to fabricate Exhibit P-ct and the documentary omissi no specific recital of delivery at possession was not proved T by cogent evidence. sale-date for two years despite d to have been made is inheren aser, having paid such a substan mediate possession or agree to documentary proof of title or cl abandi produced on the file Ex.P ned much later in the year 2007 about clearing encumbrances rat age shown in the Jamabandi, t case of an honest buyer who action. The lower appellate Cou must have been fixed to ena by contemporaneous document urmise cannot sustain the grant

ert's s of -1 a ons y of The e a ntly ntial o a lear P-29 ther this has urt's able tary

27.

Sup this Court in the RCR (Civil) 503 "In tha not spe reli prin hav of perf evid

Fur has taken a stan agreement was agreement was other evidence a

28.

The of the present c already paid and

pport is also derived from the j e case of Suresh Singla Vs. Smt

¶3In para No.14 of the same, it w n case the intention of parties wa at case after paying 90% of the t have been postponed for such a e Act, the Court is not bound t ecific performance. No doubt th ief should not be arbitrary a nciples but on the facts of the p ve judiciously exercised the juris Section 20 of the Act in w rformance. There is nothing on f d misinterpreted the testimony dence. rther, it was also held that the nd that she has been duped. No s executed between the partie to secure a loan is based upon t available on file and cannot be in e ratio of above mentioned judg case. In the case in hand also, d for remaining of 10% of the s

judgment of Co-ordinate Bench t. Phool Pati and Another, 2013 was held as under:- as actually to execute agreemen consideration the sale deed wo a long period. As per Section 20 to grant the discretionary relief e discretion in withholding the s and should be based upon sou present case both the Courts be sdiction by invoking the provisi withholding the relief of spec file that Courts below have misr y of witnesses and document defendant is an illiterate lady a o doubt the Courts below held t es but the finding that the s the circumstantial evidence and nterfered. ment is fully applicable to the fa 90% of the sale consideration w sale consideration long date of t

h of 3(1) nt in ould 0 of f of said und low ions cific ead tary that said acts was

years was fixed it was only a loa

29.

Fou cumulative effe the expert's in presence of a b production of d delivery of poss to draw a strong or perfected by relationship. In incumbent upon equitable jurisdi

30.

For upholding the e consideration o questions of law appellant. The relationship was sale may be on and the defend furnish a sound disentitles the pl

for execution of sale deed which an transaction. urth, applying accepted princip ect of (a) the proved fiduciary/c nconclusive comparisons of th blank, thumb-marked page in Ex decisive vendor-register compar session (f) failure to explain the g inference that Exhibit P-1 may y using earlier thumb-marks tak n that factual matrix the plaint n him. Accordingly he cannot iction in his favour. r these reasons, this Court is sa execution and genuineness of Ex of critical evidence and by u w framed by this Court are, the record contains intrinsic mat s that of commission-agent and f ly a conversion of indebtedness dant's assertion of delivery of basis for specific performance laintiff to equitable relief.

h shows intention of the parties t ples of evidence and equity, commission-agent relationship, he material thumb-marks, (c) xhibit P-1, (d) the absence or n risons, and (e) the failure to pr long deferment of the sale-date y well be a document manufactu ken in the course of the fiduci tiff has not borne the heavy o ask or the Courts to exercise atisfied that the concurrent findi x.P-1 are vitiated by material n unsafe inferences. The substan erefore, answered in favour of terial indicating that the part farmer and that what is alleged a s by improper use of thumb-ma possession, as recorded, does but rather discloses conduct wh

that

(b) non-ove e, is ured iary nus ngs non-ntial ies' as a arks not

31.

Acc and decree of th decree of the performance on is dismissed. H the earnest mon entitled to intere agreement i.e. 1 of 6% per annum decretal amount

32.

Pen

September 17, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh

cordingly, the Regular Second he Lower Appellate Court dated trial Court dated 29.05.2012, Ex.P-1, are set aside. The plain However, in the alternative, the p ey amount of ₹3,25,000/- along est at the rate of 9% per annum

5.06.2004 till the date of filing o m from the date of institution of t. nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes/No

Appeal is allowed. The judgm d 10.03.2015 and the judgment , insofar as they decree spec ntiff's suit for specific performa plaintiff shall be entitled to reco with interest. The plaintiff shall m from the date of execution of of the suit, and thereafter at the r f the suit till actual realization of stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing o.

ment cific ance over l be rate