Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gian Kaur vs Surjit Singh on 8 April, 2026
RSA No.1517 of 1995 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
104 X Obj No.4-C of 1996 (O&M) and
RSA No.1517 of 1995 (O&M)
Reserved on:02.04.2026
02.04.2026
Pronounced on:
on:08.04.2026
Uploaded on:09
09.04.2026
Gian Kaur and another ... Appellants
Versus
Surjit Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others ... Respondents
2. RSA No.1518 of 1995 (O&M)
Gian Kaur and another ... Appellants
Versus
Surjit Singh (since deceased) through LRs and others ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present: Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Subhash Chander, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. C.S. Jattana, Advocate
for legal representatives of respondent No.1
No.1/cross-objector.
Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate and
Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 5 in RSA No.1517 of 1995 and
for respondents No.3 to 6 in RSA No.1518 of 1995.
***
***** AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, GR J.
1. This order of mine shall dispose of two appeals bearing RSA Nos.1517 and 1518 of 1995 as well as the cross objections, as they arise out of the same judgment and decree dated 15.05.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as the learned 1st Appellate Court).
Court) The appellants before this Court are challenging the judgment PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of 1995 (O&M) -2- and decree dated 15.05.1995 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court whereby the Civil Appeal No.21 of 25.02.1991 filed by respo respondents ndents No.2 to 5 arising out of Civil Suit No.245 of 15.06.1988 titled as Kamikkar Singh and others Vs. Surjit Singh was allowed, while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 01.02.1991 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Malerkotla (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court) and decreeing the suit for specific performance of respondents No.2 to 5 with a direction to deposit the remaining sale consideration within a period of two months and execution of sal salee deed by Surjit Singh-respondent respondent No.1 in favour of respondents No.2 to 5. Vide same judgment, the learned 1st Appellate Court had dismissed the Civil Appeal No.22 of 25.02.1991 filed by respondent No.1-Surjit Surjit Singh Singh,, who had sought setting aside of the judgment dgment and decree dated 01.02.1991 passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.201 of 10.06.1987 titled as Gian Kaur etc. Vs. Surjit Singh.. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being enumerated from RSA No.1517 of 1995.
2. In brief the facts are that two suits were filed for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.05.1987 and 15.04.1987 wherein tthe he land in dispute was common.. The agreement to sell dated 03.05.1987 was propounded by the appellants (plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.201 of 10.06.1987) and the agreement to sell dated 15.04.1987 was propounded by respondents No.2 to 5 (plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.245 of 15.06.1988) allegedly to be executed in their favour by one Surjit Singh-respondent Singh respondent No.1 (defendant in both suits). The agreement to sell dated 03.05.1987,, which was subject matter of Civil Suit No.201 of 10.06.1987, pertained to land measuring 7 kanals 117 7 marlas, bearing Khatauni Nos.238/417 238/417 and 292/513, 292/513, comprised in Khasra Nos.
Nos.85//4 (7-0)
0) and PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of 1995 (O&M) -3- 85//26/1 (7-0),
0), situated in the revenue revenue estate of village Kalsian. The plaintiffs therein had pleaded that the defendant executed an agreement to sell the said land in their favour @ ₹20,000/- per killa,, received ₹10,000/- as earnest money, and agreed to execute the sale deed on 14.06.1987 14.06.1987. It was further stipulated that possession of the land would be delivered at the time of execution of the sale deed. In case of failure on the part of the defendant to execute the sale deed within the stipulated period, the plaintiffs would be entitled to get the sale deed executed through the intervention of the Court, and the earnest money would stand forfeited. As the copy of jamabandi was not available, the boundaries of the land were mentioned in the agreement. The defendant failed to execute the sale deed as agreed. On 04.06.1987, the plaintiffs appeared before the office of the Sub-Registrar Registrar along with the balance sale consideration and waited till 5:00 PM, but the defendant did not turn up. Thereafter, the plaintiffs got their presence marked and issued issued a registered notice dated 05.06.1987 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed, but to no avail. Hence, the said suit was filed.
3. The defendant, in his written statement, denied the claim of the plaintiffs and asserted that he had never entered into any agreement to sell the suit land nor executed any such agreement in their favour. He alleged that the agreement was forged and fictitious, and that the suit deserved dismissal for want of cause of action.
4. In the connected suit i.e. Civil Suit No.245 of 15.06.1988 filed by Kamikar kar Singh and others, they sought specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 15.04.1987 executed by the defendant for the land measuring 7 kanals 17 marlas.
marlas. It was pleaded that the defendant had received PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of 1995 (O&M) -4- ₹10,000/- as earnest money and agreed to execute the sale deed @ ₹36,000/- per killa on or before 20.05.1987. It was further averred that, in part performance of the said agreement, the defendant executed a sale deed on 18.07.1987 for land measuring asuring 11 kanals 3 marlas out of the land measuring 19 kanals comprised in Khata Khatauni No.238/417, Khasra No.79//8 No.79//8-0, 0, Khata Khatauni No.292/513, Khasra No.79//17/1(3-3) No.79//17/1(3 3) situation in Village Kalsian for a sale consideration of ₹39,000/-.. Subsequently, on on 18.08.1987, the defendant allegedly entered into another agreement with the plaintiffs to execute the sale deed for the remaining land measuring 7 kanals 7 marlas on or before 15.05.1988, after receiving ₹15,000/- more as earnest money. However, the defe defendant ndant failed to honour the agreement and instead started threatening to alienate the land to third parties, leading to the filing of the suit.
5. In the aforesaid suit, the defendant defendant-Surjit Surjit Singh had admitted the claim of plaintiffs and prayed that the suit suit be decreed in their favour.
6. Both the suits were consolidated on the statement of parties and proceedings were conducted in Civil Suit No.201 of 1987 titled as Gian Kaur and others Vs. Surjit Singh wherein following issues were already framed:
framed:-
"1. Whether defendant executed an agreement to sell dated 03.05.1987 and received Rs.10,000/ Rs.10,000/- as earnest money? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs have remained and still ready and willing to perform their part of the contract? OPP
3. Relief."
7. On appreciation ion of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the Civil Suit No.201 of 10.06.1987 filed by the Gian Kaur and others; whereas dismissed the Civil Suit No. 245 of 15.06.1988 titled PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of 1995 (O&M) -5- as Kamikar Singh and others Vs. Surjit Singh. In appeals filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the learned 1st Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in favour of appellants-plaintiffs appellants plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.201 of 10.06.19 10.06.1987 87 and thus, the instant appeals.
8. Mr. M.L. Saggar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Subhash Chander,, Advocate submitted that the findings of the learned 1st Appellate Court have suffered from misreading of evidence and incorrect appreciation of m material aterial facts, and is, thus, thus liable to be set aside. The appellants have duly proved on record the agreement to sell dated 03.05.1987 (Ex. P P-1) by leading cogent oral as well as documentary evidence. PW-4 PW 4 Karamjeet Singh appeared in the witness box and categorically egorically supported the case of the appellants and proved the execution of the agreement. The learned 1st Appellate Court erred in drawing adverse inference on account of non-appearance non appearance of Bhagwan Singh. It is submitted that a valid Power of Attorney (Ex. PW-4/A) 4/A) had been executed jointly by Gian Kaur and Surinder Kaur in favour of Karamjeet Singh and Bhagwan Singh.
Singh. Once an authorized attorney has stepped into the witness box, non-examination examination of other attorney i.e. Bhagwan Singh cannot be made a ground to discard the case of the appellants. Furthermore, Karamjeet Singh, being the husband of Surinder Kaur and closely related to Gian Kaur, was competent to act on their behalf. It is a settled proposition that such acts, particularly in matters of purchase, can be undertaken by a close family member, and abs absence ence of a formal power of attorney at the time of agreement does not invalidate the transaction.
9. It was further submitted that the identity of the suit property has been duly established and was never in dispute. Though the agreement dated PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of 1995 (O&M) -6- 03.05.1987 mentions the land by boundaries, the total area of 7 kanals 17 marlas is clearly specified, specified, which fact was not disputed by Kamikar Singh Singh. Moreover, both suits were consolidated by consent of the parties. Therefore, the finding of the learned 1st Appellate Court doubting the identity of the property is legally unsustainable. The The appellants were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The appellants appeared before the Sub Registrar on the stipulated date along with the balance sale consideration consideration and got their presence marked. They also issued a legal notice to the respondent. Furthermore, the appellants deposited the balance sale consideration on 09.02.1991 in compliance with the decree passed by the learned trial Court on 01.02.1991. This conclusively proves their continuous readiness and willingness. The he finding of the learned 1st Appellate Court that the respondents were not afforded opportunity to lead evidence is factually incorrect. The record clearly shows that full opportunity was was granted. The witnesses of the appellants were cross-
cross examined at length, and the defendant Surjit Singh himself appeared as DW DW-1.
1.The respondents never moved any application nor expressed any intention to lead additional evidence. Hence, no prejudice has been caused. It was also argued that the agreement dated 15.04.1987 set up by Ka Kamikar kar Singh is inherently doubtful and does not inspire confidence. The said agreement pertained to a larger extent of land i.e. 19 kanals kanals,, yet only a part sale deed was executed.
cuted. Thereafter, another agreement dated 18.08.1987 was alleged for the remaining land measuring 7 kanals 17 marlas for which earnest money of Rs.15000/- was paid and the target date was fixed as 15.05.1998 for execution of the sale deed.
deed This sequence off transactions clearly indicate indicated that the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of 1995 (O&M) -7- respondents were aware of the prior agreement dated 03.05.1987 in favour of the appellants.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 5 in RSA No.1517 of 1995 and for respondents No.3 to 6 in RSA No.1518 of 1995 submitted that while filing the civil suit, Gian Kaur etc. had sought specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.05.1987 for the land admeasuring 7 kanals 17 marlas, comprised in Khasra No.85// No.85//4/7-10, 26/1/0-7 situated in village Kalsia, whereas the agreement to sell dated 03.05.1987 did not specify said details of property. Moreover, respondent No.1 No.1-Surjit Surjit Singh had specifically denied the execution of said agreement, being forged and fabricated. Even in the notice Ex.PW4/C, khasra numbers were not mentioned and only boundaries were depicted. On the other hand, respondent No.1 No.1-Surjit Surjit Singh in the suit filed by Kamikar Singh and others had admitted the claim raised in the said suit with respect to 19 kanals of land and on the basis of agreement dated 15.04.1987, he executed the sale deed on 18.04.1987 for the land admeasuring 11 kanals 2 marlas, comprising Khasra No.79//24/8-0, No.79//24/8 0, 17//1/3 17//1/3-3 3 situated in village Kalsia and for remaining 7 kanals 17 marlas, comprised of Killa No.85//4/7-10, 10, 26/1/ 0-7, 7, the sale deed was agreed to be executed on or before 15.05.1988 against earnest money of Rs.15,000/-.
Rs.15,000/
11. It was further argued that as per the prescribed procedure of law, after consolidation of both suits, the learned ned trial Court ought to have arrayed plaintiff of each suit as defendant in other suit so that pleadings by way of written statement could be completed in both suits to enable the parties to contest the claim of each other, thus, rights of respondents No. No.2 2 to 5 in RSA No.1517 of 1995 and for respondents No.3 to 6 in RSA No.1518 of 1995 were seriously PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of 1995 (O&M) -8- prejudiced. It was further argued that the learned trial Court should have decreed the suit filed by Kamikar Singh and others on the basis of admission made by respondent No.1-Surjit No.1 Surjit Singh in his written statement but the said procedure was not adopted. It was also argued that the appellants could not prove their readiness and willingness and the application was filed before the Sub Registrar only to create false evidence. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench Benches of this Court in Megh Raj Vs. Subhash Rani and others 2012(2) PLR 392 392, Bhagwan Singh (deceased) rep. by LRs Vs. Nawab Mohammad Iftikhar Ali Khan and others 1982 PLR 668 and Surjit Singh and another Vs. Manohar Lal and others 2004(3) RCR (Civil) 761 to contend that the agreement being vague in the absence of description of land allegedly agreed to be sold cannot be specifically enforced in law.
12. Mr. C.S. Jattana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1- No.1 cross objector submitted that neither the execution of alleged agreements to sell in favour of Gian Kaur and Kamikar Singh was proved nor he received any sale consideration and thus, both suits suits were liable to be dismissed and so the appeals filed before the learned 1st Appellate Court. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of both the regular second appeals filed before this Court.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have peru perused sed the paper book as well as the case laws cited with their able assistance.
14. This Court finds substance in the reasoning adopted by the learned 1st Appellate Court that the agreement to sell dated 03.05.1987 set up by the appellants suffers from material inconsistencies, particularly with regard to proper identification of the suit property. The absence of specific khasra PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of 1995 (O&M) -9- numbers in the agreement as well well as in the legal notice creates a serious doubt regarding the certainty of the contract, which is an essential requirement for grant of a decree for specific performance. It is a well well-settled settled principle of law that an agreement to sell, which is vague and and lacks a clear description of the property sought to be conveyed, cannot be specifically enforced. This principle assumes greater significance in the present case, where two competing agreements to sell pertain to the same property. In such circumstances circumstances,, the agreement which contains a definite and identifiable description of the property is more credible and inspires greater confidence in the eyes of law.
15. Further, the admission made by respondent No.1 No.1-Surjit Surjit Singh in his written statement filed in Civil Suit No.245 of 15.06.1988, whereby he unequivocally admitted the claim set up by Kamikar Singh and others (respondents No.2 to 5 in RSA No.1517 of 1995 and respondents No.3 to 6 in RSA No.1518 of 1995), assumes considerable significance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Once respondent No.1 had admitted the claim with respect to the suit property on the basis of agreement to sell dated 15.04.1987, the suit ought to have been decreed on the strength of such clear and unambiguous admission.
admission. Moreover, it stands established on record that, out of the total land measuring 19 kanals, respondent No.1 had already executed a registered sale deed dated 18.07.1987 in favour of the said plaintiffs with respect to land measuring 11 kanals 3 marlas, marlas, in part performance of the agreement dated 15.04.1987. It is further evident that the parties had agreed that the sale deed for the remaining land would be executed on or before 15.05.1988. However, respondent No.1 failed to honour his contractual oblig obligation ation within the stipulated period, thereby compelling Kamikar Singh and others to institute the PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of 1995 (O&M) -10- suit for specific performance. The said conduct of respondent No.1 lends further assurance to the genuineness and enforceability of the agreement dated 15.04.1987. The contention raised by learned senior counsel for the appellants that the general power of attorney dated 04.06.1987, having been executed subsequent to the agreement to sell dated 03.05.1987, does not ipso facto invalidate the said agreement, loses loses significance in the present case. This is so because the agreement itself fails to withstand legal scrutiny and does not pass the test of validity on the basis of the evidence adduced on record. It is pertinent to note that under the agreement to sell dated 15.04.1987, the land was agreed to be sold at the rate of ₹36,000/- per killa, whereas under the subsequent agreement dated 03.05.1987, the sale consideration was fixed at ₹20,000/- per killa. Such a substantial reduction in price, without any plausi plausible ble explanation, renders the latter agreement doubtful, as no prudent person would ordinarily agree to sell property at a significantly lower rate. On this count as well, the agreement to sell dated 03.05.1987 loses its credibility and enforceability. Lastly, ly, this Court finds merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 in RSA No.1517 of 1995 and respondents No.3 to 6 in RSA No.1518 of 1995 that serious prejudice was caused to said respondents, as they were not granted opportunity opportunity by the learned trial Court to lead evidence in support of their case in Civil Suit No.245 of 15.06.1988 filed by them and rebut the claim of appellants-plaintiffs appellants in Civil Suit No.201 of 10.06.1987. Therefore, the learned 1st Appellate Court, being the final Court of facts, has minutely examined the entire evidence on record and has assigned cogent and plausible reasons while reversing the findings of the learned trial Court. The conclusions arrived at by the learned 1st Appellate Court cannot be said to be either perverse PANKAJ KUMAR 2026.04.09 15:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1517 of 1995 (O&M) -11- or contrary to the material available on record so as to warrant interference by this Court.
16. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan 875, questions of Singh (dead) through LRs and others (2023) SCC Online SC 875 law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.
17. As an upshot of above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the findings rendered by the learned 1st Appellate Court and the same are hereby upheld.. Resultantly, both the regular second appeal appealss as well as the cross objections are dismissed.
18. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
April 08, 2026
Pankaj*
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
PANKAJ KUMAR
2026.04.09 15:04
I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh