Entire ₹20 Lakhs Allegedly Paid in Cash, Yet No Sale Deed Executed – Such Conduct Defies Prudence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Specific Performance Claim Over Dubious Property Deal

"Courts are not bound to grant equitable relief where the conduct of the plaintiff is questionable and evidence lacks credibility." - In a sharply reasoned judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a second appeal seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell a commercial shop, citing inconsistencies in evidence, failure to establish execution of the contract, and absence of proof of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Justice Alka Sarin observed that the entire case rested on unsubstantiated claims, interested witnesses, and an implausible narrative of paying ₹20 lakhs entirely in cash without ensuring registration of the sale deed.

The Court upheld the First Appellate Court’s findings, which had reversed the Trial Court’s decree for specific performance, finding that the alleged agreement to sell dated 30.11.2015 lacked legal and evidentiary backing.

"Readiness and Willingness is Not a Ritual Pleading – It Must Be Proved Through Cogent Conduct and Credible Evidence"

The plaintiff had claimed that the entire consideration amount of ₹20,00,000 was paid in cash at the time of execution of the agreement. However, the sale deed was never registered, and the execution was purportedly deferred to 25.02.2016, later extended to 30.04.2016 by way of an endorsement allegedly made by the seller’s now-deceased husband.

The Court questioned the entire factual premise, stating:

“Even if one were to believe that the agreement was executed, it is beyond comprehension why a prudent buyer, having paid the full price in cash, would not insist on simultaneous execution and registration of the sale deed.”

Justice Sarin further noted that the plaintiff led no evidence to prove his financial capacity, nor did he establish that he remained continuously willing and ready to perform his part. The assertion that he appeared at the Sub-Registrar’s office on 03.05.2016 was unsupported by any independent proof.

The Court held that mere averments and oral testimony do not satisfy the mandatory requirement of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, which demands strict and convincing proof of a party’s preparedness and intent to complete the transaction.

“Agreement to Sell Not Proved – Plaintiff Fails to Discharge Burden Under Section 67 of the Evidence Act”

On the core issue of whether the agreement to sell dated 30.11.2015 was ever validly executed by the defendant, the High Court expressed serious doubt about its authenticity.

It noted that no scribe was produced or even identified, the stamp paper was purchased by the defendant’s husband (who was not the owner), and only the husband’s signature appeared on the extension endorsement, not the seller’s. The only surviving attesting witness examined was the plaintiff’s own brother, whose testimony was riddled with contradictions.

Justice Sarin observed: “Neither PW1 nor PW2 could identify who scribed the agreement. Both admitted in cross-examination that they did not know who purchased the stamp paper. There is no evidence that the contents were read over to the defendant, and the scribe was never examined. The burden to prove execution was not discharged.”

Citing Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court reiterated that merely marking a document as an exhibit does not prove its execution, especially when the execution is disputed and the witnesses are interested parties.

“Courts Cannot Enforce Speculative Contracts Based on Posthumous Assertions and Self-serving Evidence”

A crucial aspect that weakened the plaintiff’s case was the role of the defendant’s husband, who was alleged to have been involved in the deal. However, he had passed away in June 2016, and the plaintiff's reliance on endorsements and prior dealings with him could not replace direct proof of the defendant’s consent or act.

“The endorsement of extension dated 25.02.2016 bears only the signature of the husband, not the defendant. She is the sole owner of the property. Without her express participation or acknowledgement, such an agreement has no legal force.”

The Court noted that the alleged prior money dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant’s husband further blurred the line between a genuine sale transaction and a possible loan dispute. The separate civil suit filed by the plaintiff against the deceased for recovery of ₹6,00,000 also cast doubt on the motivations and timing of the alleged agreement to sell.

“No Substantial Question of Law Arises Where Lower Courts Have Duly Evaluated Evidence”

Reinforcing the scope of a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court held that:

“The findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are based on sound appreciation of evidence and are purely factual. No substantial question of law arises in the present case.”

Justice Sarin concluded that no interference was warranted, as the concurrent findings of fact against the plaintiff were neither perverse nor contrary to law.

A Strong Message Against Equitable Relief on Dubious Foundations

This judgment is a textbook illustration of the principle that specific performance is a discretionary and equitable remedy, not a matter of course. Courts will refuse to enforce agreements:

• Where execution is unproven

• Where financial readiness is unsubstantiated

• Where only interested witnesses support the claim

• And where the very narrative strains credibility

“A party who comes to Court seeking enforcement of an oral or unregistered agreement must stand on firm legal and factual ground. Vague claims, suspect documents, and speculative allegations are insufficient to seek an equitable decree,” the Court implicitly declared.

Date of Judgment: 02 September 2025