REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.3612 OF 2009

Parminder Singh                  ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Gurpreet Singh     .…Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed against the judgment and final

order  dated  30.07.2007  passed  by  the  High  Court  of

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 2039 of

2007  whereby  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  second

appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and

decree  dated  21.03.2007  passed  by  the  Additional

District Judge (Fast Track Court),  Amritsar in C.A. No.

FTC/10 of 2003/2006 by which the appeal filed by the

1

appellant herein was dismissed with costs affirming the

judgment  and  decree  dated  12.08.2003  passed  by  the

Additional  Civil  Judge(Senior  Division),  Ajnala  in  Civil

Suit No. 95 of 2006.  

2) We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate

the issues involved in this appeal.

3) The appellant is the defendant and the respondent

is the plaintiff in the civil suit out of which this appeal

arises.  The  appellant  and  the  respondent  are  real

brothers. The respondent is elder to the appellant.

4) The  appellant  (defendant)  is  the  co-sharer  of  the

land to the extent of 55/118, which comes to 84 Kanals,

in the joint Khata of total land measuring 177 kanals 10

Marlas  situated  in  Village  Vachhoa,  Tehsil  Ajnala,

District  Amritsar.   The  appellant  entered  into  an

agreement on 02.07.1995 with the respondent (plaintiff)

whereby  he  agreed  to  sell  his  share  of  55/118  of  the

entire  land  to  the  respondent  for  a  total  sale

consideration of  Rs.5  lakhs.  The  agreement,  inter  alia,

2

recited that out of Rs. 5 lakhs, the respondent has paid

Rs.4 lakhs in cash at the time of execution of agreement

(02.07.1995) to the respondent and has agreed to pay the

balanced  amount  to  the  appellant  at  the  time  of

registration of the sale deed. It was agreed that the sale

deed would be executed on or before 13.12.1995.

5) Since the appellant did not execute the sale deed in

favour of the respondent in terms of the agreement, the

respondent filed a civil suit against the appellant seeking

specific performance of the agreement dated 02.07.1995

in  relation  to  the  suit  land.  The  plaint,  inter  alia,

contained  necessary  averments  as  required  under

Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for claiming

specific performance of the agreement in question.  

6)   The appellant while denying the averments mainly

averred that,  (i)  the  agreement  in  question is  a  forged

document;  (ii)  he  had  only  signed  on  blank  paper  on

request from the respondent;  (iii) he never intended to

sell  the  land to  the  respondent;  (iv)  his  signature  was

3

taken by the respondent on blank paper for being used in

one pending litigation in which both were parties;  and (v)

since the appellant at that time was staying away from

the  respondent  for  pursuing  his  studies,  he  sent  the

blank paper, which was converted by the respondent in

the  form  of  an  agreement  in  question  without  his

knowledge. In substance, this was the defense taken by

the appellant while opposing the suit.

7) Parties  adduced  evidence.  The  Trial  Court,  vide

judgment/decree  dated  12.08.2003  decreed  the

respondent's suit. It was held that, (i) the agreement in

question is real and genuine; (ii) it bears the signature of

appellant; (iii) the appellant did not execute the sale deed

in terms of agreement; (iv) the respondent was ready and

willing to perform his part of the agreement; (v) he also

performed his part; and (vi) the appellant breached the

agreement and did not execute the sale deed in terms of

agreement.  

4

8) The  appellant  (defendant)  filed  first  appeal  before

the  Additional  District  Judge,  Amritsar  being  C.A.

No.FTC/10 of 2003/2006. The first appellate Judge, vide

his judgment dated 21.03.2007, affirmed all the findings

of the Trial Court and dismissed the appellant's appeal.   

9) The appellant pursued the matter to the High Court

in  Second  Appeal.  The  High  Court,  by  impugned

judgment dated 30.07.2007, dismissed the second appeal

and affirmed the judgment/decree of the first Appellate

Court.  

10) The appellant, felt aggrieved of the judgment of the

High Court,  preferred this appeal by way of special leave

to this Court.  

11) Heard Mr.  V.K.  Jhanji,  learned senior counsel  for

the appellant and Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, learned counsel

for the respondent.

12) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit

in the appeal.

5

13) Here is a case where all the three Courts, namely,

Trial  Court,  first  Appellate  Court  and  the  High  Court

concurrently held in favour of the respondent (plaintiff)

and accordingly decreed his civil suit. In other words, all

the three Courts,  on appreciating the evidence in their

respective  jurisdiction  and  discretion,   held  that  the

defense  taken  by  the  appellant  (defendant)  was  not

proved.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  held  that  the

respondent  was  able  to  prove  that  the  agreement  was

real,  bona  fide and  genuine  and  was  thus  capable  of

enforcement.  Indeed,  we  find  that  the  Courts  below

recorded this categorical finding of fact saying that the

genuineness of the agreement was even admitted by the

defendant's witnesses. The Courts below also recorded a

finding  that  the  respondent  was  ready  and  willing  to

perform his part of the agreement and, in fact, performed

his part of the agreement whereas the appellant failed to

perform his part of the agreement and thereby committed

its breach.

6

14) In our considered opinion, the findings recorded by

the  three  courts  on  facts,  which  are  based  on

appreciation of evidence undertaken by the three Courts,

are essentially in the nature of concurrent findings of fact

and, therefore, such findings are binding on this Court.

Indeed, such findings were equally binding on the High

Court while hearing the second appeal.  

15) It is more so when these findings were neither found

to be perverse to the extent that no judicial person could

ever record such findings nor these findings were found

to be against the evidence, nor against the pleadings and

lastly, nor against any provision of law.

16) In  our  considered  opinion,  the  question  as  to

whether specific performance of an agreement should be

granted  or  not  is  essentially  in  the  discretion  of  the

Court.  Indeed Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act says

so in no uncertain terms.

17) Therefore,  once  the  Trial  Court,  first  and  second

Appellate Court formed an opinion and decided to grant

7

the specific performance of the agreement to the plaintiff

in exercise of their respective discretionary powers,  this

Court being the last Court in hierarchy cannot disturb

such concurrent  findings while  exercising power under

Article  136 of  the  Constitution of  India.  As  mentioned

above, these findings are binding on this Court.

18) Learned counsel for the appellant, no doubt, made

sincere attempt to urge that the agreement in question is

a forged document which, according to him, is apparent

on its mere perusal. Learned counsel also urged that all

the three Courts committed an error in granting specific

performance of such agreement to the respondent.  

19) We are afraid that we can accept this submission in

the light of  what we have held supra. Indeed this very

argument  was  considered  and  repelled  by  the  three

Courts  after  appreciating  the  evidence  adduced by  the

parties. It is, therefore, not permissible for this Court to

again appreciate the evidence in appeal and reverse any

of the findings.  

8

20) In view of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in

this  appeal.  The  appeal  thus  fails  and  is  accordingly

dismissed.   

               ………...................................J.

[R.K. AGRAWAL]             

                                                   …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; July 25, 2017  

9