Bohar Singh vs Sardara Singh

Court
Supreme Court

2026 INSC 961
Non-Reportable


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. of 2026
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.22290 of 2026)


Bohar Singh & Anr. ...Appellant (s)


Versus

Sardara Singh & Ors. ...Respondent (s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.
2. A suit for specific performance filed by the three
respondents herein in the year 1987, stood dismissed by the
Trial Court. In First Appeal, the dismissal of the Trial Court
was reversed and the suit decreed, which was confirmed in
Second Appeal; impugned herein.
3. The agreement executed was of the year 16.08.1984
and the period provided for paying the balance
consideration was two years. An earnest money of
Signature Not Verified
Rs.27,300/- was given at the time of agreement for 4 acres of
Digitally signed by
HARPREET KAUR
Date: 2026.09.07
16:56:37 IST
Reason:
property at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per acre. It was also
Page 1 of 8

contended that the period for due execution of the sale deed
was extended by one year, i.e., from 16.08.1986 to
19.06.1987; on the request of the defendant. The defendant
contended that there was no such agreement executed by
him and the transaction was a loan transaction with the father
of the plaintiffs. The defendant also produced a receipt dated
27.05.1987 as Exhibit D1, issued by the father of the plaintiffs,
admitted by the recipient who was examined as PW4, of
Rs.27,875/-.
4. One of the plaintiffs was examined as PW2, the scribe
as PW1 and the witness to the agreement as PW3.The earnest
money was paid by PW2 as spoken of by the scribe and the
independent witness, who deposed on the due execution of
the agreement. The plaintiffs’ father was also examined as
PW4, who admitted, D-1 but only a receipt of Rs.875/- on the
date shown in the receipt. The defendant too examined three
witnesses.
5. The Trial Court by a reasoned judgment found a
number of discrepancies in the case set up by the plaintiffs.
PW2 deposed that the deal was struck, for the sale, a
fortnight (in the plaint, 15 days) before its execution on
Page 2 of 8

16.08.1984, but the stamp paper on which the agreement was
written was purchased, as per the endorsement on it, on
06.07.1984, long before the deal was struck. Then, despite
the recital in the agreement speaking of possession having
been handed over on payment of earnest money, the
possession remained with the defendant, as admitted by the
plaintiffs too. The extension of period from 16.08.1986 to
19.06.1987, was found suspicious since the date 19.06.1987
was found to be tampered with. The reason given by PW2,
one of the plaintiffs, for the tampering, was the request of the
defendant to extend the time for execution of the document.
The Trial Court rightly found that this explanation does not
stand to reason, since what remained to be done by the
defendant was mere execution and not arrangement of funds.
The witness to the document, PW3, was also found to be a
person belonging to another village. Coupled with the fact
that the execution of Exhibit D1 was admitted, the falsehood
of the claim of PW4 that he received Rs.875/- only, contrary
to the receipt was highlighted, especially when the writing in
the receipt was very clear, which had the thumb impression
of not only the father but also of two witnesses.
Page 3 of 8

6. Insofar as readiness and willingness, it was found that
PW2 did not prove his readiness and willingness, but for
producing Exhibit P4, to evidence one of the plaintiffs having
gone to the Sub-Registrar’s Office on the last date as
provided in the agreement; i.e., the extended date. Exhibit
P4 showed only Saudagar Singh, one another plaintiff, having
gone to the Sub-Registrar’s Office, who did not mount the box
to speak of the same. There was nothing to show the
readiness or willingness of the plaintiffs to pay the balance
consideration, especially by way of showing the availability
of balance amounts with them. The suit, thus, stood
dismissed. We also notice that the testimony of PW2 was to
the effect that he went to the SRO on the agreed upon date
with Rs. 56,000/-; far in excess of the balance consideration
coming to only Rs. 20,700/-
7. The First Appellate Court and the High Court found
that there was nothing to show that Exhibit P1-agreement was
fabricated. The endorsement of extension of the date was
authenticated by marking thumb impression of the defendant
also. The receipt issued by PW4 was with respect to another
transaction. The First Appellate Court ordered specific
Page 4 of 8

performance, which was affirmed by the High Court in
Second Appeal.
8. We cannot but emphasize the reasoning of the Trial
Court which was reversed by the First Appellate Court and
the Second Appellate Court without application of mind. The
suspicious circumstances, as pointed out in the judgment of
the Trial Court dismissing the suit, were brushed aside to find
that the defendant failed to prove that the document was
fabricated. Though, the suspicious circumstances pointed
out by the Trial Court were adverted to, it should have been
properly debunked before shifting the onus of proof, on to
the defendant. It is also pertinent that the defendant did not
dispute his mark on the document, his contention was that the
agreement to sell having been drawn up without his
knowledge on blank papers he was forced to sign and not of
a fabricated document created; which contention is subtly
distinct and different from a fabrication. The extension was
found to have been tampered with, but brushed aside on a
mere conjecture that one party would have disagreed on the
date written, which led to the correction; without even an oral
testimony to that effect.
Page 5 of 8

9. We cannot but observe that the receipt of Rs.27,875/-
by the father of the plaintiffs was just prior to the expiry of the
agreement i.e.,19.06.1987, on 27.05.1987. The specific
contention taken by the defendant was that there were many
documents which was got executed at the time of availing a
loan which was promised to be returned on Rs.27,875/- being
handed over to PW4. That having been done, the papers
were not returned, is the specific contention. Here we have
to observe that though PW2 claimed that himself, his brothers
and his father were separate from each other, but in the same
breath claims that Rs.56,000/-, with which they reached the
SRO, on the appointed day, was joint funds.
10. We cannot but observe that there was no good reason
stated for the plaintiffs’ father to accept an amount which was
a more than the balance sale consideration from the
defendant. The sale could have been concluded by adjusting
the said amount due from the defendant as balance sale
consideration especially looking at the date on the receipt;
27.05.1987, just a few days prior to the extended date of
19.06.1987.
Page 6 of 8

11. On reckoning the various suspicious circumstances as
pointed out by the Trial Court and the admission of execution
of the receipt of Rs.27,875/- just prior to the expiry date of
agreement of 1984, we are persuaded to restore the Trial
Court’s order.
12. We notice that an amount of Rs.27,300/- had been
paid, as per the evidence led by one of the plaintiffs, the son
of PW4. The said earnest money amount was paid in the year
1984. The plaintiffs have also deposited Rs. 20,700/- on
29.01.1994 before the Treasury, being the balance
consideration.
13. Considering the long lapse of time, we direct the
money paid by the plaintiffs/respondents with simple
interest @ 12.5% per annum to be repaid by the
defendants/appellants to the plaintiffs/respondents, or
deposited in the Trial Court, for disbursal to the plaintiffs, in
the following manner. The interest would be calculated on
Rs.23,700/- from 16.08.1984 and for Rs.20,700/- from
29.01.1994. The deposit made of Rs.20,700/- in the Treasury
shall stand reimbursed to the plaintiffs with interest if any
accrued, which amounts shall be deducted from the refund
Page 7 of 8

directed by us. We hasten to add, if payment as directed is
not made, then it will be a charge on the property.
14. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


.......…….……………………. J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)


....……….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 31, 2026.
Page 8 of 8