Land Seller’s Forgery Claim Fails; P&H HC Upholds Specific-Performance Decree After Buyer Proves Agreement And Readiness

In brief

The question

Whether the defendant should be permitted to produce the RTI information as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

The court held

The High Court dismissed the application for additional evidence and the regular second appeal, finding no substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent decrees for specific performance.

It also directed

Pending applications were also closed.

01Facts

The plaintiff sued for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 22.12.2004 concerning 47 kanals and 16 marlas of land, alleging that the defendant had received ₹4,00,000 as earnest money and failed to execute the sale deed by the stipulated date.

pp. 5–12

The defendant denied executing the agreement and alleged forgery.

pp. 5–12

The Trial Court found the agreement proved and the plaintiff ready and willing to perform, and decreed the suit; the First Appellate Court affirmed that decree.

pp. 5–12

In the second appeal, the defendant sought to produce RTI information concerning the Sub-Registrar’s presence and registration of sale deeds on 03.08.2005.

pp. 12–14

02Issues

i.Whether the defendant should be permitted to produce the RTI information as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

pp. 12–14

ii.Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below disclosed a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.

pp. 14–16

03Law Applied

Order 41 Rule 27 CPC restricts the admission of additional evidence in appeal to specified circumstances: where evidence was wrongly excluded by the trial court; where, despite due diligence, it could not have been produced earlier; or where the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment or for another substantial cause.

pp. 13–14

Additional evidence cannot be used merely to fill lacunae or repair weaknesses in a case.

pp. 13–14

Under Section 100 CPC, a second appeal lies only on a substantial question of law; the High Court ordinarily cannot reappreciate or displace concurrent factual findings unless they are contrary to law, based on inadmissible evidence, or unsupported by evidence.

pp. 13–16

The Court relied on Gobind Singh v. Union of India [2026(2) RCR (Civil) 81] on Order 41 Rule 27 and Jaichand v. Sahnulal [2025(2) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 336] and the authorities quoted therein on the limits of second-appellate jurisdiction.

pp. 13–16

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100

04Reasoning

The RTI information was dated 12.11.2013 and 14.11.2013, before the Trial Court’s decree dated 17.09.2014, but the defendant did not explain why it had not been produced at trial or why no application had been made before the First Appellate Court.

pp. 12–14

The Court therefore found no basis to admit it under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

pp. 12–14

On the merits, the courts below had concurrently found the agreement proved and the plaintiff ready and willing to perform, on the evidence including the plaintiff’s and witnesses’ testimony, the defendant’s admitted signatures, and bank records and demand drafts.

pp. 6–12, 14–16

The appellant failed to show that those findings were illegal, perverse, or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence; no substantial question of law arose.

pp. 14–16