Supreme Court Holds High Court Erred in Ordering Specific Performance; Directs Rs.3 Lakh Payment Instead

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti heard an appeal by the defendant against the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s reversal of concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts in a suit for specific performance and possession. The appeal challenged the High Court’s acceptance of an alleged agreement of sale and its consequent decree for specific performance.

The Court allowed the civil appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a valid agreement of sale. The bench found that the High Court had misappreciated and re‑weighed evidence that was essentially self‑serving and that crucial witnesses to the alleged agreement were not examined. The Court held that specific performance could not be granted in the absence of proof of a valid agreement but moulded relief by directing the defendant to pay a monetary sum to the respondents. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further directed that “the respondents are entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the appellant, within four weeks from today.”

Background The dispute arose from an agreement of sale dated 12.02.1999 in respect of a residential house in Patiala for Rs.70,000, where the defendant (now appellant) allegedly received Rs.55,000 as part consideration and purportedly put the plaintiffs in possession. The plaintiffs filed Suit No. 91‑T/04 on 18.11.2000 seeking specific performance and possession, alleging that the defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed by 20.10.2000. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiffs were professional moneylenders who had obtained his signatures on blank papers in connection with a loan of Rs.50,000 (with alleged interest) and had subsequently misused those papers to fabricate an agreement of sale; he asserted that he had repaid the loan.

The trial court dismissed the suit after finding patterns of money‑lending, evidence of blank signed papers, and a grossly disproportionate sale consideration relative to market value. The first appellate court affirmed dismissal, noting affidavits by the attesting witnesses that their signatures were procured fraudulently. The High Court, on second appeal, reversed the concurrent findings and upheld the existence and execution of the agreement, relying on admitted signatures, a rent note and rent receipts, and the defendant’s prior experience as a court typist.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded the scope of an RSA by re‑appreciating evidence without adequate basis. Applying settled principles distinguishing burden and onus of proof, the Court emphasised that the plaintiffs had not called or examined the attesting witnesses and largely relied on the self‑serving testimony of PW1. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of a valid agreement of sale, an essential requirement for specific performance as set out in Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha. While the appellant could not prove discharge of the acknowledged debt, the Court moulded relief and directed payment of Rs.3,00,000 to the respondents within four weeks, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned High Court judgment. All pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 308 of 2015 (2025 INSC 924) Case Title: Harish Kumar v. Amar Nath & Another (both dead and represented through LRs.) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Abhimanyu Tewari, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Krishnam Mishra, Advocate