Supreme Court Reverses High Court, Upholds Concurrent Findings of Lower Courts in Property Dispute.
05 August 2025
Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law
In a recent civil appeal of Harish Kumar Vs Amar Nath (Both Dead And Represented Through Lr) And Another, the Supreme Court of India reversed a judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which had overturned the concurrent findings of a Trial Court and an Appellate Court. The case centered on a dispute over an agreement for the sale of a house, which the plaintiff-respondents claimed had been executed by the defendant-appellant.
Case Background:
The respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated February 12, 1999, for a house in Patiala. The consideration was stated to be Rs. 70,000, of which Rs. 55,000 was allegedly paid as earnest money. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant had been put in possession of the property as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 700. The defendant, however, contended that he had borrowed Rs. 50,000 from the plaintiffs and that they had fraudulently obtained his signatures on blank stamp papers, which were then misused to create the sale agreement.
Findings of the Lower Courts:
Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. They observed that the plaintiffs were professional moneylenders who had a history of obtaining signatures on blank papers. The courts also noted that the sale consideration of Rs. 70,000 was disproportionately low compared to the house's market value of over Rs. 4 lakh. A key finding was that the plaintiffs failed to produce the attesting witnesses to the agreement, and the self-serving evidence of the plaintiffs alone could not be relied upon to prove the existence of a valid sale agreement.
High Court's Reversal:
The High Court reversed these findings, primarily relying on the defendant's admission of his signatures and a handwritten endorsement on the agreement. It concluded that a typist who had worked in the court for 15 years would be aware of the legal consequences of signing such documents. It also discredited the evidence presented by the defendant's witnesses and found the rent note and rent receipt, which the defendant admitted to executing, to be compelling evidence.
Supreme Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court, after a detailed review of the evidence, found that the High Court had erred in its judgment. It held that the High Court's re-appreciation of evidence was impermissible and that the findings of the lower courts were based on a proper reading of the evidence. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the existence of a valid sale agreement. The crucial witnesses to the agreement were not examined, and the plaintiffs' evidence was deemed to be self-serving.
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle from Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs. v. Hartar Singh Sangha that to succeed in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove the existence of a valid agreement, the defendant's breach, and their own readiness and willingness to perform. In this case, the plaintiffs failed to prove the first point.
However, recognizing the defendant's admission of a Rs. 50,000 debt, the court held that he had not provided sufficient evidence to prove he had repaid the loan. To do complete justice, the court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal, but directed the defendant to pay the respondents Rs. 3,00,000 to settle the debt.