HARISH KUMAR v. AMAR NATH AND ANOTHER
5th August 2025
Factual Background
The respondents made a request for specific performance of a sale deed dated February 12, 1999 of a house at Patiala amounting to total consideration Rs. 70,000. They urged that they had paid Rs. 55,000 of the earnest money and had been handed in possession of the property. They also claimed a simultaneous rent agreement in which the appellant who was a typist at the District Court remained as a tenant against the house. The appellant refuted the sale agreement claiming that it was forged. He stated that he had borrowed the money of 50,000 rupees from the first respondent (a practicing advocate) at 2.25 percent monthly interest which was put at stick papers with blank stamps to be used as a security issue and which was misused to prepare the sale agreement. The appellant claimed that he had repaid this loan already. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rejected the case by saying that the sale agreement was not real and since the plaintiffs were professional moneylenders who were in the habit of obtaining the signatures on pieces of plain papers. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana however, overturned these concurring verdicts mainly on the reason that the appellant has accepted his signatures as well as the written endorsement on the agreement and that the appellant was evident to the legal implication of signing blank papers. The appellant then appealed in the Supreme Court.
Issue Raised
Whether High Court was right in turning down the concurrent findings of fact of lower courts in reappreciating the evidence.
Judgement
The Supreme Court granted the appeal against the high court’s decision. The Court directed that the suit of specific performance would have to fail since the respondents were unable to prove that there was indeed an effective agreement of sale. Nevertheless, the Court also took into consideration the admission of the appellant that he had borrowed Rs. 50,000 and failed to produce any records that he had repaid the money. In balancing the equities, the Court held that the appellant was not justified to keep the money she borrowed. Thus, the Court used its discretion to shape the relief and ordered the appellant to pay the respondents a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs within four weeks.
