Case: Parminder Singh Vs. Gurpreet Singh

3. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises. The appellant and the respondent are real brothers. The respondent is elder to the appellant.      4. The appellant (defendant) is ther of the land to the extent of 55/118, which comes to 84 Kanals, in the joint Khata of total land measuring 177 kanals 10 Marlas situated in Village Vachhoa, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. The appellant entered into an agreement on 02.07.1995 with the respondent (plaintiff) whereby he agreed to sell his share of 55/118 of the entire land to the respondent for a total sale consideration of L5 lakhs. The agreement, inter alia, recited that out of L5 lakhs, the respondent has paid L4 lakhs in cash at the time of execution of agreement (02.07.1995) to the respondent and has agreed to pay the balanced amount to the appellant at the time of registration of the sale deed. It was agreed that the sale deed would be executed on or before 13.12.1995.      5. Since the appellant did not execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent in terms of the agreement, the respondent filed a civil suit against the appellant seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 02.07.1995 in relation to the suit land. The plaint, inter alia, contained necessary averments as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for claiming specific performance of the agreement in question.      6. The appellant while denying the averments mainly averred that, (i) the agreement in question is a forged document; (ii) he had only signed on blank paper on request from the respondent; (iii) he never intended to sell the land to the respondent; (iv) his signature was taken by the respondent on blank paper for being used in one pending litigation in which both were parties; and (v) since the appellant at that time was staying away from the respondent for pursuing his studies, he sent the blank paper, which was converted by the respondent in the form of an agreement in question without his knowledge. In substance, this was the defense taken by the appellant while opposing the suit.      7. Parties adduced evidence. The Trial Court, vide judgment/decree dated 12.08.2003 decreed the respondents suit. It was held that, (i) the agreement in question is real and genuine; (ii) it bears the signature of appellant; (iii) the appellant did not execute the sale deed in terms of agreement; (iv) the respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement; (v) he also performed his part; and (vi) the appellant breached the agreement and did not execute the sale deed in terms of agreement.      8. The appellant (defendant) filed first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar being C.A. No.FTC/10 of 2003/2006. The first appellate Judge, vide his judgment dated 21.03.2007, affirmed all the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appellants appeal.      9. The appellant pursued the matter to the High Court in Second Appeal. The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 30.07.2007, dismissed the second appeal and affirmed the judgment/decree of the first Appellate Court.      10. The appellant, felt aggrieved of the judgment of the High Court, preferred this appeal by way of special leave to this Court.

Court's reasoning:
14. In our considered opinion, the findings recorded by the three courts on facts, which are based on appreciation of evidence undertaken by the three Courts, are essentially in the nature of concurrent findings of fact and, therefore, such findings are binding on this Court. Indeed, such findings were equally binding on the High Court while hearing the second appeal15. It is more so when these findings were neither found to be perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever record such findings nor these findings were found to be against the evidence, nor against the pleadings and lastly, nor against any provision of law16. In our considered opinion, the question as to whether specific performance of an agreement should be granted or not is essentially in the discretion of the Court. Indeed Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act says so in no uncertain terms18. Learned counsel for the appellant, no doubt, made sincere attempt to urge that the agreement in question is a forged document which, according to him, is apparent on its mere perusal. Learned counsel also urged that all the three Courts committed an error in granting specific performance of such agreement to the respondent19. We are afraid that we can accept this submission in the light of what we have held supra. Indeed this very argument was considered and repelled by the three Courts after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties. It is, therefore, not permissible for this Court to again appreciate the evidence in appeal and reverse any of the findings.