19-Year Delay, Missing Original Agreement Fatal: Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Specific Performance Claim for Failure to Prove Contract
Case Name: Kanta Rani (through LRs) v. Surinder Kumar
Date of Judgment: 17.04.2026
Citation: RSA-275-2014
Bench: Justice Nidhi Gupta
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that failure to produce the original agreement to sell, coupled with non-examination of the plaintiff and a 19-year unexplained delay, is fatal to a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff must prove execution, consideration, and readiness and willingness through cogent evidence, which was not established in the present case.
Summary: The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 04.01.1986, claiming that full consideration of ₹1 lakh had been paid and possession had been delivered. The Trial Court decreed the suit; however, the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, leading to the present second appeal.
The High Court examined whether the plaintiff had successfully proved the execution of the agreement and her readiness and willingness to perform the contract. A critical flaw noted was that the plaintiff herself did not step into the witness box and instead relied on her son (GPA holder) as a witness. The Court held that a power of attorney holder cannot depose regarding facts within the personal knowledge of the principal, especially readiness and willingness, which is a mandatory requirement in specific performance suits.
Further, the Court found that the original Agreement to Sell was never produced despite specific directions. The case was based only on a photocopy without laying foundation for secondary evidence, rendering the document inadmissible. The Court rejected the argument that absence of objection implied production of the original, terming it speculative.
Material contradictions in witness testimonies further weakened the plaintiff’s case. While one witness stated that the agreement was executed at the plaintiff’s house, another claimed it was executed in the court complex. Additionally, the attesting witness’s son (PW2) failed to produce proof of his father’s death, raising doubts about his credibility.
The Court also noted that the cheque for ₹50,000/- was issued by the plaintiff’s husband, not the plaintiff herself, supporting the defendant’s plea of business dealings rather than sale consideration. Moreover, no documentary evidence of possession was produced, and absence of basic amenities like electricity and water further cast doubt on the claim of possession.
A significant factor was the unexplained delay of nearly 19 years in filing the suit. The Court held that such delay undermines the plea of readiness and willingness and disentitles the plaintiff from equitable relief.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and upheld the judgment of the First Appellate Court. It held that the plaintiff failed to prove the agreement, payment of consideration, possession, and readiness and willingness—essential ingredients for grant of specific performance. The Court reiterated that the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of her own case and not on the weakness of the defence.