Specific Performance Cannot Be Refused Merely Due to Inadequacy of Consideration; Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Lachhman Dass (Deceased) through LR v. Anil Sharma and Others
Date of Judgment: 07 August 2026
Citation: RSA No. 402 of 2012
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where an agreement to sell is duly proved through its attesting witnesses, a bare plea that the document is forged, fabricated or the result of fraud and misrepresentation cannot defeat the agreement unless such allegations are specifically pleaded and proved by evidence. The Court further held that the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness stood established from his presence before the Sub-Registrar on the stipulated date and the prompt filing of the suit thereafter.
The Court also clarified that, under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as it stood prior to the 2018 amendment, mere inadequacy of consideration by itself does not amount to unfair advantage or hardship so as to deny specific performance. Similarly, failure to separately prove the source of earnest money does not, by itself, invalidate an otherwise proved agreement or defeat the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance.
Summary: The plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 03 December 2002 concerning 5 Kanals of land for a total consideration of ₹7 lakh, out of which ₹6 lakh was stated to have been paid as earnest money. The defendant denied execution of the agreement and alleged that it was forged, fabricated and obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The Trial Court accepted the defence and dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed the findings and decreed specific performance after relying upon the testimony of both attesting witnesses and the plaintiff’s conduct showing readiness and willingness.
In second appeal, the defendant argued that the property was worth approximately ₹40 lakh and could not reasonably have been agreed to be sold for ₹7 lakh, that the signatures had not been proved through a handwriting expert, and that the source of the ₹6 lakh earnest money was not established. The High Court rejected these objections. It found that both attesting witnesses had satisfactorily proved execution of the agreement and that no material contradiction existed in their testimony. The defendant, despite alleging fraud and misrepresentation, neither pleaded particulars nor led evidence to establish them. The Court also found that the plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness through his presence before the Sub-Registrar and by instituting the suit promptly.
As regards the alleged disparity between the market value and agreed sale price, the Court held that mere inadequacy of consideration was insufficient to refuse specific performance under the then applicable Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. It further rejected the objection relating to the source of earnest money and concluded that no question of law arose warranting interference in the second appeal.
Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and upheld the decree of specific performance passed by the First Appellate Court. It held that the agreement to sell had been validly proved, the plaintiff had established continuous readiness and willingness, and the defendant had failed to substantiate allegations of fraud, fabrication or misrepresentation. The Court found that no question of law arose in the appeal and accordingly declined interference.