Blank Paper Defence Rejected; Admitted Signatures Prevail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recovery Decree in Agreement to Sell Dispute
Case Name: Hansa Singh (through LRs) v. Sandeep Kumar
Date of Judgment: 08 April 2026
Citation: RSA No. 3794 of 2000
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Held: Where execution of an agreement to sell is supported by admitted signatures and corroborative evidence, a vague and unsubstantiated plea of misuse of blank signed papers especially when contradicted by record cannot be accepted. No interference is warranted in second appeal in absence of perversity or illegality in findings of the First Appellate Court.
Summary: The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of ₹80,000 on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 24.07.1993, alleging payment of ₹66,000 as earnest money and readiness to perform his part of the contract. The claim for recovery arose when the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, allegedly due to lack of clear title.
The defendant denied execution of the agreement and contended that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers during prior commission agency dealings, which were later misused by the plaintiff to fabricate the agreement.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit; however, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings and decreed recovery in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved, the defendant preferred the present Regular Second Appeal.
The High Court examined the evidentiary record and noted that the defendant had admitted his signatures on the agreement. Importantly, the stamp paper used for the agreement was purchased in 1993, whereas the alleged business dealings during which signatures were claimed to have been obtained had ceased in 1990. This contradiction rendered the defence inherently implausible.
The Court further observed that the plea of fraud lacked necessary particulars and was unsupported by any evidence. In contrast, the plaintiff proved execution through a marginal witness, the document writer, and evidence regarding payment of consideration.
Decision: The High Court held that the First Appellate Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and recorded findings that did not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The defendant’s plea of misuse of blank signed papers was found to be untenable in light of the admitted signatures and the contemporaneous purchase of stamp paper. The plaintiff successfully established execution of the agreement and payment of earnest money through reliable evidence. In the absence of any substantial infirmity in the impugned judgment, the Court declined to interfere in second appeal and dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the decree for recovery passed in favour of the plaintiff.