Punjab & Haryana HC: Specific Performance Decree Upheld, Fraud Defense Rejected for Lack of Evidence

Case Name: Nipun Diwan v. Rampal
Date of Judgment: January 14, 2020
Citation: RSA No. 50 of 2020
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amol Rattan Singh

Held: The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal and affirmed concurrent judgments of the trial court and first appellate court decreeing specific performance of an agreement to sell. It held that the respondent-plaintiff had proved readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, while the appellant-defendant failed to substantiate his plea of fraud. The Court emphasized that under Order 6 Rule 4 CPC and Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof was on the defendant to prove fraud, which he failed to discharge. Mere pleadings unsupported by evidence could not defeat the plaintiff’s claim.

Summary: The case concerned an agreement of sale dated 27.05.2012 for which the respondent-plaintiff sought specific performance. Evidence included testimonies of attesting witnesses, notary records, receipts, and revenue entries showing ownership of the appellant and proof of full consideration payment. The trial court found that the plaintiff had established readiness and willingness to complete the sale, whereas the defendant merely alleged fraud but did not produce evidence. In cross-examination, the defendant contradicted his pleadings, admitting the land was fallow despite earlier claiming construction of a kotha. Both the trial court and appellate court rejected the fraud defense and decreed the suit. On appeal, the High Court held that fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved with particulars, and in absence of evidence, the defense collapsed. It observed that the plaintiff’s evidence was cogent and consistent, proving payment and entitlement to specific performance.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decree of specific performance in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, finding no error or perversity in the concurrent findings of fact.