Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Decree for Specific Performance Between Brothers; Rejects Coercion Plea Based on Unproven Police Complaint
Case Name: Shangara Singh v. Piara Singh
Date of Judgment: 22 January 2026
Citation: RSA-253-1995
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal and restored the decree for specific performance passed by the Trial Court, holding that mere allegations of coercion, unsupported by cogent evidence or outcome of a police inquiry, cannot defeat a duly proved agreement to sell. The Court held that where execution of the agreement, payment of consideration, and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff are conclusively established, reversal of the decree on conjectures and minor inconsistencies is legally unsustainable.
Summary: The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 09.11.1987 concerning agricultural land measuring 5 kanals 9 marlas. The defendant, his real brother, was a co-sharer to the extent of half share and had agreed to sell the land for a consideration of ₹5,000, which was paid in full at the time of execution. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 27.01.1988.
The plaintiff issued notice and repeatedly presented himself before the Sub-Registrar with funds, but the defendant failed to appear. The plaintiff also swore an affidavit and sent a telegram evidencing his readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.
The defendant denied execution and alleged that the agreement was obtained under police coercion, claiming that he was forcibly taken to the police station and beaten, and that a complaint was submitted to senior police officers. The Trial Court decreed the suit after appreciating the testimony of the scribe and marginal witnesses. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree, accepting the plea of coercion and citing alleged inconsistencies and inadequacy of consideration.
In second appeal, the High Court undertook a detailed re-appraisal of evidence. It noted that the agreement was proved through the scribe’s register entry and consistent testimony of marginal witnesses, while the defendant examined only himself. Crucially, no evidence regarding the outcome of the alleged police inquiry was produced, nor were natural witnesses such as the defendant’s daughter or wife examined to support the coercion plea.
The Court held that minor discrepancies regarding timing or sequence of events were natural due to lapse of time and did not undermine the core proof of execution. It further held that the consideration could not be termed inadequate, particularly in a transaction between real brothers with prior payment history, and that inadequacy alone is not a ground to refuse specific performance.
The High Court concluded that the First Appellate Court erred in discarding legally admissible evidence and reversing a well-reasoned decree on surmises.
Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree dated 13.12.1994 passed by the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, were set aside. The judgment and decree dated 29.09.1992 passed by the Sub-Judge Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, decreeing the suit for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff, were restored.