PARMINDER SINGHversusGURPREET SINGH

                        [2017] 6 S.C.R. 419



                       PARMINDER SINGH                                 A
                                 v.
                       GURPREET SINGH
                  (Civil Appeal No. 3612 of2009)
                          JULY 25, 2017                                B
  [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
       Specific Performance:
         Suit for specific performance - Decreed by trial court -
Further affirmed by first appellate court as well as second appellate C
court - On appeal, held: Categorical finding of facts by courts
below is essentially in the nature of concurrent findings of fact and
hence binding on Supreme Court - More so, such findings are
neither perverse, nor against evidence or pleadings or any provision
of law - Grant of specific performance is essentially in the discretion D
of the court - Grant of such relief by courts below in exercise of
their respective discretionary powers, cannot be disturbed in exercise
of jurisdiction u/Art. 136 of the Constitution - Specific Relief Act,
1963 - s. 20 - Constitution of India - Art. 136.
        Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                                       E
        HELD: 1. The Courts below recorded categorical finding
of fact saying that the genuineness of the agreement was even
admitted by the defendant's witnesses. The Courts below also
recorded a finding that the respondent was ready and willing to
perform his 'part of the agreement and, in fact, performed his part
of the agreement whereas the appellant failed to perform his part      F
of the agreement and thereby committed its breach. (Para 13)
[422-F-G]
        2. The findings recorded by the three courts on facts,
which are based on appreciation of evidence undertaken by the
three Courts, are essentially in the nature of concurrent findings . G
of fact and, therefore, such findings are binding on this Court.
Indeed, such findings were equally binding on the High Court
while hearing the second appeal. It is more so when these findings
were neither found to be perverse to the extent that no judicial
person could ever record such findings nor these findings were H

                                  419
420              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017) 6 S.C.R.


A     found to be against the evidence, nor against the pleadings and
      lastly, nor against any provision of law. [Paras 14, 15]
      (422-F-H; 423-A-B]
            3. The question as to whether specific performance of an
    agreement should be granted or not is essentially in the discretion
B · of the Court. Indeed Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act says so
    in no uncertain terms. Therefore, once the Trial Court, first and
    second Appellate Court formed an opinion and decided to grant
    the specific performance of the agreement to the plaintiff in
    exercise of their respective discretionary powers, this Court
    being the last Court in hierarchy, cannot disturb such concurrent
C findings while exercising power under Article 136 of the
    Constitution of India. [Paras 16, 17] [423-B-D]
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3612
      of2009.

D             From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2007 of the High
      Court for the States of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R. S. A. No.
      2039 of2007. ·
             V. K. Jhanji, Sr. Adv., Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Adv. for the
      Appellant.
 E            Sudeep Mahajan, Vipin Gogia, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Advs. for
      the Respondent.
                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
               ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. This appeal is filed
      against the judgment and final order dated 30.07.2007 passed ,by the
 F    High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 2039 of
      2007 whereby the High Court dis'tllissed the second appeal filed by the
      appellant against the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2007 passed by
      the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Amritsar in C.A. No.
      FTC/I 0 of 2003/2006 by which the appeal filed by the appellant herein
 G    was dismissed with costs affirming the judgment and decree dated
      12.08.2003 passed by the Additional Civil Judge( Senior Division),Ajnala
      in Civil Suit No. 95 of2006.
              2. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issues
      involved in this appeal.
H
           PARMINDER SINGH v. GURPREET SINGH                                     421
              [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

         3. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the             A
plaintiff in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises. The appellant and
the respondent are real brothers. The respondent is elder to the appellant.
         4. The appellant (defendant) is the co-sharer of the land to the
extent of 55/118, which comes to 84 Kanals, in the joint Khata of total
land measuring 177 kanals 10 Marlas situated in Village Vachhoa, Tehsil          B
Ajnala, District Amritsar. The appellant entered into an agreement on
02.07.1995 with the respondent (plaintiff) whereby he agreed to sell his
share of 55/118 of the entire land to the respondent for a total sale
consideration ofRs.5 lakhs. The agreement, inter alia, recited that out
of Rs. 5 lakhs, the respondent has paid Rs.4 lakhs in cash at the time of
execution of agreement (02.07.1995) to the respondent and has agreed             C
to pay the balanced amount to the appellant at the time of registration of
the sale deed. It was agreed that the sale deed would be executed on or
before 13.12.1995.
         5. Since the appellant did not execute the sale deed in favour of
the respondent in terms of the agreement, the respondent filed a civil D
suit against the appellant seeking specific performance of the agreement
dated 02.07.1995 in relation to the suit land. The plaint, inter alia,
contained necessary averments as required under Section 16(c) of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 for claiming specific performance of the
agreement in question.                                                     E
           6. The appellant while denying the averments mainly averred
that, (i) the agreement in question is a forged document; (ii) he had only
signed on blank paper on request from the respondent; (iii) he never
intended to sell the land to the respondent; (iv) his signature was taken
by the respondent on blank paper for being used in one pending litigation        F
in which both were parties; and (v) since the appellant at that time was
staying away from the respondent for pursuing his studies, he sent the
blank paper, which was converted by the respondent in the form of an
agreement in question without his knowledge. In substance, this was the
defense taken by the appellant while opposing the suit.
                                                                                 G
          7. Parties adduced evidence. The Trial Court, vi de judgment/
decree dated 12.08.2003 decreed the respondent's suit. It was held that,
(i) the agreement in question is real and genuine; (ii) it bears the signature
of appellant; (iii) the appellant did not execute the sale deed in terms of
agreement; (iv) the respondent was ready and willing to perform his
                                                                                 H
422             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A     part of the agreement; (v) he also performed his part; and (vi) the appellant
      breached the agreement and did not execute the sale deed in terms of
      agreement.
                8. The appellant (defendant) filed first appeal before the
      Additional District Judge, Amritsar being C.A. No.FTC/ I 0 of2003/2006.
B     The first appellate Judge, vide his judgment dated 21.03.2007, affirmed
      all the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appellant's appeal.
               9. The appellant pursued the matter to the High Court in Second
      Appeal. The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 30.07.2007,
      dismissed the second appeal and affirmed the judgment/decree of the
c     first Appellate Court.
              10. The appellant, felt aggrieved of the judgment of the High
      Court, preferred this appeal by way of special leave to this Court.
              11. Heard Mr. V.K. Jhanji, learned senior counsel for the appellant
      and Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent.
 D
              12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on
      perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal.
                13. Here is a case where all the three Courts, namely, Trial
      Court, first Appellate Court and the High Court concurrently held in
      favour of the respondent (plaintiff) and accordingly decreed his civil
 E
      suit. In other words, all the three Courts, on appreciating the evidence in
      their respective jurisdiction and discretion, held that the defense taken
      by the appellant (defendant) was not proved. On the other hand, it was
      held that the respondent was able to prove that the agreement was real,
      bona fide and genuine and was thus capable of enforcement. Indeed,
 F    we find that the Courts below recorded this categorical finding of fact
      saying that the genuineness of the agreement was even admitted by the
      defendant's witnesses. The Courts below also recorded a finding that
      the respondent was ready and wilting to perform his part of the agreement
      and, in fact, performed his part of the agreement whereas the appellant
 G    failed to perform his part of the agreement and thereby committed its
      breach.
               14. In our considered opinion, the findings recorded by the three
      courts on facts, which are based on appreciation of evidence undertaken
      by the three Courts, are essentially in the nature of concurrent findings
      of fact and, therefore, such findings are binding on this Court. Indeed,
 H
            PARMINDER SINGH v. GURPREET SINGH                                  423
                [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

such findings were equally binding on the High Court while hearing the         A
second appeal.
      . 15. It is more so when these findings were neither found to be
perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever record such
findings nor these findings were found to be against the evidence, nor
against the pleadings and lastly, nor against any provision oflaw.             B
         16. In our considered opinion, the question as to whether specific
performance of an agreement should be granted or not is essentially in
the discretion of the Court. Indeed Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act
says so in no uncertain terms.
         17. Therefore, once the Trial Court, first and second Appellate       c
Court formed an opinion and decided to grant the specific performance
of the agreement to the plaintiff in exercise of their respective
discretionary powers, this Court being the last Court in hierarchy cannot
disturb such concurrent findings while exercising power under Article
136 of the Constitution oflndia. As mentioned above, these findings are        D
binding on this Court.
         18. Learned c;ounsel for the appellant, no doubt, made sincere
attempt to urge that the agreement in question is a forged document
which, according to him, is apparent on its mere pemsal. Learned counsel
also urged that all the three Courts committed an error in granting specific   E
performance of such agreement to the respondent.
        19. We are afraid that we can accept this submission in the light
of what we have held supra. Indeed this very argument was considered
and repelled by the three Courts after appreciating the evidence adduced
by the parties. It is, therefore, not permissible for this Court to again
                                                                               F
appreciate the evidence in appeal and reverse any of the findings.
        20. In view of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this
appeal. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.


Kalpana K. Tripathy                                         Appeal dismissed
                                                                               G