Jaspal Singh v. Ashwani Kumar
“An Earnest-Money Refund Clause Is Not an Escape Hatch: Specific Performance Restored and the Limits of Second Appeal Reaffirmed”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court allowed the buyer's appeals and restored the First Appellate Court's decree for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 22.06.2003 for a half share in a 12-marla factory property in Jalandhar district. It held that a clause saying the seller would return the earnest money if the sale deed could not be executed does not, on its true construction, give the seller an option to walk away and does not bar specific performance, having regard to Section 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Court also held that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by disturbing concurrent findings on execution of the agreement, readiness and willingness, and the failure of the seller's fraud defence, without finding any perversity. The High Court's judgment of 08.02.2019 and review order of 10.07.2019 were set aside.
The Bottom Line
A promise to refund the advance if the sale deed is not executed is a safeguard for the buyer, not a licence for the seller to cancel the deal by returning the money. The Supreme Court restored the decree directing the seller to complete the sale, because the High Court, in a second appeal, had no business re-examining settled findings of fact and drawing suspicion from an undivided share, twice-extended deadlines and an unrelated loan transaction.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Agreement to Sell Executed
The respondent agreed to sell his half share in a 12-marla factory property for Rs. 12,50,000 and received Rs. 9,00,000 as earnest money, with the sale deed to be executed by 22.06.2004.
Agreement to Sell Executed
The respondent agreed to sell his half share in a 12-marla factory property for Rs. 12,50,000 and received Rs. 9,00,000 as earnest money, with the sale deed to be executed by 22.06.2004.
First Extension
By mutual consent the date for execution of the sale deed was extended to 22.07.2004.
First Extension
By mutual consent the date for execution of the sale deed was extended to 22.07.2004.
Second Extension
A further Rs. 60,000 was received by the respondent and the date for execution was extended to 22.01.2005.
Second Extension
A further Rs. 60,000 was received by the respondent and the date for execution was extended to 22.01.2005.
Appellant Attends Sub-Registrar Office
The appellant appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 20.01.2005 and 24.01.2005, but the respondent did not attend.
Appellant Attends Sub-Registrar Office
The appellant appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 20.01.2005 and 24.01.2005, but the respondent did not attend.
Suit for Specific Performance Filed
The appellant sued for specific performance, with an alternative claim for Rs. 19.20 lakh (the judgment states only the year, 2006).
Suit for Specific Performance Filed
The appellant sued for specific performance, with an alternative claim for Rs. 19.20 lakh (the judgment states only the year, 2006).
Trial Court Decrees Refund Only
The Trial Court declined specific performance and decreed recovery of Rs. 9 lakh with interest.
Trial Court Decrees Refund Only
The Trial Court declined specific performance and decreed recovery of Rs. 9 lakh with interest.
First Appellate Court Decrees Specific Performance
The First Appellate Court set aside the Trial Court decree and granted specific performance.
First Appellate Court Decrees Specific Performance
The First Appellate Court set aside the Trial Court decree and granted specific performance.
Sale Deed Executed in Execution
During pendency of the Second Appeal the sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant in execution of the decree and possession was delivered.
Sale Deed Executed in Execution
During pendency of the Second Appeal the sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant in execution of the decree and possession was delivered.
High Court Allows Second Appeal
The High Court set aside the first appellate decree and restored the Trial Court's decree for refund.
High Court Allows Second Appeal
The High Court set aside the first appellate decree and restored the Trial Court's decree for refund.
Review Petition Dismissed
The High Court dismissed the appellant's review petition.
Review Petition Dismissed
The High Court dismissed the appellant's review petition.
Supreme Court Delivers Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and review order and restored the First Appellate Court's decree for specific performance.
Supreme Court Delivers Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and review order and restored the First Appellate Court's decree for specific performance.
The Story
On 22 June 2003 the appellant, Jaspal Singh (plaintiff), entered into an Agreement to Sell with the respondent, Ashwani Kumar (defendant), to buy 12 marlas of land with a factory standing on it at village Gowar/Gohwar, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, Punjab. The respondent, a co-owner with his brother, agreed to sell his half share for Rs. 12,50,000. Earnest money of Rs. 9,00,000 was paid at the time of the agreement. The sale deed was to be executed by 22 June 2004, and if for any reason it could not be executed the respondent was to refund the earnest money. By a further agreement dated 21 June 2004 the date was extended to 22 July 2004, and by a third agreement dated 21 July 2004, recording receipt of a further Rs. 60,000, it was extended to 22 January 2005.
The appellant appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 20 and 24 January 2005 (the office was closed on 21 January, and 22 and 23 January 2005 were a Saturday and Sunday), but the respondent did not attend. In 2006 the appellant sued for specific performance, with an alternative prayer for recovery of Rs. 19.20 lakh. The respondent denied executing the agreement, pleaded that the market value exceeded Rs. 50 lakh, and alleged that he had signed blank papers and issued a cheque as security for a Rs. 15,50,000 arrangement to facilitate his travel abroad through a travel agent associated with the appellant, and that the papers had been converted into an Agreement to Sell.
By judgment dated 30 April 2010 the Trial Court found that execution of the agreement and extensions, payment of Rs. 9 lakh, and the appellant's readiness and willingness were proved, but declined specific performance on the view that the agreement provided only for refund of earnest money on default. It decreed recovery of Rs. 9 lakh with interest. The First Appellate Court, by judgment dated 1 May 2012, found the respondent's travel-arrangement story implausible, held that the absence of an express clause for enforcement through court did not bar specific performance and that time was not of the essence, and decreed specific performance. While the respondent's Second Appeal was pending, the sale deed was executed on 29 April 2013 in execution of that decree and possession was delivered to the appellant.
By judgment dated 8 February 2019 in RSA No. 3619 of 2012 (O&M), the High Court affirmed the concurrent findings on execution, payment of earnest money, and readiness and willingness, but set aside the first appellate decree and restored the Trial Court's decree. It reasoned that the appellant had suppressed a separate transaction (a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000 encashed on 11.03.2004, explained by him as a loan), that the repeated extensions and the absence of a specific performance clause indicated the transaction was not genuine. The review petition (RA-RS No. 87 of 2019) was dismissed on 10 July 2019. The appellant challenged both orders before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Second Appeal had become infructuous
Mr. R.K. Kapoor, for the appellant, submitted that the Second Appeal had become infructuous once the sale deed was executed and possession delivered in execution of the First Appellate Court's decree.
The agreement did contain a basis for enforcement; the fraud finding was perverse
The High Court erred in holding that the agreement contained no clause for enforcing the sale deed through court, and its finding attributing the payment to a travel arrangement was perverse, as there was no agreement between the parties for payment of Rs. 15.50 lakh.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Execution proceedings remain subject to the appeal; construction of a document is a question of law
Ms. Nina R. Nariman, for the respondent, submitted that execution proceedings remain subject to the outcome of the appeal, so the plea of infructuousness was misconceived, and that construction of a document is a question of law bearing on the parties' rights.
Specific performance is discretionary and the equities favour the respondent
Specific performance being discretionary and equitable, the court must weigh conduct, including suppression of material facts. The respondent relied on the agreement being intended only as security for his travel abroad, the appellant's suppression of the receipt of Rs. 2,00,000, the joint ownership of the property with the respondent's brother, and the unreasonably long, twice-extended timeline.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Court began by noting that the High Court had not itself disturbed the concurrent findings on execution of the Agreement to Sell and its extensions or on the appellant's readiness and willingness, leaving two questions: whether the appellant was entitled to specific performance on those facts, and whether the High Court could in law disturb the first appellate decree on other grounds (para 14). On the scope of Section 100 CPC, it reiterated that the First Appellate Court is the final court of fact and that interference with findings of fact is permissible only where they are recorded without evidence, by ignoring material evidence, or are vitiated by perversity (para 15). On the earnest money clause, the Court rejected the High Court's view that it gave the respondent an option to walk away on refund. Citing Section 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the principles in Fry on Specific Performance as approved in M.L. Devender Singh, it held that a sum named in a contract does not defeat specific performance unless it was named in lieu of performance, and that the clause here merely stated a consequence of non-execution and served as a deterrent (paras 16-21). Turning to the High Court's departure from the limits of second appeal, the Court examined four points. First, the fraud defence had been rejected concurrently; the respondent examined no handwriting expert and admitted his signatures on three documents, and the suppression of a collateral Rs. 2,00,000 cheque, explained as a loan, could not do the work of positive proof of fraud (paras 23-24). Second, an agreement to sell an undivided half share is not suspect merely because the co-sharer brother did not sign (para 25). Third, extensions of time totalling about seven months by consent were consistent with a genuine transaction (para 26). Fourth, the High Court made no finding of perversity (para 27). The Court restored the findings and the first appellate decree (paras 28-29).
First Appellate Court is the final court of fact and the High Court, in a Second Appeal cannot interfere with findings of fact merely because it would have arrived at a different conclusion on the appreciation of the same evidence
Para 15
Frames the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 CPC and sets the standard against which the impugned judgment was tested.
the stipulation for refund operates as a deterrent reinforcing the obligation to perform, and not as a substitute for it.
Para 21
Core holding on construction of the earnest-money refund clause: it is a protection for the buyer, not an alternative mode of discharge for the seller.
There is neither any language of election, nor any stipulation entitling the respondent to discharge the bargain, at his option, by payment of any sum in lieu of executing the Sale Deed.
Para 21
Explains why the clause did not fall in the category of an option to pay money in lieu of performance under Section 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
A co-owner's undivided share in immovable property is a valid and marketable subject matter of transfer
Para 25
Rejects suspicion of the transaction on account of the vendor's joint ownership with his brother.
without recording any finding of perversity – an exercise impermissible in law
Para 27
Identifies the jurisdictional error in the High Court's displacement of concurrent findings.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The buyer's decree for specific performance was restored, confirming the sale deed executed in his favour on 29.04.2013 in execution of that decree, along with delivery of possession. The Court did not award costs.
Directions Issued
- The High Court judgment dated 08.02.2019 and review order dated 10.07.2019 were quashed and set aside
- The First Appellate Court's judgment and decree dated 01.05.2012 granting specific performance was restored
- The findings that the Agreement to Sell and extensions were validly executed, that the appellant was ready and willing, and that the fraud defence was not established, stand restored
- No order as to costs
- Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of
Key Legal Principles Established
A clause providing for refund of earnest money if the sale deed cannot be executed does not, on its true construction and absent language of election, give the seller an option to discharge the contract by refund, and does not bar specific performance.
Under Section 23 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, naming a sum payable on breach does not defeat specific performance unless it was named only to give the defaulting party an option of paying money in lieu of performance.
A party in breach cannot resist specific performance merely because the agreement contains no express stipulation for that relief.
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are recorded without evidence, ignore material evidence or are perverse.
Admission of signatures on documents amounts in law to an admission of the facts contained in them, and a plea of fraud on blank signed papers must be proved by the party raising it.
Suppression of a collateral financial dealing may affect credibility on that peripheral matter but cannot substitute for positive proof of fraud.
An agreement to sell an undivided share of a co-owner is a valid transaction and is not suspect merely because the co-sharer did not sign.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If you pay earnest money under an agreement to buy property and the seller backs out, a clause saying the seller will return your money does not automatically take away your right to ask the court to enforce the sale.
- A seller cannot cancel a deal simply by pointing to a refund clause when he took most of the money and himself agreed to extend the deadline.
- Buying a co-owner's share in a property is legally valid, and courts will not treat it as suspicious just because the other co-owner did not sign.
- If you claim that signed papers were misused, you must prove it with evidence. Admitting your signature is treated as admitting what the document says.
- Courts of final appeal on facts are the trial court and first appeal. The High Court in a second appeal cannot re-weigh evidence just because it sees things differently.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Statutory Provisions
Section 23
Specific Relief Act, 1963
“A contract otherwise proper to be specifically enforced may be so enforced even though a sum is named in it as payable in case of breach, unless the court finds that the sum was named only to give the party in default an option of paying money in lieu of performance and not to secure performance.”
Relevance: The central provision used to interpret the earnest-money refund clause. The Court held the clause did not give the seller an option to pay in lieu of performance.
Section 100
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
“Second appeal lies to the High Court only on a substantial question of law.”
Relevance: The Court held the High Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction under this provision by disturbing concurrent findings of fact without finding perversity.
Section 20
Specific Relief Act, 1877
“The earlier provision containing the principle later re-enacted more explicitly in Section 23 of the 1963 Act.”
Relevance: Referred to by the Court to trace the origin of the principle governing sums named as payable on breach.
Related Cases & Precedents
M.L. Devender Singh & Ors. v. Syed Khaja
followed(1973) 2 SCC 515
Held that Section 23 of the 1963 Act contains a comprehensive statement of the principles governing such clauses, and that merely naming a sum does not defeat specific performance of a contract for transfer of immovable property.
Kamal Kant Jain v. Surinder Singh (Dead) Through LRs.
followed(2019) 11 SCC 432
Cited for the proposition that a party in breach cannot resist specific performance merely because the agreement lacks an express stipulation for that relief.
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
followedAIR 1962 SC 1314
Source of the test limiting interference with findings of fact in a second appeal.
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors.
followed(1999) 3 SCC 722
Reaffirmed the limits on a High Court's power to interfere with findings of fact in second appeal.
Sitaram Motilal Kalal v. Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt
citedAIR 1966 SC 1697
Cited for the proposition that admission of signatures amounts in law to an admission of the facts contained in the documents.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit
2025 INSC 20
When Children Fail Their Parents, the Law Steps In to Protect Senior Citizens
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
2023 INSC 783
The Landmark Ruling on Property Rights of Children from Void Marriages
Kamalakant Mishra v. Additional Collector
SLP (Civil) D.No. 42786/2025
Protecting Senior Citizens' Right to Live in Dignity - Eviction of Ungrateful Legal Heirs
Supriyo v. Union of India
2023 INSC 920
The Landmark Case That Defined Marriage Equality in India
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.