‘Signature only on last page’: Punjab & Haryana HC rejects realtor’s plea over 2007 land deal

The judge highlighted further irregularities: overwriting on the date for execution of the sale deed without signatures, handwritten additions of witnesses’ names and the agreement date on page 3, wide spacing suggesting adjustment for pre-obtained signatures, and a visible difference in one defendant’s signature compared to her written statement.

Relying on a recent Supreme Court ruling in Lakha Singh v. Balwinder Singh (2024), Justice Gupta held that the absence of signatures on the first two pages created “a strong inference fortifying the contention” of fraud. The Supreme Court had observed that when only the last page is signed, and earlier pages contain essential terms, it suggests signatures may have been taken on blank stamp paper and contents filled later.

Rs 50-lakh property agreed to be sold for Rs 9 lakh

The court also found the deal unconscionable. The suit land, measuring 5 kanal and 17 marla, was allegedly agreed to be sold for Rs 9 lakh, while the defendants had consistently claimed its market value in 2007 was around Rs 50 lakh. “The alleged Agreement is also suspicious, unconscionable, inequitable and unenforceable as property worth Rs 50 lakhs was allegedly agreed to be sold for only Rs 9 lakhs,” the judgment stated. No explanation was offered for the low price, nor was any financial distress on the defendants’ part pleaded.

The trial court had refused specific performance—a court order directing a party to carry out their obligations as agreed in a contract—but ordered a refund of Rs 3 lakh in earnest money with interest. The first appellate court accepted that the agreement was executed but refused specific performance, citing an earlier sale deed that was later declared void in a separate suit.

The high court, however, restored the trial court’s finding that the agreement itself was not proved and went further: it rejected even the refund of earnest money because the plaintiff had not sought that relief in the plaint and produced no receipt or proof of the alleged cash payment.

“Plaintiff has produced no proof that such payment was made by him. It is the own case of the plaintiff that the said alleged payment was made in cash… Even no receipt has been produced by the plaintiff to prove the payment,” the court noted, adding that as a property dealer, the plaintiff was expected to obtain a receipt.

Defendants’ vulnerability as widows

The defendants, Laxmi Devi and others, argued that the plaintiff had exploited their vulnerability as widows. They claimed their signatures had been taken on blank paper under the pretext of helping locate their land after their husbands’ death. The court accepted that the cumulative irregularities cast “grave shadow of doubt upon the authenticity of the Agreement”.

Consequently, the high court dismissed regular second appeal No. 3199 of 2013 filed by Satish Kumar Saini, while allowing the cross-appeal of the defendants, leaving the plaintiff with no relief.