YUDHISHTHIR YADAVversusABHISHEK KUMAR AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                     FIRST APPEAL No. - 702 of 2026

Yudhishthir Yadav
                                                          .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

Abhishek Kumar And Another
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)             :     Saurabh Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)            :     Sarthak Verma, Varad Nath

                                  AND

                     FIRST APPEAL No. - 703 of 2026

Yudhishthir Yadav
                                                          .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

Abhishek Kumar And Another
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)             :     Saurabh Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)            :     Sarthak Verma, Varad Nath

Court No. - 34




                                    Judgement Reserved on 31.08.2026

                                    Judgement Delivered on 14.09.2026

                 HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sarthak Verma
and Sri Varad Nath, learned counsel for the respondents in both the above
appeals.

2. Both the aforesaid appeals are arising out of a common judgment and
order dated 19.05.2026, whereby the Original Suit No. 784 of 2024 filed
by the respondents herein for specific performance of an agreement to sell
was decreed and against the appellant herein and the Original Suit No.
                                                         FAPL No. 702 of 2026
                               2


713 of 2024 filed by the appellant herein for cancellation of the agreement
to sell was dismissed. In view of the aforesaid common impugned
judgment, both the aforesaid appeals have been heard together and are
being decided by this common judgment.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the dispute in the instant case
pertains to a two-storey house situated at Gata No. 103/1 Village-
Manjurpur, Block and Tehsil- Sikandrabad, District- Bulandshahr. The
measurement of the said gata number is East and West 150 ft., North and
South 237.88 ft. i.e., total area being 3964.74 square yards i.e., 3315 sq.
mtr., 1/2 portion of the same is 1627.50 sq. mtr., wherein the area of
362.80 sq. mtr. is constructed which contains eight rooms in the ground
floor, latrine, bathroom, kitchen, staircase and four rooms, in the first
floor and the remaining is open land.

4. The said house was offered by the appellant herein to the respondents
for sale and after negotiation the price of the said plot /house was settled
at Rs. 40,00,000/-. Thereupon, Rs. 10,00,000/- were paid by the
respondents by way of a Cheque No. 000114 drawn on HDFC Bank,
Dadri, dated 06.03.2024 and thereupon a registered agreement to sell
dated 06.03.2024 was executed between the parties, which was duly
registered and the time limit for execution of the sale deed was fixed as
05.06.2024.

5. According, in the suit for specific performance i.e., the plaintiffs /
respondents herein has alleged that they were always ready and willing to
get the sale deed executed and they were having the balance consideration
with them to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed and were
also having the sufficient money to spend the necessary amount with
regard to registration of the sale deed as well.

6. The respondents herein had approached the appellant on 04.06.2024.
Then, the appellant herein had assured and asked the respondents herein
to approach the office of the Sub-Registrar on 05.06.2024 and thereupon,
they will execute the sale deed after receiving the balance consideration
of Rs. 30,00,000/-. On the aforesaid assurance, the respondents herein
reached to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sikandrabad, District-
                                                          FAPL No. 702 of 2026
                                3


Bulandshahr on 05.06.2024. When they tried to contact the appellant
herein, the appellant did not receive the phone call and the respondents
herein waited since morning till evening in the office of the Sub-
Registrar. However, the appellant herein did not turn up before the office
of the Sub-Registrar for execution of the sale deed and the respondents
have got recorded their presence in the office of the Sub-Registrar.
Thereupon, the respondents herein came to know that the appellant herein
is trying to sell the said property to someone else at the higher rate.
Thereafter, they have tried to conciliate through the respectable members
of the village. When the conciliation efforts had failed, the respondents
herein had issued a written notice through their counsel on 07.06.2024,
which was duly served and again in the said notice the date for execution
of the sale deed was fixed as 08.07.2024. After the issuance of the said
notice again the respondents approached the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Sikandrabad District, Bulandshahr along with the cheques of the balance
consideration, but the appellant herein did not reach the Sub-Registrar
office for execution of the sale deed and did not execute the sale deed in
favour of the respondents and the appellant has refused to execute the sale
deed after receiving the balance consideration and has threatened that he
will sell out the said property to someone else. In such circumstances, the
respondents herein filed the Civil Suit No. 784 of 2024 for the specific
performance of the contract.

7. In the said suit, the appellant herein filed the written statement alleging
that the appellant herein has never offered to sell the property in question.
However, he has admitted that he has received Rs. 10,00,000/- from the
respondents herein and pleaded that the said document dated 06.03.2024
was executed only for the purpose of security of the loan amount of Rs.
10,00,000/- received by the appellant herein and the date of 05.06.2024
was fixed not for the execution of the sale deed but for return of the loan
amount. Thus, he submitted that the appellant has never intended to sell
the property in question to the respondents and the said agreement to sell
was nothing but a security document and it was agreed between the
parties after the return of the loan amount, the said agreement to sell
would be got cancelled by the parties. Therefore, by way of the aforesaid
agreement to sell, no rights accrued in favour of the respondents. Thus,
                                                           FAPL No. 702 of 2026
                                4


from the aforesaid written statement the appellant has never denied the
execution of the said agreement to sell. However, it has been pleaded that
the said agreement to sell was executed as a guarantee/security of the loan
amount received by the appellant herein from the respondents, which was
to be returned within three months on the date already fixed on
05.06.2024.

8. In another suit, which has been filed by the appellant herein, the
appellant has claimed that the appellant herein has received the aforesaid
property through the registered gift deed executed by his father in his
favour and on the basis of the aforesaid gift deed he became owner in
possession of the said property. Subsequent thereto, when the appellant
herein required an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to fulfill the needs of his
family and business, he came to know that the respondents herein are
lending the money on interest, thereafter, he had approached the
respondents and the respondents had agreed to advance the loan for three
months at 12% annual interest with certain conditions, and the
respondents asked the appellant herein to execute the documents in this
regard in the office of the Registry and thereupon the appellant herein had
agreed to get the necessary documents executed in the office of the
Registrar. The respondents had asked the appellant to mortgage his
property against the loan and to pay the interest at least for six months.

9. Since the appellant was in dire need of the amount he agreed to all the
conditions put by the respondents and in such circumstances, the said
agreement to sell was executed as a security/guarantee of the aforesaid
loan advanced. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid agreement dated
06.03.2024, no rights accrued in favour of the respondents. The said
document was got prepared by the respondents and without reading it
over to the appellant, the signatures of the appellant were obtained and the
same was executed. None of the witnesses have signed or put in their
thumb impression in presence of the appellant herein and the stamp duty
paid on the said agreement was already received by the respondents on
06.03.2024 itself from the appellant herein.

10. Thereafter, he further stated in the suit that the value of the property in
question is more than Rs. 2,00,00,000/-. Therefore, there was no occasion
                                                         FAPL No. 702 of 2026
                               5


for the appellant herein to execute the sale deed for Rs. 40,00,000/-. After
receipt of the notice dated 07.06.2024, the appellant herein had replied the
same and has offered that he is ready and willing to return the loan
amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- along with interest amount of Rs. 60,000/- and
get the said agreement cancelled, but the respondents did not agree.
Thereupon, he has filed the Suit No. 713 of 2024 for cancellation of the
aforesaid agreement to sell.

11. Vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2024, the suit filed by the
respondents being Original Suit No. 784 of 2024 was decreed ex parte
against the appellant herein. Being aggrieved thereby the appellant herein
had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was rejected
vide order dated 20.02.2025, against which a First Appeal From Order
No. 531 of 2025 was filed by the appellant herein and the said First
Appeal From Order was allowed vide order dated 23.07.2025 and the
Original Suit No. 784 of 2024 was restored to its original number.
Thereupon, the appellant herein had filed the written statement and
contested the suit on merits and thereafter, both the suits so filed by the
appellant and the respondents were clubbed together and suit filed by the
respondents for the specific performance was decreed vide impugned
judgment and order dated 19.05.2026 and the suit filed by the appellant
herein for cancellation of the agreement to sell was dismissed. Being
aggrieved, both the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the appellant
herein.

12. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant
appeal has been heard finally at the admission stage and is being decided
under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents herein
had led no evidence with regard to their readiness and willingness to get
the sale deed executed in terms of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963.

14. In support of their readiness with the balance sale consideration, the
respondents have not produced any bank statement to establish that they
had the sufficient money to discharge their part of the agreement by
                                                         FAPL No. 702 of 2026
                               6


paying the sale consideration or to establish that they had the financial
capacity to pay the balance consideration and he submits that merely on
the basis of the bank statement of their father, which was produced the
respondents had claimed their readiness and financial capacity to pay the
balance consideration.

15. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ritu Saxena vs. J.S.
Grover and Another : (2019) 9 SCC 132, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that merely because the amount was there in the
accounts of the father of the respondents would not be sufficient to
establish the readiness on the part of the respondents herein. In the like
circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in Ritu
Saxena (supra), the Apex Court has held that merely because the bank
has already sanctioned the loan by which the plaintiff therein had shown
his capacity to pay was denied, has been held that the same is not
sufficient proof of readiness on the part of the plaintiffs in a suit for
specific performance.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in Vijay
Kumar and Others vs. Om Parkash : (2019) 17 SCC 429, the Apex
Court had denied the relief of specific performance of the contract on the
basis of the pleadings that plaintiff has borrowed the amount from his
friends and kept the money to pay balance sale consideration as the
plaintiff has failed to establish by way of any document to show that he
had the balance sale consideration to be paid at the time of the execution
of the sale deed to establish his readiness and in those circumstances the
Apex Court has denied the relief of specific performance.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the readiness
and willingness as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific
Performance are two different things. 'Readiness' means the capacity of
the plaintiff to perform the contract, which includes financial capacity,
whereas the 'willingness' relates to the conduct of the plaintiff, and since
in the instant case, though the respondents herein have submitted the
statement of the father having the sufficient money but that doesn't mean
that father has agreed to pay the said amount for the purposes of
execution of the sale deed specifically when the father of the respondents
                                                         FAPL No. 702 of 2026
                               7


has not been examined in the suit and the respondents have failed to
establish that they had the financial capacity themselves to pay the
balance consideration. In such view of the matter, the findings recorded
by the trial court with regard to the readiness on the part of the
respondents is erroneous and therefore, the decree for specific
performance ought not to have been passed. Thus, the suit for specific
performance was liable to be dismissed.

18. With regard to the other appeal, whereby the suit for declaration of the
agreement to sell dated 06.03.2024 was dismissed, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the aforesaid document was got executed by the
respondents without reading over the said document to the appellant
herein and as the said document was got executed under the pretext of
execution of a security document for the purpose of grant of loan to the
appellant and under the garb of the said security document, the
respondents have got executed the agreement to sell. Thus, the said
agreement was not a valid agreement and did not confer any right in
favour of the respondents. Therefore, the very basis for suit for specific
performance was not sustainable and the said agreement was liable to be
cancelled.

19. Per contra, Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondents submits that appellant herein is not an illiterate person.
He has offered the property for sale and the said offer was accepted and
an earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by the respondents, which
was accepted by the appellant and thereupon a registered agreement to
sell dated 06.03.2024 was executed between the parties. Even if all the
contentions raised by the appellant herein are accepted, once the said
agreement to sell was executed he had sufficient time to go through the
same and object within a reasonable period, which the appellant has failed
to do. It is only after a legal notice was issued by the respondents herein
for execution of the sale deed pursuant to the aforesaid registered
agreement to sell, the appellant herein had filed the suit for declaration
that the said agreement to sell dated 06.03.2024 is null and void with
ulterior motive being greedy to sell the said property for higher sale
consideration to someone else.
                                                          FAPL No. 702 of 2026
                               8


20. Once a registered document is executed there is a presumption in
favour of its validity and the appellant herein has failed to rebut the said
presumption. Thus, the said document has been held to be a valid
agreement to sell executed by the appellant by the trial court. Therefore,
there is no illegality in the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial court.
In the aforesaid agreement to sell itself, the date for execution of the sale
deed was fixed as 05.06.2024, on which date the respondents herein being
ready and willing to get the sale deed executed after due intimation to the
appellant herein had approached the office of the Sub-Registrar and
waited since morning till evening for execution of the sale deed by the
appellant after receiving the balance sale consideration. However, the
appellant did not turn up for the said purpose. Immediately thereafter, the
respondents have contacted the appellant when he has refused to execute
the sale deed and pay back advance earnest money paid to him. The due
legal notice was issued fixing 08.07.2024 as date for execution of the sale
deed.

21. Again, the respondents approached the office of the Sub-Registrar and
due evidence has been produced that they had waited since morning till
evening for appellant to turn up for execution of the sale deed with the
cheques of the balance sale consideration to be paid to the appellant
herein and immediately thereafter, the said suit was filed by the
respondents on 12.07.2024. Thus, from the conduct on the part of the
respondent, there is sufficient proof that the respondents herein were
ready and willing to get the sale deed executed after paying the balance
sale consideration to the appellant herein and the appellant herein has
deliberately failed to execute the sale deed. So far as the readiness on the
part of the respondents, the balance statement of account of the father of
the respondent was also produced in evidence, as from the same account
the initial earnest money of Rs. 10,00,000/- was also paid to the
appellant, which was duly acknowledged by the appellant. Therefore, the
respondents were having sufficient capacity /readiness to get the sale deed
executed, which has been acknowledged by the trial court after evaluation
of the evidence available on record.

22. It is not the case of the appellant that the appellant herein had ever
approached the office of the Sub-Registrar on the given dates or on the
                                                          FAPL No. 702 of 2026
                                9


demand made by the appellants, the respondents have failed to pay the
balance sale consideration, rather the appellant has never approached the
office of the Sub-Registrar. Therefore, the trial court has rightly held that
the respondents herein were always ready and willing to perform their
part of the contract and the appellant herein has avoided to execute the
sale deed. Therefore, the trial court has rightly decreed the suit for
specific performance filed by the respondents herein.

23. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sukhbir Singh vs.
Brij Pal Singh and Ors. : (1997) 2 SCC 200 submits that law doesn't
require that to show the readiness on the part of the plaintiff, the plaintiff
must establish that he had the ready cash with them. The conduct of the
parties are required to be seen and from the conduct of the parties,
readiness and willingness can be deduced by the courts.

24. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that after
the impugned judgment and decree passed by trial court concerned the
sale deed has already been executed in favour of the respondents and the
entire sale consideration has already been paid by the respondents, in such
view of the matter, unless the said sale deed, which has been executed
through Court is challenged no relief as of now can be granted to the
appellants herein.

25. In the instant case, the appellant being the executant of the said
agreement to sell cannot file the suit for declaration but he ought to have
filed a suit for cancellation of the said agreement to sell which the
appellant has failed. Therefore, no declaration for declaring the said
document null and void could have been passed at the behest of the
appellant herein by the trial court. Thus, learned counsel for the
respondents seeks dismissal of both the appeals.

26. Learned counsel for the respondent relying upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in Suhrid Singh vs. Randhir Singh and Ors. : (2010) 12
SCC 112 submits that in the instant case the appellant has sought
declaration that the document i.e, the agreement to sell dated 06.03.2024,
which was executed by the appellant was null and void. In the aforesaid
judgment in Suhrid Singh (supra), the Apex Court has held that where
                                                          FAPL No. 702 of 2026
                               10


the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled he has to seek cancellation
of the deed and not the declaration, whereas the non-executant can seek
the annulment of a deed by filing a suit for declaration.

27. Having heard the rival submissions so made by learned counsel for
the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record. The facts of
the case have already been noted hereinabove in great detail.

28. The question which arise for determination by this Court are as
follows:

     (i) Whether the agreement to sell dated 06.03.2024 was a valid
     agreement?

     (ii) Whether the said agreement to sell can be declared null and
     void at the behest of the executant of the said agreement to sell
     i.e., the appellant herein?

     (iii) Whether the respondents herein were always ready and
     willing to perform their part of the contract?

29. From the perusal of the material available on record, there is no
averments on the part of the appellant herein that the appellant herein was
an illiterate person or was not in a position to understand the nature of the
document executed by him. Even after the execution of the document, had
there been any doubt in the minds of the appellant he would have raised
immediate objection against the said document. He has kept silent for
sufficiently long period and despite the intimation given by the
respondents to come and execute the sale deed on the date fixed i.e., on
05.06.2024, the appellant has failed to appear before the office of Sub-
Registrar and even till then he did not raise any objection. It is only after
the legal notice was issued on behalf of the respondents for execution of
the sale deed in terms of the aforesaid agreement to sell dated 06.03.2024,
the appellant claims that in response to the said legal notice he has
objected to the said agreement to sell. Even then, he did not take any
immediate step and thereupon much after on 02.07.2024 he has filed the
suit for declaration that the said agreement to sell dated 06.03.2024 is a
null and void and the said agreement to sell was duly registered
                                                          FAPL No. 702 of 2026
                               11


document, therefore, there is a presumption of validity of the said
document, as has already been held by the Apex Court in Suhrid Singh
(supra) that the executant of a document cannot seek annulment thereof,
rather he is required to file the suit for cancellation of the said document.

30. In the instant case, instead of seeking cancellation the appellant herein
has sought annulment, which is impermissible in the light of the aforesaid
judgment of Apex Court in Suhrid Singh (supra). Thus, the Question No.
1 is decided in affirmative that the said agreement to sell was a validly
executed document and Question No. 2 is decided negatively as the same
could not be annulled at the behest of the appellant herein.

31. So far as Question No. 3 regarding the readiness and willingness on
the part of the respondents herein is concerned, the agreement to sell was
executed on 06.03.2024 and an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- out of Rs.
40,00,000/- was already paid by the respondents to the appellant, which
the appellant has duly acknowledged. Though, he claims that the said
amount was a loan amount, had it been so he has never offered to pay
back the said amount on the due date. Rather, in terms of the aforesaid
agreement to sell the appellants had approached the office of the Sub-
Registrar, waited there from morning till evening after due intimation to
the appellant. However, the appellant did not turn up for execution of the
sale deed in terms of the aforesaid agreement to sell.

32. Further, immediately thereafter the respondents have contacted the
appellant and appellant has refused to execute the sale deed and he was
trying to sell the property to somebody else with some higher sale
consideration. In such circumstances, the appellant with utmost readiness
and willingness had issued the written legal notice through their advocate
fixing the date for execution of the sale deed again on 08.07.2024 and on
that date also the respondents approached the office of the Sub-Registrar,
waited there since morning till evening for the appellant to come and
execute the sale deed with the cheques ready to be handed over to the
appellants against the balance sale consideration, which however the
appellant herein did not turn up and the suit was filed on 12.07.2024 by
the respondents for specific performance of the contract and even after the
impugned judgment and order was passed, the respondents have
                                                                                            FAPL No. 702 of 2026
                                                                  12


                                    immediately paid the balance sale consideration and got the sale deed
                                    executed in their favour.

                                    33. From the evidence available on record, it is further established that
                                    respondents have produced the bank statement of the same account from
                                    which the earnest money of Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid to the appellants and
                                    the said account before 05.06.2024 until filing of the suit was always
                                    having the balance above Rs. 30,00,000/-, therefore, there is no manner of
                                    doubt that the respondents were always ready and willing to perform their
                                    part of the contract and they also had the financial capacity to pay at all
                                    the relevant times to the appellant and it is only because of the appellant
                                    who did not turn up on both the occasions to execute, the sale deed could
                                    not be executed. In such circumstances, there is no manner of doubt that
                                    the appellants were always ready and willing to perform their part of
                                    contract. Thus, the Question No. 3 is decided in affirmation.

                                    34. In such view of the aforesaid findings, this Court do not find any
                                    illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court.
                                    Accordingly, both the instant appeals are dismissed.



                                                                                     (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
                                    September 14, 2026
                                    Shubham Arya




Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM ARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad