In Brief
Two brothers, Parminder Singh (appellant/defendant) and Gurpreet Singh (respondent/plaintiff), entered into an agreement for sale of land in 1995. When Parminder refused to execute the sale deed, Gurpreet sued for specific performance. The trial court, first appellate court, and High Court all found the agreement genuine and awarded specific performance. Parminder challenged this in the Supreme Court, arguing the agreement was forged. The Court dismissed his appeal, holding that concurrent findings of fact by three courts are binding and cannot be re-appreciated unless perverse. The Court affirmed that specific performance is discretionary and, once the lower courts found the agreement genuine and the plaintiff ready to perform, this discretion cannot be disturbed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.