SUPREME COURT CRITICIZES THE PRACTICE OF SECURING SIGNATURES ON BLANK PAPERS FOR AGREEMENTS, DEEMING IT A BLATANT ACT OF FRAUD AND MANIPULATION

A Division-Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgement dated 27-09-2024 in the matter of Lakha Singh vs. Balwinder Singh & Anr. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 30250 of 2018 and held that the large blank spaces on the first and second pages of the disputed Agreement, along with the absence of thumb impressions or signatures of the Parties and attesting witnesses on these pages, strongly suggest that the Agreement was written on a blank stamp paper where the Appellant-Defendant’s thumb impression had already been taken.

FACTS:

1)  That the aforesaid Appeal filed before the Supreme Court by one Lakha Singh (Appellant/Defendant) against one Balwinder Singh and the State Bank of Patiala (Respondents/Plaintiffs), challenged the impugned Judgment dated 25.04.2018 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (High Court) whereby, the Court dismissed the Appeal No. RSA No. 4577 of 2017(O&M). Further, the High Court affirmed the Judgment dated 20.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran (First Appellate Court) in Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2016.

2) However, the First Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant-Defendant and upheld the Judgment and decree issued on 02.2013, by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti, Tarn Taran (Trial Court), in the Civil Suit brought by the Respondent-Plaintiff. The Trial Court had partially allowed the Suit, Ordering the Appellant-Defendant to pay Rs. 16,00,000/- along with accrued interest as an alternative relief, while rejecting the Respondent-Plaintiff’s request for specific performance of the Agreement.

3) The Respondent-Plaintiff, Balwinder Singh, filed a Suit seeking Specific Performance of an Agreement to sell dated 07.05.2007, for 30 Kanals and 8 Marlas of agricultural land from the Appellant-Defendant, Lakha Singh. The Respondent also requested a permanent injunction to prevent the Appellant from alienating the property or dispossessing him from it. Alternatively, he sought the recovery of Rs. 19,00,000, including Rs. 16,00,000 as earnest money and Rs. 3,00,000 as damages.

4) The Appellant, Lakha Singh, denied executing the Agreement, claiming that it was a result of misrepresentation and fraud. He argued that the Respondent-Plaintiff and his brother, a commission agent, had taken his thumb impression on a blank stamp paper and later filled it out fraudulently.

5) The Trial Court partially allowed the Respondent’s claim, Ordering the Appellant to repay Rs. 16,00,000/- with interest but denying specific performance of the Agreement. The Court found that the transaction resembled a loan rather than a sale of land.

6) The First Appellate Court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the Trial Court’s Judgment, dismissing the Appellant’s Appeal. The Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

TRIAL COURT:

The Trial Court observed that while the Respondent-Plaintiff, Balwinder Singh, had produced an Agreement to sell the disputed land, the evid