CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. RANVEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Sanjay Kumar Pundir, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) These two appeals have been filed by the defendants before the trial court. It is an admitted fact that these appeals have been filed by the husband and wife respectively who had entered into an agreement to sale on 10. 01. 2005. It is also an admitted fact that plaintiff first filed a suit for permanent injunction bearing suit no. 98 of 2006 and subsequently that suit was withdrawn and suit for specific performance was filed which has been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.

(3.) It is submitted that there was no reason for them to enter into an agreement as neither there was any need for money nor there was any such occasion like marriage of their child etc. necessitating the appellants to enter into an agreement to sale. It is further submitted that all the witnesses as have been produced by the plaintiff before the trial court are related to each other. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on issue no. 3 adduced and appreciated by the trial court and since an alternative relief especially looking to the fact that appellants would not have deprived themselves of their bread and butter, by alienating the complete parcel of land recorded in their names, court should have been slow in exercising the grant of discretionary relief as provided under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act.