SARUP CHAND Vs. SARUP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal of the plaintiff-appellant (for brevity, 'the plaintiff') is directed against the judgment of learned District Judge, Faridkot dated 24-5-1980 whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been partially decreed who has further appealed to this Court for specific performance of the whole 1/6th share of the entire land comprised 60 kanals, 18 marlas. The defendants-respondent (for brevity, 'the defendants') have also challenged the judgment and decree by filing cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, 'the Code').

(2.) The case set up by the plaintiff is that defendant Surjit Kaur along with her four children inherited 1/6th share in the agricultural land measuring 60 kanals, 18 marlas situated in village Bharu. Tehsil Muktsar after the death of her husband Bakhtawar Singh. On 6-5-1975 an agreement to sell ws executed between defendant Surjit Kaur and plaintiff Sarup Chand whereby she agreed to sell her landed property @ Rs. 9700.00 per killa. She also received Rs. 2,000.00 as earnest money. It was also agreed between defendant Surjit Kaur and plaintiff Sarup Chand that the sale deed would be executed on or before 8-12-1975. A suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff asserting that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but defendant Surjit Kaur did not perform her part of the contract. In pursuance to the clause in the agreement, it was further claimed that in the alternative double the amount of the earnest money may be paid by the defendants.

(3.) Defendant Surjit Kaur contested the suit and filed a joint written statement on behalf of her minor children as well. Firstly, she denied the execution of the agreement and asserted that the plaintiff had never been willing and ready to perform the contract. It was further claimed that she was not competent to enter into any agreement to sell on behalf of the minors and she was victim of fraud and coercion inasmuch as she was pressurised to move an application in the Guardian Court seeking permission to sell the shares of the minors and the minors are not bound in any case.