DARSHAN SINGH Vs. DALIP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by the plaintiff (late Jarnail Singh) was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.2009. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was accordingly dismissed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 21.07.2010. That is how, the defendant is before this court in this regular second appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) In short, the plaintiff prayed for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell, dated 30.06.1999, and by way of consequential relief a decree for injunction was also prayed for restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property, in any manner. It was pleaded that defendant (Darshan Singh) entered into an agreement to sell, dated 30.06.1999, with the plaintiff qua the suit property i.e. a residential house at Village Rasulra, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana. A sum of Rs.50,000/- were purportedly paid by way of earnest money and the balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The date first fixed for execution of the sale deed was 30.06.2000, which was extended to 29.12.2000 by the parties with mutual consent, vide writing dated 28.06.2000. It was maintained that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. And he even appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Khanna, but the defendant did not turn up. Thus, the suit.

(3.) In defence, the defendant denied the very existence and execution of the agreement in question. It was pleaded that no such agreement was executed by him and consequently there was no occasion to receive the earnest money. The agreement to sell, dated 30.06.1999, was purported to be a forged and fabricated document. The trial court, on an analysis of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, found that the plaintiff to prove the agreement to sell, dated 30.06.1999, examined PW1 Surjit Singh, PW2 Rajinder Singh, marginal witnesses of the agreement. PW4 Narender Kumar (Deed Writer), who scribed the agreement in question, also deposed unequivocally that on 30.06.1999, defendant executed the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff qua the suit property and received a sum of Rs.50,000/- as earnest money in their presence. It was also deposed that after the agreement was scribed, the same was read-over and explained to the defendant, who after admitting the contents thereof appended his signatures thereon. Although, the defendant had denied the execution of the agreement to sell and the same was alleged to be a forged document, yet no expert was examined to compare his signatures on the disputed document as well as on the writing, vide which the parties had extended the date fixed for execution of the sale deed. It was observed that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. And he even appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Khanna on the stipulated date for execution of the sale deed along with the balance sale consideration and sworn an affidavit in this regard. The plea that the suit property in question was the only residential house of the defendant and, therefore, a decree for specific performance of the agreement would work great hardship to the defendant, was also rejected. It was observed that the provisions of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act did not postulate that even if a party fails to perform his part of the contract and contest a litigation on a frivolous plea, yet it could set up a plea of equity. Merely because the value of the property had purportedly increased, was hardly a ground to deny the decree for specific performance of the contract to the plaintiff. Likewise, the inadequacy of sale consideration was no ground to deny the relief of specific performance. In any case, the defendant failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate as to what was the actual value of the property at the time of execution of the agreement. Once the execution of the agreement was proved, the normal rule was/is that the said agreement has to be specifically enforced. Nothing was brought on record, which could dissuade the court to deny a decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell. Accordingly, the suit was decreed.