RAM DASS Vs. RAM LUBHAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Provision of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act vests jurisdiction in the Court to decline specific performance even on equitable, just and fair grounds. The very ambit and scope of powers conferred upon the Courts which spring from this provision is the basic question that falls for determination in the present case. Before adverting myself to answer legal contentions raised on behalf of the either side in this Regular Second Appeal, it will be necessary to refer to the basic facts giving rise to this appeal.

(2.) Ram Lubhaya plaintiff in the suit respondent herein had filed a suit for specific performance and possession on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 6-8-1990. According to the case pleaded by the respondent it was stated that the appellant had entered into an agreement to sell regarding 8 kanals of land forming part of khewat No. 50, khatoni No. 52, Khasra No. 35/14 (S-O) situated in the area of village Hussainpur, Tehsil Nawanshahr. The agreed total sale consideration was Rs. 50,000/- out of which Rs. 12,700 had been paid to the appellant as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement dated 6-8-1990 and the balance amount was payable at the time of execution of the sale deed, time for which was provided to be on or before 30-4-1991. The respondent claims that on that day he was present before the office of the Registrar for getting the sale deed registered and for paying the balance consideration but the appellant did not turn up. The respondent had also served notice dated 23-4-1991 and 10-5-1995 making reference to the terms of the agreement to sell aforestated and showing ready and willingness on the part of the respondent to fulfill his contractual obligation. On these facts the respondent had claimed specific performance of the contract and alternative had claimed damages to the extent of Rupees 50,000/-.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. Appellant Ram Dass had denied the execution of the agreement in question and pleaded that he had raised some loan from the respondent and in lieu thereof got some papers signed from them and consequently the alleged agreement was on fabricated agreement and the agreement is not fair in law as it is a result of misrepresentation and based on concealment of facts.