Judgment :-

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Having failed to convince the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to reverse the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court for specific performance of Agreement for Sale dated 22.10.1996 executed by his father-cum-General Power of Attorney Col. Gurcharan Singh in favour of the respondent and to review the judgment passed in the second appeal, the appellant has filed these appeals. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the appellant and the respondent.

3. The respondent filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement for sale impleading the appellant and his father as the defendants. The case set up by the respondent was that at the time of execution of agreement, its authorised representative had paid Rs.1,00,000; that on 22.11.1996, Rs.9,00,000 were offered to the appellant’s father but he avoided to accept the amount despite telephonic message and phonogram sent on 23.11.1996 and personal visit to his office and residence. It was further pleaded that even though the respondent was always ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform its part of the agreement, the appellant intentionally committed breach of the terms and conditions thereof and failed to perform his obligation by not extending cooperation in obtaining colonization licence from Punjab Urban Development Authority and ITC Certificate under Section 34-A of the Income Tax Act.

4. In the joint written statement filed by the appellant and his father, the locus standi of the respondent to file the suit was questioned on the premise that it had been incorporated on 1.11.1996, i.e. after execution of the agreement. On merits, it was pleaded that the appellant’s father, who was about 88 years old and was sick had not executed the agreement and the same was a fictitious document prepared by the respondent in collusion with Col. Gurcharan Singh and Vijay Bhardwaj. The appellant and his father denied the receipt of the earnest money and the offer allegedly made by the respondent’s representative to pay Rs.9 lacs.

On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 22.10.1996? OPP.

2. Whether plaintiffs are not entitled to relief claimed for? OPD.

3. Relief”

5. After considering the evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court recorded the following findings:

(i) the respondent has succeeded in proving execution of the Agreement for Sale.

(ii) the appellant and his father could not prove that the Agreement was a forged and fabricated document.

(iii) the respondent succeeded in proving that its representative had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000 as earnest money and offered to pay Rs.9,00,000 which defendant No.2 did not accept.

(iv) that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform its part of the agreement.

However, the trial Court declined the relief of specific performance by observing that the price of the land had considerably increased and it would be unfair to compel the appellant to execute the sale deed at the rate agreed to by the parties. For arriving at this conclusion, the trial Court relied upon the judgments of this Court in Sargunam (Dead) by L.R. v. Chidambaram (2005) 1 SCC 162 and Janardhanam Prasad v. Ramdas (2007) 15 SCC 174 and of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mohan Singh v. Kulwinder Singh 2006 (2) P.L.J. 748 and of the Allahabad High Court in Ramawati Devi v. Idris Ahmad 2008 (2) Civil Court Cases 332. The trial Court finally held that the respondent is entitled to refund of the earnest money with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

6. The respondent challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court by filing an appeal. The appellant and his father did not file appeal or cross objection to challenge the