The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of demonstrating the bonafide nature of a transaction for specific performance, and the reliance on evidence and circumstances to determine the true nature of the transaction.

ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The defendant-appellant has come up in appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court as well as the High Court, decreeing the suit for specific performance.

4. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed and alternatively, a prayer was made to direct for handing over of possession by way of specific performance. Initially the court fee for specific performance was not paid. Later on it appears that on an objection being raised by the defendant with respect to the non-payment of the court fee, the same was deposited. Be that as it may.

5. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff-Jaspal Singh entered into an agreement for sale, with defendant-Avtar Singh on 26.6.1998, for a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Ten Thousand only), with respect to his share out of joint khata along with interest. An agreement was entered into only to sell the extent of land belonging to the share of the defendant in an area measuring 22 kanals 4 marlas. It was mentioned that possession had been handed over to the plaintiff. It was also mentioned in the agreement that as the land was mortgaged with the bank, it was necessary to make the payment in the bank. After redeeming the mortgage from the bank, a sale deed was to be executed by 10.7.1998. The agreement was entered into for sale of land at Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) per acre. The total area was 2 acres 6 kanals 4 marlas.

6. Yet another agreement had been entered into on 24.7.1998 for sale of the land situated in close vicinity of the aforesaid land, just after one month from the earlier agreement, with respect to the land measuring 4 kanal 11 marlas. A sum of Rs,16,000/- was paid by way of earnest money after entering into the agreement to sell. The sale deed was to be executed by 21.8.1998. Again factum of mortgage of land with bank was mentioned and that the land was required to be redeemed from the bank before execution of the sale deed. It was further averred in the plaint that the defendant did not appear before the Sub-Registrar for execution of sale deed and the plaintiff got marked his presence with the Sub-Registrar. However, date was not disclosed in the plaint. The plaintiff was having balance consideration with him and was still ready to perform his part of contract. A legal notice by UPC-envelope was served. However, it's date was not disclosed in the plaint.

7. In the written statement filed by the defendant it was contended that the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiff had filed a false and frivolous suit, the agreement was not enforceable as the real owner of the land, namely, Swaran Singh, had challenged the decree in favour of the father of the plaintiff and the suit was still pending. It was further contended that the plaintiff was a very clever person and had been playing fraud with innocent persons like the defendant. The plaintiff was Lamberdar of the village and used to moot different schemes and used to obtain thumb impressions or signatures of innocent persons on blank papers and he might have mis-utilized the signatures. The defendant had never agreed to sell his land to the plaintiff. It was also averred that no amount had been taken as earnest money. Other facts were also denied.

8. The trial court had decreed the suit. The First Appellate Court and the High Court have affirmed the same. Hence the appeal by the defendant.

9. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the bonafide nature of the transaction has not been established. It has been admitted by the two attesting witnesses of the agreement that they had signed a large number of such agreements in favour of the plaintiff and both of them are related to the plaintiff. The way in which the plaintiff had taken advantage of being Lamberdar of the village, he migh