IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement to Sell – Merely because in document purpose of sale of property was stated to be for marriage expenses, document which otherwise can be said to be an agreement to sell, will not become a loan agreement and/or security document.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 2891 of 2010, by which the High Court has dismissed the said second appeal and has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, granting the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.02.2004, the original defendants have preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

That one Gurmeet Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants (husband of defendant no. 1 and father of defendant no. 2 to 4) was the owner and in possession of land admeasuring 8 kanals situated in village Nilokheri, District Karnal. That the said Gurmeet Singh executed an agreement to sell dated 11.02.2004 in favour of one Jai Parkash, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs for a sale consideration of Rupees Four Lakhs. That a sum of Rupees Three Lakhs and Fifty Thousand was paid as an earnest money to the said Gurmeet Singh. The target date for execution of the sale-deed in favour of the vendee or his assignee was fixed as 10.02.2005, on payment of balance sale consideration. In the agreement, it was also stated that if the vendor fails to perform his part of the agreement, then the vendee would be entitled to double the earnest money or in the alternative, to get the sale-deed executed and registered through the Court.

2.1 According to the plaintiffs, during his life time, the vendee Jai Parkash was willing to perform his part of the agreement and after his death, the plaintiffs, as his legal representatives had to perform. According to the plaintiffs, they approached the defendants to perform their part of the agreement, in terms of agreement to sell dated 11.02.2004, however, the defendants kept on deferring the matter. Therefore, the plaintiffs served a legal notice dated 14.01.2005 asking the defendants to appear in the office of Sub-Registrar, Nilokheri on 10.02.2005 for execution of the sale-deed, which was the target date fixed in the agreement. According to the plaintiffs, they reached the office of Sub-Registrar, Nilokheri on 10.02.2005 with the balance sale consideration and the money required for purchase of stamp papers and other expenses. However, the defendants did not turn up at the Sub-Registrar’s office. The plaintiffs got their presence marked by moving an application before the Sub-Registrar, Nilokheri, who made an endorsement thereon and returned the application, along with the affidavit of the plaintiffs, which were attested by Sub-Registrar. Thereafter the plaintiffs again served registered legal notice on 18.02.2005. In reply to the said notice, the defendants totally denied the execution of the agreement to sell dated 11.02.2004 by Gurmeet Singh. They also denied having received an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- mentioned in the agreement to sell. Hence, the plaintiffs instituted the suit, being Civil Suit No. 681 of 2005 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal for specific performance and for possession along with consequential relief of permanent injunction.

2.2 The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing their written statement. In the written statement, the original defendants denied execution of the agreement to sell dated 11.02.2004. It was the case on behalf of the defendants that Gurmeet Singh was an illiterate person, addicted to vices and his thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers by Jai Parkash, who was a cloth shop owner in Nilokheri. The defendants also denied receipt of Rs. 3.50,000/- by Gurmeet Singh from the plaintiffs. Both the parties led their evidence.

2.3 On appreciation of the evidence on record and on hearing the parties, the learned trial Court, though held that the agreement was validly executed between Gurmeet Singh and Jai Parkash, for a sale consideration and though held that Rs. 3,50