JUDGMENT :

1. The present regular appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.07.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Original Suit No.09/2016 (CIS No.09/2016), whereby the suit for specific performance of the contract as preferred by the plaintiffs has been decreed.

2. As per the plaint, the defendants Munni Devi and Sunil Kumar being the wife and son of Mangilal respectively, after his death on 01.05.2001, became the owners of the residential premises of which a lease had been issued in his favour. Besides the residential house, one shop was also registered in the name of defendant no.2-Sunil Kumar. On 03.12.2015, both the defendants executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs qua both, the residential house as well as the shop for a consideration of Rs.9 lac and 11 lac respectively. The consideration amount of Rs.6 lac each was paid to the defendants on the same date and it was agreed that the remaining consideration amount of Rs.8 lac would be paid on 18.07.2016, the date fixed for execution of the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. As the defendants did not execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, the present suit was preferred with a relief for specific performance of the contract.

3. Written statement was filed jointly by the defendants and the factum of agreement to sell dated 03.12.2015 was specifically denied. The case of the defendants was that neither the agreement to sell was entered into between the parties nor any consideration was received by the defendants qua the alleged agreement. It was averred that the said document as well as the signatures of the defendants were forged. The plea regarding the agreement being insufficiently stamped and unregistered were also raised. On the basis of the pleadings as made, the Court framed as many as 6 issues as under :

^^1& vk;k okn i= ds iSjk la- 2 esa of.kZr vklkiklk dh lEifr edku dks foØ; djus dk izfroknhx.k la[;k 1 o 2 }kjk bdjkjukek fnukad 03-12-2015 dks oknhx.k ds i{k esa fd;k Fkk\

2& vk;k oknhx.k bdjkjukek dh ikyuk gsrq lnSo rS;kj ,oa bPNqd gS \

3& vk;k izfroknhx.k fookfnr lEifr dks vU;= varj.k ij vkeknk gS \

4& vk;k vjftLVªhd`r bdjkjukek gksus ls oknhx.k fofufnZ"V ikyuk djkus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gS \

5& vk;k okn oknhx.k vYi U;k; 'kqYd ij izLrqr gS \

6& vuqrks"k\^^

4. During the pendency of the suit, a written compromise was entered into between the parties and in terms of the compromise, the plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the relief qua the shop and the suit proceeded on for relief qua the residential house only.

5. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court proceeded on to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and held them entitled to get the sale deed executed in their favour after payment of due consideration amount of Rs.3 lac and also to get possession of the residential premises.

6. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree dated 29.07.2022, the present appeal has been preferred.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants raised the following grounds :

(i) on 04.01.2017, a written compromise was entered into between the parties during the pendency of the suit in pursuance to which, an amount of Rs.6 lac was repaid to the plaintiffs qua the consideration amount of commercial premise/shop. Therefore, once the plaintiffs had entered into a compromise qua the shop and accepted the repayment of the amount of Rs.6 lac, no decree for specific performance could have been passed in their favour.

When relief qua one of the premises i.e. the shop had been withdrawn by the plaintiffs in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties and an alternative prayer had been made in the suit for refund of the consideration amount, the Court ought not to have decreed the suit for specific performance but should have proceeded on to pass decree in terms of the alternate prayer i.e. the refund of the consideration amount.

(ii) It was the specific case of the defendants that all