The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in granting specific performance, considering the conduct of the parties, recitals in the sale agreement, and the circumstances outside the contract. The court's decision was based on the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, the defendant's failure to execute the sale deed, and the absence of evidence supporting the defendant's claims of fraud and suppression of facts.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Plaintiff-Dharamjeet Kaur has instituted the present suit under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 1 read with S.26 CPC for specific performance of contract arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant on 18.1.2014, whereby, allegedly the defendant agreed and contracted with the plaintiff to sell and transfer the ownership and possession of the land bearing Khewat Khatauni No. 48/70, Khasra No. 316/125 measuring 11-0 Bigha and Khewat Khatauni No. 170 Khasra No. 288/125, measuring 4-16 Bigha total land measuring 5-7 Bigha as entered in Jamabandi for the years 2006-07, situate in Village Mangseri, Pargana Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh by way of execution of registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In the alternative, plaintiff has also prayed for payment of compensation i.e. double the amount of earnest money and also for permanent perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, transferring or creating third party interest or changing the nature of the suit land in any manner whatsoever.

2. Plaintiff averred in the plaint that the suit land is owned and possessed by the defendant, who with a view to sell the same executed an agreement dated 18.1.2014 at Nalagarh, with the plaintiff for the transfer of the suit land in favour of plaintiff. As per agreement to sell, defendant agreed to sell his land at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/- per Bigha for total consideration of Rs.34,77,500/-. Plaintiff averred that at the time of execution of agreement, plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.8 Lakh to the defendant, which was duly received by the defendant. At the time of execution of agreement to sell, it was agreed between the parties that the balance amount i.e. Rs.26,77,500/-, would be paid to the defendant at the time final execution and registration of the sale deed. As per agreed terms, sale deed was to be executed and registered by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on or before 15.5.2014, after receipt of balance amount of Rs.26,77,500/- payable by the plaintiff. Plaintiff and defendant also agreed that in case, defendant refuses to get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff, plaintiff would be entitled to get the sale deed registered in his favour through process of court at the cost of defendant or the plaintiff would be entitled to receive double the amount of earnest money paid to the defendant. Averments contained in the plaint further suggest that it was also agreed inter se parties that in case the plaintiff refuses to make payment of the balance amount of sale consideration or get the sale deed registered,, the earnest money of Rs.8.00 Lakh paid by her to the defendant shall stand forfeited. Agreement to sell allegedly came to be executed inter se parties in the presence of the witnesses namely Madan Lal and Vikas Gupta. Defendant put her thumb impression on the agreement to sell and plaintiff put her signatures in token of the acceptance of terms and conditions of the agreement to sell in the presence of above named witnesses. Agreement to sell was duly registered in the Register of Shri J.S. Rana, Notary Public, Nalagarh. Plaintiff has averred that the agreement to sell was duly authenticated by the Notary Public, who read over the contents of the same to the defendant, who in turn put her thumb impression on the same, after fully understanding the contents thereof. Subsequently, plaintiff received a notice dated 3.3.2014, from the defendant through her counsel, alleging that agreement to sell in question was got signed from the defendant by the plaintiff by playing fraud upon her. Such notice was replied by the plaintiff through her counsel specifically denying therein the allegations of fraud. Plaintiff, vide aforesaid reply, also requested the defendant to get the sale deed registered after receiving balance sale consideration in terms of agreement to sell. Plaintiff kept on approaching the defendant again and again for doing the