The court affirmed that specific performance of a contract does not depend strictly on timing but on the willingness and readiness of parties, emphasizing the necessity for fair enforcement consequent to substantial part-performance and consideration paid.

JUDGMENT :
G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ.

The present Original Side Appeal seeks challenge to the judgment dated 07.08.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Suit No. 67 of 2008, whereby the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff/defendant herein has been partly decreed by passing a decree of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff/defendant directing the defendant/appellant herein to specifically perform the part of the agreement to sell dated 24.04.2004 in respect of 38 Kanals of land measuring 2-34-27 hectares i.e. 234427/31099 shares i.e. land 3-10-99 in Khewat No.20, Khatauni No.34 min, 35 min and Khasra No. 2445 (0-69-21), 2448 (0-32-48), 2449 (0-55-32), 2446 (0-74-90) 2544 (0-17-52), 2545 (0-61-56), kitas-6, situated in village Bharolian Khurd, Tehsil and District Una, entered into inter se the plaintiff for a consideration of RS. 73,000/- per Kanal, on payment of 8,83,000/-.

2. Brevity is a necessity, so a brief narration of relevant facts falling within a short compass will unfold the issue with which we would be dealing with in this Appeal.

3. Apparently, the plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 24.04.2004 by which the parties had agreed to execute the sale deed with respect to the land detailed in the agreement to sell, latest by 31.07.2005, with a prayer to issue directions to the defendant to execute the sale deed qua the land mentioned in the agreement and for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and creating any charge and alienating the suit property.

4. It has been averred that defendant had entered into an agreement to sell on 24.04.2004 with the plaintiff whereby defendant agreed to sell the land measuring 2-34-27 hectares i.e. 234427/31099 shares, i.e. land 3-10-99 in Khewat No.20, Khatauni No.34 min, 35 min and Khasra Nos. 2445 (0-69-21), 2448 (0-32-48), 2449 (0-55-32), 2446 (0-74- 90) 2544 (0-17-52), 2545 (0-61-56), kitas-6, situated in village Bharolian Khurd, Tehsil and District Una, with the plaintiff for a consideration of RS. 73,000/- per Kanal. When the said land is converted into kanals, it comes to 61 Kanals and in this way, the total consideration came to be RS. 44,53,000/-. The defendant is stated to have received a sum of 26,00,000/- as an earnest money and receipt in respect of the earnest money was mentioned in the agreement itself. It was stated that another sum of RS. 3,00,000/- was received by the defendant in the presence of a person named Tilak Raj. At the time of agreement, the possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff on 24.04.2004 itself and thereafter the plaintiff is stated to have spent a sum of RS. 20,00,000/- for development and levelling the said land which, prior to that was a steep hill.

5. The defendant had agreed to execute and register the sale deed latest by 31.07.2005, failing which she had agreed to pay double the amount as agreed and, in the event of failure on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract, the earnest money was agreed to be forfeited.

6. It has been pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff made several requests to the defendant to execute the sale deed, but defendant failed to execute the sale deed. The defendant is stated to have delayed the execution of the sale deed saying that there was stay granted by the Civil Court against the execution of the sale deed in the Mohal in which the suit property was situated and when such stay was vacated, as per the defendant herself, again a request was made to the defendant, who then got registered the sale deed of 23 Kanals of land on 11.02.2005, in favour of the plaintiff out of the aforesaid 61 Kanals. At that time, the defendant had stated that the proceedings under Section 47- A of the Indian Stamp Act were going on and as such the sale deed of the land in question was being made with the assurance that if Deed in question is not summo