The conduct of the party seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and subsequent vendees may not be necessary parties in specific performance suits.

Harbans Lal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/decree dated 14.9.2004 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby he dismissed the appeal preferred by Bagga Singh deceased through his legal representatives (a) Boota Singh (b) Manjit Singh (c) Darshan Singh (d) Pritam Singh and (e) Kuldeep Singh sons of Bagga Singh against the judgment/decree dated 17.10.2003 rendered by the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby he partly decreed the suit with costs holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to refund of Rs.78,000/- from the defendants.

2. The facts which led to the filing of the suit are that Bagga Singh defendant entered into an agreement dated 12.6.1987 to sell the land measuring 14 Bighas 18 Biswas bearing khasra No. 65, 77/2, 78/2 and 79/2 as delineated in the plaint in favour of Brij Lal and Ram Rakhi plaintiffs for Rs. 85,000/-. As agreed upon between the parties, the sale deed was to be executed and registered by 31.12.1987. The expenses of the stamp and registration were to be borne by the plaintiffs. A sum of Rs. 78,000/- ( Rs.39,000/- by each plaintiff) was paid to the above mentioned intending vendor as earnest money which was to be adjusted in the sale consideration of the execution and registration of the sale deed. The plaintiffs had always been ready and willing and still ready and willing to perform their part of the said agreement and had been requesting the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute and register the sale deed in their favour. On one pretext or the other, the defendant went on putting off the plaintiffs. In the month of December, 1988, the defendant received a sum of Rs.8,000/- from the plaintiffs on account of stamp and registration expenses and to play fraud upon the plaintiffs got scribed a sale deed contrary to the terms and conditions embodied in the above mentioned agreement. When the plaintiffs requested him to take the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed registered in accordance with the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement, he left the place of deed writer. Brij Lal plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of his wife Ram Rakhi had been requesting the defendant to execute and register the sale deed on receipt of balance consideration and acceptance of stamp and registration but he continued procrastinating. A panchayat was convened in this regard about seven days before filing of the suit, but the defendant refused to accept the balance sale consideration as well as the expenses of the stamp and registration. On these allegations, the suit has been filed for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12.6.1987.

3. Having entered appearance, the defendant filed written statement inter alia pleading that the alleged sale agreement was never executed by him in favour of the plaintiffs nor earnest money of Rs.8,000/- on account of stamp and registration expenses was received by him. As alleged the said agreement is false and forged document and that in fact he had entered into an agreement for sale of land in question with Mangat Ram son of the plaintiff Brij Lal for a consideration of Rs.60,000/- and the sale deed to that effect has been executed on 5.4.1988 and registered on 19.4.1988 in favour of Ravi Kumar son of Megh Raj, the grand son of the plaintiffs.

4. The following issues were framed by the learned trial Court.

i. Whether the defendant entered into an agreement to sell dated 12.6.1987 regarding the suit land with the plaintiffs, if So, its effect? OPP

ii. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD

iii. Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs?OPP

iv. Whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing and are still read and willing to perform their part of the contract?OPP

iv(a) Whether the defendant had entered into the agreement to sell regarding the property in dispute with Mangat Ram son of Brij Lal and on the basis of that the sale