The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance under Sec. 13 of the Specific Relief Act, as the defendant had acquired title to the land and had received a substantial portion of the sale consideration.

M.L.SINGHAL, J.

1. This is regular second appeal brought by Harnam Singh plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-96 of Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby he had allowed the defendant Mangat Singhs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4-11-93 of Sub-Judge First Class, Zira whereby he had decreed the plaintiff appellant Harnam Singhs suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 1-11-1982 and 11-1-1984 to sell land measuring 8 kanal 0 marla situated in village Sherpur Jabain

2. Facts :-

Harnam Singh filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 1-11-1982 confirmed by subsequent agreement dated 11-1-1984 directing defendant Mangat Singh to execute registered sale deed in his favour for a sum of Rs.21, 250/- on receipt of the remaining sum of Rs. 1750/- after adjusting Rs. 17000/- paid to him as earnest money at the time of execution of agreement dated 1-11-1982 and another Rs. 2500/- paid to him vide agreement dated 11-1-1984 in respect of 8 kanals of land as detailed in the heading of the plaint; in the alternative, for the recovery of Rs. 21,250/- as damages and compensation for breach of agreement dated 1-11-1982 confirmed by agreement dated 11-1-1984. It was alleged in the plaint that this land was originally owned by the Central Government. Defendant Mangat Singh purchased this land from the Central Govt. on 11-1-1982, he entered into agreement to sell this land measuring 8 kanals with the planitiff Harnam Singh for a sum of Rs. 21,250/- He received Rs. 17,000/- as earnest money at the time of execution of agreement which was scribed by Bhagwan Singh, Document Writer, Dharamkot and witnessed by Harnam Singh and Chanan Singh both residents of village Sherpur Taiban.At the time of agreement, there was no mutation sanctioned in favour of the defendant. It was agreed that after mutation was sanctioned, the defendant will serve one months notice upon the plaintiff for the execution of the sale deed and only after notice, sale deed was to be executed. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant required more money and on 11-1-1984, he received Rs. 2500/- from the plaintiff. Fresh agreement of sale was executed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant in which the defendant admitted the correctness of agreement dated 1-11-1982. This agreement was scribed by same Bhagwan Singh Document Writer and witnessed by Wariam Singh and Jaswant Singh both residents of village Sherpur Taiban. It was alleged in the plaint that he had always been ready and willing to obtain sale deed from the defendant on payment of the remaining sum of Rs. 1750/-. He was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. He enquired about the sanctioning of mutation from the defendant a number of times and requested him to execute sale deed in his favour. Every time the defendant replied that mutation had not been sanctioned in his favour. On 30-5-92, he enquired about the sanctioning of mutation from the office of Sales Department, Zira and came to know that mutation had been sanctioned in his favour. On 1-6-91, he issued notice to the defendant through registered post requesting him to execute sale deed in his favour. He received notice but did not reply. On these allegations, he filed suit for specific performance; in the alternative for the recovery of Rs.21,250/- as damages and compensation with pendnte lite future interest 12% per annum.

3 Defendant contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was denied that he executed any agreement dated 1-11-1982 in favour of the plaintiff. It was denied that he received any sum of Rs. 17,000/- on 1-11-1982. It was denied that he confirmed that agreement vide another agreement dated 11-1-1984. It was denied that he received any sum of Rs. 2500/- on 11-1-1984 from the plaintiff. Land was purchased by him from the Central Govt., vide conveyance deed dated 5-4-1991. He always signs and never thumb marks while the so called agreements bear thumb i