Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral):- The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2013 of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc) Jalandhar and judgment and decree dated 07.12.2011 of the trial Court, at the instance of the defendants vide which suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22.10.2008, was decreed.

2. Plaintiff-respondent Surjit Kaur had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22.10.2008 in respect of the suit land as detailed in the plaint, on the averments that defendant-appellant No.1 vide agreement dated 22.10.2008 agreed to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 12,85,000/- per acre. Similarly, defendant No.2 agreed for sale of possessory rights of land measuring 6 kanals belonging to Provincial Govt. in favour of plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 6,42,500/- per acre. Appellant No.1 also received a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- as earnest money. Both the defendants executed agreement with the condition to execute and register the sale deed on or before 15.06.2009 in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of balance sale consideration. It was also agreed between the parties that defendant No.1 shall get the land redeemed from defendant No.3 (now respondent No.2). It is the further case of the plaintiff respondent that she remained ready and willing to perform her part of agreement but the defendant-appellants failed to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff. Hence the necessity arose to file the suit.

3. Upon issuance of summons, defendant-appellants put in appearance and contested the claim of the plaintiff-respondent by filing a joint written statement. Apart from raising various preliminary objections, defendant-appellants admitted that they executed the agreement on 22.10.2008 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent but according to them the sale deed could not be executed as the plaintiff did not turn up to get the sale deed executed and registered as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and hence the earnest money paid by the plaintiff stood forfeited. Further, defendant-appellant No.1 suffered a huge financial loss because he was to purchase land measuring 33 kanals 11 marlas in village Patii Multani, District Ludhiana from one Gopal Singh son of Baghel Singh and he had also paid a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- to said Gopal Singh. His earnest money paid to said Gopal Singh has been forfeited due to non-completion of agreement dated 03.11.2008 between them. It was further stated that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief by way of present suit because agreement in question could not be completed due to failure of plaintiff. Although, land in dispute was mortgaged with defendant No.3 (now respondent No.2) but it stood redeemed prior to date fixed for completion of agreement because the loan was waived in view of policy formulated by Central Government. Remaining allegations of plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. Defendant No.3 (now respondent No.2) in its separate written statement stated that the land to the extent of share of appellant (i.e. defendant No.1) stood mortgaged in favour of defendant No.3 prior to the agreement and thus, defendant No.3 was having lien over the property in dispute and its interest be protected by the Court. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

5. The plaintiff filed replications denying the allegations of the defendants contained in the written statements and reiterated those as mentioned in the plaint as correct.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff remained ready and willing to perform his part of agreement? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of agreement dated 22.10.2008 or alternative relief, if so, its effect? OPP

3. Whether the suit is maintainable? OPP