Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.: - Defendants are in second appeal against against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2014 passed by Additional District Judge, Jhajjar vide which appeal of the plaintiff has been decreed in toto thereby entitling him for a decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 08.02.2006 and the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2011 passed by the trial Court to the extent of allowing recovery of Rs.6 lacs was modified to that extent.

2. The lower Appellate Court also directed the defendants to execute the sale deed by appearing before the Sub-Registrar, Bahadurgarh on or before 28.02.2015 on receiving balance sale consideration, failing which the plaintiff was held to get the sale deed executed by the process of the Court.

3. Plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of contract in respect of suit land. Out of total land share of defendants came out to be 37 Kanals 11 Marlas. Defendants purchased the land vide registered sale deed dated 16.09.2003 and 08.11.2004 and mutations were also sanctioned in their favour. Defendants were willing to sell the land in question and hence they executed agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff on 08.02.2006 @ Rs.6 lacs per acre and also received Rs.3 lacs as earnest amount. Target date for registration of sale deed was fixed as 08.08.2006.

4. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to fulfill their part of obligation as they failed to appear before the Sub- Registrar on the date fixed and even thereafter they were not ready and willing to perform their part of obligation. Plaintiff got his presence marked before the Sub-Registrar on the target date. Even a legal notice dated 25.10.2006 was sent, but the defendants did not turn up on 03.11.2006, the date fixed by way of legal notice. The suit came to filed with this background.

5. Defendants contested the suit by alleging that they were not competent to sell the land as the same was purchased by Hindu Undivided Family in their names from the common income of the HUF. Satbir Singh, Parmod and Harish were the coparceners whose consent was required for alienating the suit land.

6. Besides taking other grounds, it has been claimed that the plaintiff effected major changes and variations by way of cuttings and overlapping of lines in the agreement to sell without consent of the defendants and, therefore, agreement has been claimed to be unexecutable. Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Defendants also denied the allegations of the plaintiff on merits. Defendants also pleaded that they are owners of 2/5th share only and remaining 3/5th share is owned and possessed by Satbir Singh, Parmod and Harish.

7. Defendants further claimed that they had agreed to sell the suit land @ Rs.18 lacs per acre subject to the condition that plaintiff shall pay 10% of the cost of the land as advance to the defendants and agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 08.08.2006 on receiving the balance sale consideration. It has been denied that rate was fixed @ Rs.6 lacs per acre or the defendants had received Rs.3 lacs as earnest amount.

8. Defendants further alleged that the rate of the land was approximately @ Rs.20 lacs per acre at the relevant time and they could not have sold this land on such low price as claimed by the plaintiff. Receiving of earnest money has been denied. Material alterations in the agreement to sell have been pleaded to make the agreement as a farce.

9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

“1. Whether defendants are owners in possession of 751/978 share in the suit land mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint? OPP

2. Whether on 8.2.2006 defendants executed an agreement to sell in respect of the suit land @ Rs.6 lacs per acre and also received a sum of Rs.3 lacs in cash as earnest money? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for specific performance of agreement dated 8.2.200