The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the agreement of sale and the requirement for the defendants to execute the sale deed as directed by the court.

Amol Rattan Singh, J.

This is the second appeal of the defendants in a suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, seeking possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of a contract shown to have been entered into on 20.06.2008 between the parties.

The facts, as taken from the judgments of the Courts below, are that the plaintiffs claimed that the four defendants (only three of them having filed the present appeal), were owners in possession of a half share of land measuring 2 kanals, comprised in khewat no.359, khatoni no.400, khasra no.377, situate in the revenue estate of village Kheri Khummar, Tehsil and District Jhajjar.

The defendants had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant (no.5), Om Parkash, for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-, vide the aforesaid agreement of sale dated 20.06.2008.

It was further contended that the total consideration having been paid and possession of the suit land also having been delivered to the plaintiffs, the sale deed was to be executed within fifteen days of a written notice issued to that effect.

The plaintiffs further contended that they had always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but since the defendants did not execute the sale deed and intended to sell the land to some other person, a legal notice dated 03.07.2009 was served upon them to execute the sale deed. The defendants having refused to do so on 15.07.2009, the suit was instituted on 21.07.2009.

2. Upon notice issued to them, defendants no.1 to 4 contested the suit by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections of locus standi and the suit only having been filed to harass them.

On merits, it was contended that no agreement of sale qua the suit land had been entered into and no consideration had been received. In fact, a suit for correction of the khasra girdawari was pending before the Court of the A.C. IInd Grade, Jhajjar, and in that suit the parties had settled their dispute by way of a compromise.

It was further averred that at the time of the compromise the plaintiffs took the thumb impressions of the defendants on two pieces of plain paper and it seemed that the agreement in question had been written out on those papers. Consequently, it was alleged that the agreement was based upon a fraud and therefore was not binding on the rights of the defendants.

3. Defendant no.5, Om Parkash, though was impleaded as a proforma defendant, also filed a written statement taking the same plea as taken by the first four defendants. He too contended that no agreement had been entered into between the parties and no consideration had been received, also echoing the other contentions raised by his co-defendants.

4. Upon the aforesaid pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar:-

“1. Whether the defendants no.1 to 4 vide agreement dated 20.06.2008 agreed to sell the suit land to plaintiffs and defendant no.5 for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and actually received Rs.1,00,000/-? OPP

2. Whether the possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiffs and proforma defendant at the time of execution of the agreement dated 20.06.2008? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP

4. Whether the agreement dated 20.06.2008 is result of fraud? OPP

5. Whether the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs just to harass the defendant no.1 to 4? OPD

6. Relief.”

(The 2nd figure erroneously shown to be Rs.1,00,000/-, in issue no.1)

5. The plaintiffs examined Shri Lal Chand Mehra, Advocate and scribe of the agreement, plaintiff no.2 Rohtash, the attesting witness-Shri Bhagwan, V.B. Kashyap-handwriting expert, R.S. Punia (a Bank Manager) and Hawa Singh, a Record-Keeper, as PWs1 to 6 respectively.

The defendants examined one Partap Singh who was shown as an attesting witness on the agreement, defendant no.3 Uday Bhan, handwriting expert-D.K. B