The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing the due execution of the agreement to sell and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract in granting the relief of specific performance.

Darshan Singh, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rupnagar, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rupnagar, has been dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties is being mentioned as in the original suit.

2. Plaintiff-respondent Kuljeet Kaur filed the suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.11.2005 in respect of the suit land measuring 3 Kanals 11 Marlas as detailed and described in the head note of the plaint situated in the revenue estate of village Rambag, H.B. No. 257, Teh. Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar.

3. As per the case of the plaintiff-respondent, appellant-defendant agreed to sell the suit land vide agreement to sell dated 11.11.2005 at the rate of Rs. 5,40,000/- per acre. He received a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as earnest money on the date of execution of the agreement. The date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 10.05.2006. On 04.05.2006, appellant-defendant received a further sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and date for execution of the sale deed was extended up to 10.09.2006. The endorsement to this effect was made on the agreement to sell. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. He also served the legal notice. But, defendant fail to execute the sale deed. Hence, the suit.

4. Appellant-defendant contested the suit on the plea that agreement to sell in question is result of fraud. The plaintiff has made up the false story just to create the evidence. In-fact, defendant never entered into an agreement to sell his land with the plaintiff nor received any earnest money from her. He further pleaded that he never received any legal notice sent by the plaintiff. Certain legal and preliminary objections were also raised.

5. Plaintiff filed the replication controverting the pleas raised in the written statement.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:--

"1. Whether the defendant executed an agreement to sell dated 11.11.2005 in favour of the plaintiff regarding the land measuring 3K-11M as fully detailed in the heading of the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.11.2005? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

6. Relief."

7. On appreciating the material on record and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.09.2012.

8. Appellant-defendant preferred the appeal. The same was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.08.2013. Hence this Regular Second Appeal.

9. I have heard Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and have meticulously gone through the record of the case.

10. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the agreement to sell dated 11.11.2005 was never executed by the appellant for the sale of his land. He contended that the said document is the result of fraud and its due execution is not proved. He contended that agreement to sell Ex. P-1 only bears the thumb impression. Whereas, the witnesses examined by the plaintiff and even the plaintiff herself has stated that the defendant-appellant has signed the agreement in Punjabi.

11. He further contended that there was no reason for the extension of the time for registration of the execution of the sale deed when almost the entire sale consideration was already allegedly paid. He