The main legal point established in the judgment is that the land was severable, and the suit for specific performance was maintainable. The court also emphasized the importance of proving the validity of the agreement and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform.

AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

1. This is the second appeal of the two defendants in a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 01.12.2004; or in the alternative seeking recovery of Rs. 15,88,500/-, with a further relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, mortgaging, encumbering or transferring the suit property to any other person except the plaintiff.

2. The facts, as taken from the judgments of the learned courts below, are that, as per the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff), agricultural land fully detailed and described in the heading of the plaint, was owned and possessed by the appellant-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) and that they entered into an agreement of sale on 01.12.2004 with the plaintiff, qua the suit land measuring 44 kanals and 10 marlas, for a sale consideration @ Rs. 3,60,000/- per acre. The defendants herein are stated to have received Rs. 2,30,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff, with the remaining amount agreed to be received by them at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed, for which the date fixed was 15.05.2005, i.e. 5½ months later.

On 22.12.2004, the appellants-defendants issued a notice to the plaintiff, through their counsel, stating that 09 kanals and 04 marlas of the land agreed to be sold was not owned and possessed by them but by their father. The plaintiff is stated to have replied to the said notice, stating that the defendants had mis-represented at the time of agreement with regard to the ownership of the land but that he was willing to exclude the said 09 kanals and 04 marlas from the purview of the agreement and to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour qua the remaining land.

3. It was further contended in the plaint that the plaintiff always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and that since 14.05.2005 and 15.05.2005 were holidays, he came to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Rajpura, along with the balance consideration and other expenses, on 13.05.2005, but found that the office had closed due to the death of an ex-Minister of Punjab. He therefore went again to the office of the Sub-Registrar on 16.05.2005 but the defendants did not turn up till evening, and therefore the plaintiff executed an affidavit and got it attested, thereby marking his presence in the office of the sub-registrar.

Still further, it was contended that the plaintiff requested the defendants many a time to get the sale deed executed and registered but they having eventually refused to do so, and the plaintiff having come to know that they were negotiating for the sale of the suit land with some other persons, the suit came to be instituted on 15.06.2005.

4. Upon notice issued to them, the present appellants-defendants filed a written statement, controverting the averments in the plaint and denying that they had ever entered into any agreement qua the suit land with the plaintiff, or that had they received any earnest money from him.

It was contended by them that they had been defrauded and cheated, with one Prem Kumar, a property dealer, having manipulated everything.

As per the defendants, the aforesaid Prem Kumar, along with the plaintiff, represented to defendant no. 1 that the father of the defendants had signed an agreement with the plaintiff in respect of his entire land and that the sale agreement was in their possession. An agreement was also stated to have been shown to the first defendant, allegedly signed by his father.

As per the written statement, it was further represented to the defendants that “advance sale price” had been paid to their father, Pishori Lal, vide the said agreement of sale and that they, i.e. the defendants, were only to execute the sale agreem