Agreement to Sell--Specific Performance--Attesting witness can be interested person.

Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral):- This is an appeal filed by defendant No.2 and defendant No.6 in the original suit which was filed by respondent No.1 for specific performance of agreement to sell the properties mentioned in the head-note of the plaint, being aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed for specific performances.

2. The facts as mentioned in brief are that Gurdip Kaur wife of Mukhtar Singh and Manjit Kaur daughter of Mukhtar Singh entered into an agreement to sell dated 01.01.2010 with respondent No.1 regarding the sale of properties described in the head-note of the plaint as property ‘A’, property ‘B’ and property ‘C’ along with another land measuring 6 kanals. The property ‘A’ was described measuring as 8 kanals 6 marlas and it was owned exclusively by Gurdip Kaur. The property measuring 6 kanals mentioned above was exclusively owned by Manjit Kaur. But this property is not included in the present suit. The property ‘B’ was described as measuring 3 kanals 11 marlas which at the time of agreement was in the name of Mukhtar Singh. The executant of the agreement inherited it later on from Mukhtar Singh along with other defendants. The next property described as property ‘C’ is 01 kanal 7 marlas, likewise inherited later on by above said Gurdip Kaur and Manjit Kaur from Mukhtar Singh along with other defendants. The target date in the agreement to sell was fixed as 14.05.2010. The sale consideration was agreed @ Rs.12 lac per acre. It was further claimed by the plaintiff that since Manjit Kaur had already executed the sale deed regarding land measuring 6 kanals which was under her exclusive ownership, therefore, the suit was not being filed regarding that property measuring 6 kanals. Hence the suit was only regarding the properties mentioned as properties ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’, as described above, which were mentioned as such in the suit. It was claimed by the plaintiff that after the agreement, but before the target date Gurdip Kaur had expired. Thereafter, the plaintiff served a legal notice upon the defendants on 06.05.2010, asking them to execute the sale deed in his favour as per the terms of agreement. As per the stipulation in the agreement the target date was 14.05.2010. However, this day was declared as holiday. Next two days were holidays; being Saturday and Sunday. Thereafter, on next Monday i.e. 17.05.2010 the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar Ajnala for getting the sale deed executed in his favour along with the balance sale consideration. He also got his presence marked with the Sub- Registrar. However, the defendants did not reach the office of the Sub- Registrar for executing the sale deed. It is the claim of the plaintiff that on 01.06.2010 the plaintiff even offered Rs. 16,80,000/- to the defendants, which was the balance sale consideration. However, they did not agree to execute the sale deed in his favour. Hence the suit was filed on the very next day, i.e. on 02.06.2010.

3. Upon notice defendant No.1, the sole surviving executant of the agreement, did not turn up to contest the suit and was proceeded ex parte. Defendant No.2 contested the suit. Besides taking other preliminary objections it was claimed by him that the land mentioned as properties ‘B’ and ‘C’ in the head-note of the plaint were earlier owned and possessed by Mukhtar Singh. He resided with Sumandeep Singh, i.e., the appellant No.2 herein, who was serving him. Therefore, Mukhtar Singh had executed a Will on 29.03.2009 in his favour. On the death of Mukhtar Singh he became the owner in possession of the land left by Mukhtar Singh. It was further pleaded that defendant No.1-Manjit Kaur and the Gurdip Kaur never entered into an agreement to sell regarding the suit land or the other land measuring 6 kanals comprising in khasra No.40//8/2. It was further alleged that the agreement was procured by way of misrepresentation, in connivance with the witnesses and the defendants who were enemicable with the