The main legal point established in the judgment is the plaintiff's ability to prove the existence of the agreement, payment of earnest money, and his readiness and willingness to perform the contract, which led to the decree in his favor.

JUDGMENT

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - The defendants have filed this regular second appeal against the judgments of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 22.3.2005 regarding land measuring 30 marlas i.e. 30/106 share of land measuring 15 kanals 6 marlas bearing khasra no.413 (15k-06m), khata-khatauni No.3/16 situated in village Wadali Guru, Tehsil and District Amritsar.

3. The case of the plaintiff was that late Chaman Lal, predecessor-ininterest of the defendants, had entered into agreement to sell the suit property to the plaintiff on 22.3.2005 for a consideration of Rs. 18 lacs. Rs. 5 lacs. were paid as earnest money to Chaman Lal vide cheque no.1470382 dated 23.3.2005 of Amritsar Central Cooperative Bank, Ltd. Amritsar. Another sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid vide cheque no.1470383 of Amritsar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Amritsar on 12.4.2005. It was agreed that if Chaman Lal failed to execute the sale deed on the stipulated date he would be liable to pay double the amount of earnest money. The sale deed to be executed on or before 6.3.2006. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract but the defendants have failed to do so. The plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Amritsar on 6.3.2006 along with balance sale consideration and amount for other misc. expenses but the defendants did not turn up to execute the agreement so the plaintiff got his presence marked before the Sub-Registrar, Amritsar.

4. The defendants are the legal heirs of Chaman Lal who died on 2.2.2006. Defendants No. 1 to 3 are his sons. Defendants No. 4 and 5 are his daughters. Defendant No. 6 was his widow. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 did not contest the suit and were proceeded against ex parte.

5. In the written statement filed by defendants No.1 to 3 they denied that any agreement to sell was executed by Chaman Lal or that any amount had been received by him as earnest money. It was submitted that Chaman Lal was a Commission Agent and the plaintiff used to sell his crops through Chaman Lal at his shop and used to take advance from him. The cheques, if any, issued to late Chaman Lal must have been for the discharge of the liability of the plaintiff.

6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined Prem Chand, Accountant, Amritsar Central Cooperative Bank, Ltd. Amritsar as PW1. He proved on record certified copies of cheques No.1470382 and 1470383 as Ex.P1 and P2 and certified copy of statement of account of the plaintiff as Ex.PW3. The plaintiff appeared as PW1 and proved on record the agreement to sell dated 22.3.2005 Ex.P1, application for marking his presence before the Sub -Registrar Ex.P2, affidavit Ex. P3, Jamabandi for the year 2010-11 Ex.P4, legal notice dated 17.3.2006 Ex.P5 and receipts Ex.P6. Ravail Singh, marginal witness to agreement to sell deposed as PW2 and identified his signatures at point A on the agreement to sell. Avtar Singh Lambardar, PW4 identified his signatures at point B on the agreement to sell. Sham Lal Deed writer as PW4 proved on record FIR lodged by him regarding misplacing of record. He further stated that the agreement Ex.P1 was scribed by him at the instance of parties. He also proved on record his register as Ex.PW5/1.

7. On behalf of the defendants, Pawan Kumar defendant No.2 appeared as DW1 and reiterated his version as per the written statement. Tajinder Pal Singh Assistant/Clerk State Bank of India appearing as DW2 proved on record certified copy of page No.1 & 2 of the Current Account opened in Form Ex.DW-2/A and Ex.DW-2/B. Besides, Sukhpreet Kaur, Finger Print and Handwriting Expert appeared as DW3 and Arun Wahi, Programmer LIC of India appeared as DW4.

8. The Ld. Trial Court noted that no doubt there was some contradiction during the cross examination of PW1 Sarwan Singh, PW-2 Ravail Singh, PW3 Avtar Singh, attesting witnesses wit