The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for specific performance was not barred by limitation due to hindrances caused by injunction orders and the resumption of the property. The court also affirmed the validity and enforceability of the agreement to sell despite the escalation in property prices.

JUDGMENT

Amit Rawal, J. - The appellants-defendants No.1 and 2 being sons of Jagjit Singh Mann are in Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of facts and law, whereby, the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 31.05.1982 in respect of partially built house No.132, Sector 9-B, Chandigarh, has been decreed.

2. As per the averments made in the plaint, Jagjit Singh Mann, father of appellant-defendants No.1 and 2 was owner of aforementioned house and desired to sell the demised premises. As a result thereof, the property in dispute, vide agreement to sell dated 31.05.1982 was agreed to be sold for a total sale consideration of Rs. 10.00 lakhs against the receipt of Rs. 1.00 lakh as earnest money paid, vide bank draft no.005687 dated 11.05.1982 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. The sale deed of the aforementioned agreement to sell was to be executed within a period of six months from the date of legal clearance as the premises, partly constructed, was in illegal possession of one Rattan Singh. It envisaged other conditions of obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration and Income Tax Clearance Certificate from the Income Tax Department, much less permission under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976. Once the plaintiff came to know that the property was in occupation of Rattan Singh and he did not vacate the premises after a lot of deliberations, consideration and discussions, both the parties agreed to reduce the sale consideration by Rs. 2.00 lakhs i.e., from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 8.00 lakhs on the same date and finally to Rs. 6.00 lakhs. Resultantly, a fresh agreement to sell was prepared and signed by both the parties. It was agreed that the sale deed would be executed within a period of five months from the date of eviction of the tenant. The symbolic possession was stated to be delivered to the plaintiff. Defendants No.1 and 2, i.e. sons of Jagjit Singh Mann were not having good relations with their father, filed a suit for permanent injunction dated 15.06.1982 seeking restraint against their father including the plot in question. The aforementioned injunction was vacated, vide order dated 02.01.1983. In appeal, again injunction was granted on 24.01.1983 and finally was vacated on 26.05.1984.

3. However, another civil suit bearing No.80 dated 11.04.1984 was, again at the instance of the sons, i.e. defendants no.1 and 2 herein, and obtained the injunction on 26.04.1984. The said injunction was vacated on 31.05.1988. During interregnum, on 12.10.1983 plot in question was resumed by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh but was restored vide orders dated 29.12.1987 and 13.03.1983, therefore, there was a blot on the title. In the meanwhile, on 5th December 1987, Jagjit Singh Mann died. The plaintiff contacted defendants no.1 and 2 for execution and registration of the sale deed but they did not come forward and in such circumstances, the suit aforementioned was filed on 02.09.1989.

4. Defendants no.1 and 2 on appearance contested the suit by raising numerous preliminary objections qua limitation, discretionary relief, no privity of contract, agreement to sell was a forged document. In the alternative, it was averred that the agreement was not enforceable as the same was rescinded by the conduct of the plaintiff. It was further averred that Jagjit Singh Mann had also entered into an agreement to sell with regard to the property in dispute with other person. The agreement to sell was stated to be sheer result of well thought plan of conspiracy hatched between the plaintiff and Jagjit Singh Mann (since deceased), for, three stamp papers, one for power of attorney and two for agreement to sell were purchased on the same day. The deduction of the amount was an malafide attempt on the part of the plaintiff and their father to use the same in the litigation. There was stipulation qua stamp charges to be borne by the vendor.