The main legal point established in the judgment is that the readiness and willingness of the parties, the admissibility of documents, and the conduct of the parties are crucial factors in specific performance cases.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia , J. - Challenge in the present regular second appeal, which has been filed by the defendants, is to the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, whereby suit for specific performance has been decreed. Permanent injunction was also granted by restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land in favour of any other person except the plaintiff.

2. Mr. Sanjay Vij, learned counsel for the appellants has mainly raised the argument for admission of the appeal to submit that the case further requires consideration. It has been submitted that there was no proof of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the agreement and whether he had the financial capacity to pay the balance sale consideration. It is further submitted that the agreement in question itself was inadmissible as per Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act') and, therefore, liable to be impounded. The argument that the appellants NO.4, 5 & 7 being minors as such at the time of the agreement was also raised to submit that the suit would not be maintainable in the present form.

3. The argument has been rebutted by the learned counsel for the caveator/plaintiff Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, by referring to the facts and circumstances and how the conduct of the plaintiff shows that he was always ready and willing. He rather had kept serving notices upon the appellants asking them to execute the sale deed in his favour. The fact that they had obtained a stay against their father from alienating the land in question and, therefore, it would not lie in their mouth that the plaintiff did not have the financial means and was not ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. It is further submitted that no objection had been taken at the time of the exhibition of the agreement to sell (Ex.P6) and, therefore, no objection can be raised at this point of time. Even otherwise, it was not to be impounded for penalty, as per Schedule 1A of the Act, as applicable to the State of Haryana, since Rs.2.25 was the requisite stamp required at that point of time and the agreement was got stamped for Rs.4/-.

4. Regarding the issue of the minority, it is submitted that it had been noticed by the Courts below that the appellants as such had been sued through their mother initially. The written statement had been filed on 25.08.2014 when they all had become major and the issues had been framed thereafter on 04.09.2014 and they were in position to defend the Court proceedings and no benefit as such can be given to them on that account.

5. A perusal of the record would go on to show that the dispute pertains to the 8 kanal 9 marlas out of 33 kanals 16 marlas of land falling in village Badha, District Gurgaon, which was agreed to sold by late Harbir Singh, father of appellants No.1 to 7 and husband of appellant No.8. As per the agreement dated 30.09.2005 (Ex.P6), the last date was 30.10.2005 and Harbir Singh had received a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as earnest money out of Rs.25 lakhs fixed as sale consideration, for the land which was to be sold. Before the last date itself, the major sons and wife had filed civil suit on 15.10.2005 (Ex.P8) wherein challenge had been made to the agreement to sell being without consideration and legal necessity. The defence was also taken in the written statement which led the Trial Court as such to come to the rightful conclusion that the agreement as such was duly admitted and therefore by placing reliance upon judgment passed by a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in 'Nagindas Ramdas vs Dalpatram Ichharam @ Brijram and others, (1974) CurLJ 57', (SC) it was held that no further proof was required with regard to the admissibility of the agreement.

6. The property as such had devolved upon by Harbir Singh on the death of his father Dalip Singh, who had died intestate on 30.12.1999 and it was held that it was self acquired property and not ancestral property. Thus, Harbir Singh had absolute ow