The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity and enforceability of an agreement to sell under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the importance of the letter of intent in property transactions.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral). - The appellant is defendant no.1. She assails the correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below. The plaintiffs (respondents) filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.04.2011. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the appellant executed an agreement to sell dated 27.04.2011 with respect to a plot measuring 200 Sq. Yds. on the basis of Form No.1776, dated 20.04.2011, on receipt of Rs.6,00,000/- as earnest money out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The remaining installments as well as the loan amount was to be paid by the plaintiffs. As per the agreement to sell, the sale deed was to be executed and registered on 29.08.2011.

2. The defendant contested the suit while asserting that there was no agreement to sell and if there exists any, the same is a result of fraud.

3. Before the trial Court, the plaintiffs examined Sh. Gurjit Singh, one of the plaintiffs as PW1, PW2 Baljit Singh, witness of the agreement to sell dated 27.04.2011, PW3 Gurdev Singh, another witness to the agreement to sell (Ex.P1), PW4 Kranti K Sharma, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert and PW5 Amit Singh, an official from the State Bank of India to prove their case.

4. The defendant appeared as DW2 and examined Arvind Sud, DW1 as Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert.

5. Both the Courts decreed the suit after noticing that defendant has identified her signatures on first and second page of Ex.P2 which is another agreement to sell dated 09.12.2010 between the plaintiffs and defendant.

6. This Bench has heard the learned counsels representing the parties at length and with their assistance perused the paper book.

7. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that there are interpolations in the agreement to sell dated 27.04.2011.

8. While drawing the attention of the Court to photocopy of the alleged agreement, he contends that certain spaces have been left blank and certain blank spaces have also been filled with hand and therefore, the agreement to sell cannot be specifically enforced. Moreover, at the time when the alleged agreement to sell was executed, even the letter of intent was not issued by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, therefore, she had herself, not become the owner of the plot on the day the alleged agreement to sell is said to be executed. The allotment authority had put restrictions on the sale of the property and therefore, the specific relief cannot be granted.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent has produced a photocopy of the agreement to sell Ex.P1. It is evident that the entire information with respect to total price, the amount of earnest money, the area of the plot, the agreed date for execution of the sale deed has been recited. He further submits that the relief of specific performance is restricted to the agreement between the parties. While elaborating, he submits that the plaintiff is entitled to the rights whatever she has. While drawing the attention of the Court to the judgments passed by the courts below, he contends that issue of alleged restriction to sell the property was never taken as a defence before the Courts below.

10. On a careful perusal of the agreement to sell dated 09.12.2010, it is evident that its major portion has been typed in (Gurmukhi) Punjabi language. There are certain blank spaces which have been filled up with the pen. From a bare perusal of the agreement to sell dated 27.04.2011, it is evident that there is neither any interpolation nor the agreement is proved to be the result of forgery. Certain blank spaces have been filled handwritten, however, this by itself is not sufficient to hold that the agreement to sell is interpolated. Each page of the agreement to sell has not only been thumb marked but has also been signed by the appellant. The appellant has signed the document in English language. Moreover, the area of the plot, the applicatio