The readiness and willingness of the parties in a suit for specific performance, especially when the agreement is admitted by the vendor, is crucial for deciding whether the plaintiff deserves a decree of specific performance.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) -

CM NO.7869-C-2015 in RSA No.3266 of 2015

This is an application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for leading additional evidence.

The application is allowed as prayed for.

CM-2574-C-2019 in RSA No.3266 of 2015

This is application filed by the appellant under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of CPC for bringing on record legal heir/representatives of respondent No.6-Gurmit Kaur, since deceased. It is asserted in the application that she has left behind the persons mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application as her only legal heirs. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly the application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and the names of the persons as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal heir/representatives of respondent No.6, since deceased, for the purpose of present appeal.

Amended memo of the parties annexed with the application is ordered to be taken on record.

RSA No.1951 of 2015 & RSA No.3266 of 2015

1. This shall dispose of two appeals i.e. RSA 1951 filed by the defendants in the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.02.2003, challenging the judgment of reversal whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 09.04.2011 partly decreeing the suit qua return of earnest money was reversed and the suit filed by the plaintiff was ordered to be decreed for specific performance. Another RSA No. 3266 of 2015 has been filed by the plaintiff of the connected suit, challenging the judgment of reversal whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, decreeing her suit; have been reversed and the suit filed by her has been ordered to be dismissed. Both the appeals are arising from common judgment passed after consolidation of two suits.

2. The facts as involved in the present case are that Mohd. Saghir, Mohd. Sharif and Mohd. Mushtaq filed a civil suit No.310 dated 11.09.2004 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.02.2003 against Baldev Singh, Smt. Charanjit Kaur and Grumit Kaur asserting therein that the defendants mentioned above had entered into agreement to sell dated 25.02.2003, whereby they had agreed to sell land to the extent of half share in the suit land to plaintiff No. 1 and 1/4* share each to the plaintiffs No.2 & 3. An amount of Rs. 2 lacs was taken as earnest money from the plaintiff. The target date fixed for execution of the sale deed was fixed to be 25.10.2003. The plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of contract. As a result, since 25.10.2003 was a holiday, therefore, they appeared before the SubRegistrar with requisite balance consideration on 24.10.2003, however, the defendant did not come present. On 28.10.2003 being next working day, the plaintiffs again appeared and got marked their presences before notary public. However, on 28.10.2003 as well, the defendants did not appear. Hence, the suit was filed praying a decree for specific performance.

3. On being put to notice the defendants filed written statement in which the agreement to sell was not disputed. It was asserted that the total consideration for the transaction was fixed to be Rs. 8,66,250/-; at the rate of Rs. 3,30,000/- per bigha. An amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was received as earnest money from the plaintiff. Other details were also admitted. However, it was asserted that since 25.10.2003 was the holiday, therefore, to be doubly sure the defendant sent a telegram to the plaintiffs on 24.10.2003 requesting them to come before the sub-Registrar on 28.10.2003. At the office of the Sub-Registrar, Malerkotla the defendant waited from morning till evening. However, the plaintiff did not come present. Accordingly, it was asserted that since the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to get the sale deed executed, therefore, their suit was rightly dismissed by the trial court.

4. Parallely, another suit