The main legal point established is that the readiness and willingness of a party to perform their part of an agreement to sell are crucial in specific performance cases.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) - This is the Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. The learned first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.01.2020 upheld the judgment & decree dated 12.02.2018, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Panchkula, whereby, the suit instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs for seeking relief of symbolic possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 09.01.2008, was allowed and the appellant/defendant was directed to execute the sale-deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs.

2. Parties to the lis, hereinafter shall be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

3. Brief facts of the case may be noticed. A suit for possession (symbolic) by way of specific performance in respect of Agreement to Sell dated 09.01.2008 qua property i.e. triple storey shop bearing No. 29, situated at main Market Village Abheypur, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula, measuring 15' x 8' (hereinafter referred to as suit property), was instituted by the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the defendant after representing himself to be owner of the suit property entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 09.01.2008 (Ex.P18) with the plaintiff. After execution of the aforementioned agremeent to sell dated 09.01.2008 (Ex.P18), out of agreed sale consideration of Rs.13,50,000/-, the plaintiffs paid Rs.2,00,000/- vide cheque No.'303035', dated 07.01.2008 to the defendant. It was agreed between the parties that the last date for execution and registration of the sale-deed would be 22nd February, 2008. It was further agreed that in case the defendant failed to perform his part of the agreement to sell, the plaintiffs would get the sale-deed executed and registered in their favour through a Court of law and in case it was the plaintiffs, who failed to perform their part of the contract, then the earnest money paid by them to the defendant would stand forfeited. On 21.02.2008, the plaintiffs made a further payment of Rs.5,25,000/- through cheques to the defendant, on his request, as he was in need of money. On the request of the defendant, the date for execution and registration of sale-deed was extended to 10.03.2008. On 10.03.2008, a further payment of Rs.3,00,000/-was made to the defendant by the plaintiffs and thereafter, with the mutual consent of both the parties, the last date for execution and registration of sale-deed was extended from 10.03.2008 to 17.03.2008. In the meantime, the plaintiffs requested the defendant to hand over the vacant and physical possession of the suit property, as they wanted to start a chemist shop there. The defendant assured the plaintiffs that he would execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs shortly. A request was made by the plaintiffs to the defendant to at least execute a rent agreement in their favour, so that they could obtain the necessary license for starting their chemist shop from the authorities concerned, as they were required to furnish the title-deed or a rent agreement with respect to the shop. The defendant then, executed rent agreement dated 09.04.2008 in favour of the plaintiffs. The last date for execution and registration of the sale-deed qua the suit property was again extended from 16.04.2008 to 15.05.2008. Even though, the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement, the defendant yet again requested for extension of time, as a result, the last date for execution and registration of the sale-deed was extended to 12.11.2008. The plaintiffs, thereafter, requested the defendant time and again to hand over the vacant and physical possession of the suit property, as most of the sale consideration amount already stood received by the defendant, but in vain. On the oral request of the plaintiffs, the defendant handed over the vacant and physical possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. An acknowledgement of the