Specific performance of an agreement to sell is a non-discretionary relief and can be enforced if the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi I. Mehta, J. - Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal (for short, 'the trial Court') on 13.05.2015 whereby the civil suit filed by respondents No.1 & 2(caveators)-plaintiffs (here-in-after to be referred as 'the plaintiffs') against the defendant named Ravinder Pal Singh [since deceased and now, represented through his LRs-appellants No.1 to 3 and proforma respondent No.3 (since deceased and represented through her LRs)] (here-in-after to be referred as 'the LRs of the defendant') for seeking a decree for possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 18.11.2008 or in the alternative, for recovery of Rs.80 lac, was decreed as well as by the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2019 handed down by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal (for short, 'the lower appellate Court') dismissing the appeal preferred by them (the LRs of the defendant) to assail the above-said judgment and decree as passed by the trial Court, LRs No.(ii) to (iv) of the defendant in the said suit (arrayed as appellants No.1 to 3 in the first appeal) have filed the instant appeal.

2. The plaintiffs filed the afore-said civil suit while averring that on 12.09.2008, the defendant had entered into an agreement with them to sell the land measuring 08 Kanals in their favour and in pursuance thereof, he had received the entire sale consideration, amounting to Rs.20 lac, from them. Then, on 18.11.2008, he (defendant) executed another agreement to sell the land measuring 81 Kanals 03 Marlas (for short, 'the suit land'), being his 1/3rd share in the total land measuring 243 Kanals 10 Marlas, to them @ Rs.15 lac per acre and received another amount of Rs.20 lac from them as earnest money. Initially, the date of execution and registration of the sale-deed had been stipulated as 20.04.2009 but at the instance of the defendant, the same was extended to 20.06.2009 and again, to 26.06.2009 and on the said date, they (plaintiffs) had gone to the office of the SubRegistrar along-with the entire sale consideration, consisting of the PayOrders worth Rs.95 lac and the balance cash amount but however, the defendant did not turn up there to execute the sale-deed in their favour in accordance with the above-said subsequent agreement and then, they got their presence marked by submitting an affidavit to the afore-mentioned Authority, for this purpose. Despite their repeated requests as well as the issuance of legal notice by them on 13.07.2009, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed in their favour whereas they had always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract/said subsequent agreement.

3. The defendant filed his written statement, contesting the claim of the plaintiffs therein, inter-alia, on the grounds of maintainability, cause of action, locus-standi, concealment of material facts and jurisdiction etc. On merits, though he admitted the factum of his having executed the agreement to sell dated 12.09.2008 in favour of the plaintiffs as well as of the receipt of the sum of Rs.20 lac from them as the sale consideration but he denied the factum of the execution of the subsequent agreement dated 18.11.2008 by him and rather, asserted that the said agreement was forged and fabricated document and also simultaneously alleged that the plaintiffs might have procured his signatures on the same at the time of the execution of the earlier agreement dated 12.09.2008 by misrepresenting the facts to him. However, during the pendency of the suit, the defendant expired and his legal representatives were brought on the record. His mother, being one of his LRs, filed another written statement while taking an additional plea therein to the effect that the suit land was ancestral in the hands of her son (defendant) and there was no legal necessity to alienate the same and hence, he was not competent to execute any agreement to sell this land.

4. In th