The burden of proof in specific performance cases lies with the parties, and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract are crucial.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) - Suit for possession by specific performance of agreement to sell dated 04.01.2016 with regard to land measuring 10 kanal 00 marla situated in village Jaspal, Tehsil Baba Bakala Sahib, District Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land') or in the alternative for recovery of double the amount of earnest money paid to the appellant/defendant by the respondent/plaintiff as damages as agreed, along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of execution of agreement to sell, was filed by the respondent/plaintiff with a further prayer to restrain the appellant/defendant from further selling, alienating, transferring, mortgaging or from creating any type of charge over the suit land. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2018. The appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide order dated 28.04.2022. The defendant is now before this Court in Regular Second Appeal.

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

3. The pleaded case of the plaintiff may be noticed as thus. The defendant entered into an agreement to sell the suit land with the plaintiff on 04.01.2016. A sum of Rs.14,96,000/- out of the total sale consideration of Rs.18 lakhs agreed upon between the parties was paid to the defendant as earnest money by the plaintiff. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 04.01.2017. On the date fixed, the plaintiff went to the office of Sub Registrar with the balance sale consideration and waited for the defendant, however, since the latter failed to turn up, the plaintiff got his presence marked in the office of the Sub Registrar. The plaintiff claimed that he had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, however, the defendant had failed to perform his part of the contract as he had failed to show up in the office of Sub Registrar. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that the defendant had refused to reply to the legal notice sent by him and had instead threatened to alienate the suit property. Having been left with no other choice, the plaintiff instituted the suit in question.

4. In his written statement, the defendant denied the pleaded case of the plaintiff and instead submitted that he had borrowed money from the plaintiff by way of a loan and since the borrowed amount of loan had accumulated to approximately Rs.4 lakhs, the plaintiff had been asking the defendant and his wife to execute a loan agreement. The plaintiff thereafter, connived with the deed writer and not only got the agreement to sell executed but also got the thumb impressions of the defendant and his wife fraudulently affixed on the agreement to sell, on the pretext of it being a loan agreement. It was thus, alleged by the defendant that the agreement to sell was a forged and fabricated document.

5. The Courts below on the basis of the material and other evidence led, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and recorded concurrent findings. It was held by the Courts below that (i) the defendant himself had admitted to having affixed his thumb impressions on the agreement to sell. (ii) he had himself purchased the stamp papers for the purpose of the agreement to sell which was thus contrary to the stand taken by him qua a fraud having been played upon him. (iii) the deed writer as well as the marginal witnesses had proved the execution of agreement to sell and thus, the case of the plaintiff stood duly proved as he had shown his readiness and willingness by not only paying earnest money to the defendant but also getting his presence marked in the office of the Sub Registrar on the date of execution i.e. 04.01.2017. (iv) the defendant had failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove allegations of fraud.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has vehemently argued that (i) the plaintiff had not approached the Court