The court emphasized that mere allegations of fraud require substantial proof, and readiness to perform in a contract is crucial in specific performance cases.

Judgment

Ms. Amarjot Bhatti, J.

The appellant/defendant – Amar Singh has filed Regular Second Appeal against impugned judgment and decree dated 18.04.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide which the appeal preferred by Amar Singh – appellant/defendant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra in favour of Angrej Singh – respondent/plaintiff was upheld.

2. Angrej Singh – respondent/plaintiff had filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 09.06.2004 regarding the land measuring 15B-4B, being 2/3rd share, comprised in khewat no. 65/67, khatoni no. 135/139, khasra no. 709(4-0), 719(4-0), 725(4-0), 737(4-0), 738(4-0), 1436/720(2-16), kittas-6 of total area 22B-16B as per jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 situated at Village Jalkheri, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

3. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant Amar Singh is the owner of aforementioned land. The defendant entered into an agreement to sell dated 09.06.2004 in favour of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 2 lacs per acre (that is of 4 Bigha). The defendant had executed/thumb marked the said agreement in the presence of witnesses vide which a sum of Rs.5 lacs was paid as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed and registered on 08.06.2005. The defendant had also agreed that he would clear the loan taken from State Bank of India (Shahabad Branch) before execution of the sale deed. All the terms and conditions were duly mentioned in the Agreement to Sell dated 09.06.2004. On 08.06.2005, the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub Registrar/Executive Magistrate along with balance sale consideration, but the defendant did not turn up. Ultimately, on the same day, the plaintiff got his affidavit attested from Executive Magistrate, Thanesar. Afterwards, the defendant was requested to execute and register the sale deed as per the terms and conditions of Agreement to Sell dated 09.06.2004. Not only this, the defendant was also seen negotiating with some strangers to alienate the suit land after defeating the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff also requested the defendant to execute and register the sale deed but the defendant refused do to so in the first week of May, 2008. Ultimately, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

4. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant who appeared in this case and filed the written statement taking the stand that the suit is not maintainable; the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit; the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the Court; the plaintiff is estopped to file and maintain the present suit by his own act and conduct; the Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit. On merits, it is admitted that he is owner in possession of land in dispute. It is submitted that the agreement was obtained by playing fraud upon the defendant as the answering defendant and the plaintiff were customer of M/s Mam Chand Khushi Ram, Commission Agent and in collusion with the said Commission Agent, the plaintiff obtained the thumb impression of the defendant. The defendant never received any amount nor intend to sell his property nor entered into any agreement to sell. Even otherwise, the rate of the land in the village at the time of alleged agreement was Rs. 20 lacs per acre. The alleged Agreement to Sell is result of fraud, therefore, there is no question of readiness and willingness. All the facts are wrong and denied. It was prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed.

5. From the pleadings of the parties,