The court upheld the validity of an agreement to sell, emphasizing the necessity of credible evidence to challenge its authenticity, which the appellants failed to provide.

JUDGMENT :

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants against the judgments dated 08.08.2018 passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Jind and 10.01.2023 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jind whereby concurrent findings have been recorded against the appellants and the suit filed by respondent Suresh Kumar for specific performance and declaration stands decreed while the suit filed by the appellants for declaration to the effect that agreement to sell dated 03.02.2016 alleged to be executed by Jagdish Singh, husband of appellant No.1 with regard to suit property is false and fictitious document and not binding on the appellants, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case of respondent are that Suresh Kumar filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.02.2016 which was executed by Jagdish Singh in favour of respondent with regard to suit property. That said Jagdish Singh died after the execution of aforesaid agreement to sell and appellants are widow and daughter of said Jagdish Singh. The total sale consideration was Rs.13,50,000/- and Jagdish Singh received Rs.9,60,000/- as earnest money from respondent at the time of execution of said agreement to sell.

3. The civil suit filed by respondent Suresh was contested by appellants and they filed written statement.

4. Appellants filed separate civil suit challenging the validity of aforesaid agreement to sell dated 03.02.2016. The said civil suit was contested by respondent who filed written statement.

5. Both the civil suits were consolidated by the learned trial Court and civil suit titled Suresh Kumar Vs. Suresh Bala & Ors. was ordered to be treated as lead case. On the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.02.2016 subject matter of the suit along with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estoped from filing the present suit by his on act and conduct? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed proof and material facts from the Court? OPD

6. Relief.

6. In order to prove his case, respondent Suresh Kumar stepped into witness box as PW1 and also examined PW2 Ram Mehar, attesting witness of agreement to sell dated 03.02.2016 (Ex.P1), PW3 Naresh Kumar, Registry Clerk who deposed regarding registration of agreement to sell (Ex.P1), PW4 Rajesh Namberdar, who identified his signatures on Ex.P14 being its witness. PW5 Fateh Singh also deposed regarding agreement to sell Ex.P1 being its scribe. He also produced his register containing the relevant entry with regard to execution of aforesaid agreement to sell. PW6 Suresh Kumar, Stamp Vendor proved the stamp papers on which the agreement to sell in question was scribed. He also proved relevant entry of his register regarding sale of stamp papers in question. Respondent Suresh Kumar also tendered documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P20, copy of death certificate of Jagish Singh (Mark PA).

7. On the other hand, counsel for the appellants examined DW1 Suresh Bala, DW2 Surender, DW3 Subhash and also tendered documents Ex.DW2/B, Mark-A and Mark-C.

8. After hearing both the counsel for parties, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that agreement to sell dated 03.02.2016 is a genuine document which was executed by Jagdish Singh in favour of respondent for total sale consideration of Rs.13,50,000/- out of which Rs.9,60,000/- were paid as earnest money by the vendee to the vendor and further concluded that respondent was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and consequently decreed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 03.02.2016.

9.