Agreements validated as enforceable despite defenses of deceit; plaintiff's readiness to perform consistent with legal requirements for specific performance.

JUDGMENT

Vikram Aggarwal, J. (Oral)

This is defendant's second appeal against concurrent findings recorded by both Courts i.e. the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. A suit for symbolic possession of the ground floor and first floor and for possession of second floor of a building situated at Buria Gate, Jagadhari (hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed building') was filed by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.05.2009. This suit was decreed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.2016. An appeal was preferred by the appellant-defendant, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 15.05.2023 leading to the filing of the present second appeal.

2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for symbolic possession of the ground floor and first floor and for possession of second floor of a three storey building (fully described in the plaint) situated at Buria Gate, Jagadhari by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 20.05.2009 executed by the appellants-defendants in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The total sale consideration was stated to be Rs. 9,05,000/-. Rs. 4,80,000/- was stated to have been paid by way of ten cheques and Rs. 20,000/- was stated to have been paid in cash. In essence, Rs. 5,00,000/- was stated to have been paid as earnest money. A suit with regard to the disputed building was stated to be pending in the Civil Suit in which a stay order had been passed. As per the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed after one month from the vacation of the stay order. It had also been agreed that the second floor of the disputed building which was in possession of defendant No.6-Sat Parkash, who was related to the appellants-defendants, was to be vacated on payment of Rs. 15,000/- to him out of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 4,05,000/-. However, the appellants-defendants did not give any information about the fate of the civil suit but got a notice dated 23.01.2012 served upon the respondent-plaintiff in which certain false and frivolous facts about the appellants-defendants having received Rs. 1,00,000/- as loan were stated. It was stated that the agreement to sell had been executed as a security. Certain other facts were pleaded. It was also alleged that the appellants-defendants in collusion with defendant No.6 got some compromise effected with a view to cause loss to the respondent-plaintiff. It was also averred that the respondent-plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement. However, since the appellants-defendants did not execute the sale deed, the suit was filed.

3. The suit was resisted by the appellants-defendants. The execution of the agreement to sell was denied. Receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/- as earnest money was also denied. It was averred that they had sought financial aid of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the husband and son of the respondent-plaintiff for the marriage of appellant-defendant No.4. With a view to secure the loan amount, papers were got signed from the appellants-defendants and agreement to sell was executed. The value of the disputed building was more than Rs. 20,00,000/- but since the agreement had been effected by way of a security, the total sale consideration was shown as Rs. 9,05,000/-. All other averments were also denied.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the symbolic possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 20.05.2009 in respect of the suit property? OPP.

1-A. Whether defen