For specific performance, a claimant must prove their readiness and willingness to execute the agreement; failure to appear on the scheduled date undermines the claim.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. 

This is plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2021, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Narnaul dismissing the cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs and the appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2017, passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul vide which the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed but relief of recovery of Rs.9,00,000/- without interest was granted.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3(i). The plaintiffs (Sandeep Sanghi, Mahesh Gupta, Pawan Raj and Manmohan Rawat) instituted a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 29.05.2009 stated to have been executed by defendant No.1 (Prahalad Singh) in their favour in respect of land measuring 11 kanals (fully described in the plaint), situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Nangal Kalia, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’). Consequential relief of recovery of Rs.25,85,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum was also sought. Relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property or from creating any charge thereof was also sought.

3(ii). The case set up was that defendant No.3 had executed an agreement to sell dated 30.05.2008 (Ex.P-2) in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 for sale of the suit land. The total sale consideration was Rs.25,85,000/-. The target date was 25.05.2009 which is stated to have been extended to 11.12.2009 vide document Ex.P-8.

3(iii). Defendant No.1 was claimed to have executed an agreement to sell dated 29.05.2009 (Ex.P-1) in favour of the plaintiffs. Earnest money of Rs.14,00,000/- is stated to have been paid. The target date for execution of the sale deed was 25.09.2009. It was averred that defendants No.1 and 2 had undertaken to bring the original owner Smt. Moharly alongwith them at the time of execution of the sale deed on 25.09.2009. It had been agreed that in case the plaintiffs did not get the sale deed executed within the stipulated period, Rs.5,00,000/- out of the earnest money of Rs.14,00,000/- would be forfeited and the balance of Rs.9,00,000/- would be repaid to the plaintiffs.

3(iv). The plaintiffs averred that they had always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract but the defendants were not ready and willing. On 25.09.2009, defendants No.1 and 2 informed the plaintiffs that the stipulated date for execution of the sale deed had been extended upto 11.12.2009 and they requested the plaintiffs to wait for some more time. However, thereafter, the defendants kept on making excuses as a result of which legal notice dated 07.03.2012 was issued to defendants No.1 and 2 calling upon them to appear in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Nangal Chaudhary on 30.03.2012. On the said date, the plaintiffs appeared in the office of the Sub-Registrar but the defendants did not appear. The plaintiffs also got an affidavit attested as proof of their presence. Thereafter, the suit was filed.

4(i). The suit was opposed by the defendants. Defendants No.1 and 2 admitted the execution of the agreement to sell dated 29.05.2009. It was, however, averred that prior to this, an agreement dated 02.06.2008 had been executed and earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/- had been received. However, since the plaintiffs could not get the sale deed executed, the agreement was cancelled, earnest money was forfeited and then agreement dated 29.05.2009 was executed on account of the intervention of mediators from the society. The earlier agreement dated 02.06.2008 was for 22 kanals of land whereas the agreement to sell dated 29.05.2009 was for 11 kanals of land. The plaintiffs had paid only Rs.4,00,000/- but Rs.14,00,000/- was recorded in the agreement.

4(ii). It was averred that the plaintiff