Specific performance can be granted despite a clause for penalty if the contract execution and readiness to perform are established.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Suit for specific performance filed by plaintiff - Smt. Meenu (appellant herein) was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhiwani vide his judgment dated 02.05.2012. However, the appeal filed by the defendant -Sanjay Khanagwal (respondent herein) was though dismissed, but the appellate Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Bhiwani vide his judgment dated 18.02.2014, while modifying the relief, declined the relief of specific performance, and ordered the defendant to pay double the earnest money to the plaintiff in terms of the agreement (Ex.P1), along with interest. Against this reversal qua the relief of specific performance, plaintiff has approached this Court by way of the present regular second appeal.

2. Trial Court record was called. The same has been perused. In order to avoid any confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

3.1 As per the case pleaded by the plaintiff, the defendant is the owner of the disputed house measuring 70 square yards, situated in Bhiwani, and fully detailed & described in the headnote of the plaint. The plaintiff as serts that the defendant agreed to sell the property to her through an agreement dated 05.10.2006 (Ex.P1) for a sale consideration of Rs. 75,000/-. Out of this amount, Rs. 50,000/- was received by the defendant as earnest money in the presence of witnesses, and the sale deed was agreed to be executed on 05.01.2007. The agreement also contained the usual default clauses. The plaintiff claims that since 05.01.2007 was a holiday, she approached the defendant beforehand, requesting that the sale deed either be executed on 04.01.2007 or on 08.01.2007, after the holiday. On 04.01.2007, the plaintiff, along with the balance consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and other necessary expenses, remained present at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bhiwani; however, the defendant failed to appear. The plaintiff marked her presence through an affidavit. Again, on 08.01.2007, she waited at the Sub-Registrar's office, but the defendant did not show up, and she once again recorded her presence by affidavit. Despite several subsequent requests, the defendant refused to execute the sale deed. Consequently, the plaintiff served him with a legal notice dated 08.02.2007, to which he did not respond. The plaintiff claims that she has always been, and continues to be, ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Accordingly, she prayed for a decree of specific performance of the agreement dated 05.10.2006.

3.2 In his written statement, the defendant raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit, estoppel, locus standi, and cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. On merits, the defendant contended that the plaintiff is his paternal aunt (Bua) and that he had great faith in her and her husband, Satyawan. According to the defendant, the plaintiff and her husband had approached him, asking him to stand as a surety for a loan they intended to take. Trusting them, he signed 4-5 blank papers, which, he alleges, were later misused by the plaintiff and her husband to fabricate the impugned agreement. The defendant claimed that the said agreement was forged and obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, and thus, is not binding on his rights. He also denied having received any earnest money and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

3.3 Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record.

Findings of the Trial Court

4.1 Trial Court came to the conclusion that execution of the agreement dated 05.10.2006 (Ex.P1) was duly proved on record and that defendant had received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 75,000/-. Trial Court also found that the plaintiff had always been ready and was still ready and willing to perform her part of contract. The story of fraud as