Judgment :

Virinder Aggarwal, J.

By institution of the present Regular Second Appeal (here-in-after referred to as 'RSA'), the appellant has endeavoured to assail the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by the learned Courts below. The gravamen of the challenge, as projected on behalf of the appellant, is that the findings so returned do not emanate from a dispassionate or judicious appreciation of the evidence available on record, but rather stand vitiated for having been premised upon conjectures, surmises, and unfounded presumptions. It is urged that such an approach has resulted in manifest illegality and substantial miscarriage of justice, thereby causing serious prejudice to the rights and interests of the appellant. On the strength of these contentions, the appellant seeks intervention of this Court for setting-aside the impugned judgments and decrees.

2. The circumstances giving rise to the present proceedings are outlined as follows:-

'The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking possession and specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 14.08.2014 executed by the defendant (since deceased, represented by her legal representatives) in respect of a house at Village Dhakansu Kalan, Patiala, for Rs. 15,00,000/-, having paid Rs. 12,00,000/- as earnest money. The defendant failed to appear on the date fixed for registration of the sale deed despite repeated requests, prompting the plaintiffs to withdraw an earlier injunction suit and file the suit, also seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or encumbering the property.'

3. The defendant appeared and filed a written statement, contesting the suit and denied executing the agreement to sell dated 14.08.2014, receiving Rs. 12,00,000/- as earnest money, or agreeing to register the sale deed. It is further contended that the alleged agreement was fabricated using blank papers she (defendant) had signed in good faith for a purported bank loan, which was never sanctioned and claimed that the plaintiffs misrepresented the documents and instituted the present suit fraudulently. The defendant asserted ownership and possession of the property, disputed all other allegations, and sought dismissal of the suit, reserving her right to initiate criminal proceedings against the plaintiffs.

4. Upon a careful consideration of the pleadings, documents, and submissions of the parties, this Court has framed the following issues for determination, in order to effectively and impartially adjudicate the rival contentions raised in the present dispute, which are set out hereunder:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.08.2014? OPP

2. Whether plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction? OPP

4. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands? OPD

6. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

7. Whether the alleged agreement is result of fraud? OPD

8. Whether the suit of plaintiffs is false, frivolous and vexatious? OPD

9. Relief.

4.1. The following additional issue was also framed vide order dated 20.12.2020:-

2A. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to alternative relief of recovery of earnest money alongwith interest as prayed for? OPP

5. Both parties were granted ample and sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. Upon the conclusion of the trial and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajpura, decreed the suit and granted relief of refund of earnest money with interest. Aggrieved by the decree, the appellant-respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, which was dismissed while affirming the judgment and d