The court ruled that plaintiffs lack standing to enforce a contract due to improper execution and failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform the obligations under the contract.

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present second appeal has been filed by the defendant against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for possession by way of specific performance of Contract of Sale dated 01.07.1999, permanent injunction, and in the alternate for recovery of Rs.6 lakh, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. To correctly appreciate the dispute between the parties, the following family pedigree table reproduced hereinbelow, shall be useful: -

3. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint are that the defendant had agreed to sell the suit property to Dilbagh Singh vide Contract of Sale dated 01.07.1999. It was pleaded that Dilbagh Singh had died on 04.06.2002 leaving behind his legal heirs/plaintiffs. As such, the plaintiffs were legally entitled to get the Contract of Sale enforced in their favour. It was pleaded that intention of the defendant had become mala fide and instead of getting Sale Deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs, she was threatening to alienate, transfer the land in dispute to some other person. As such, present suit was filed on 23.07.2002.

4. Upon notice, the defendant had filed written statement resisting the suit by stating that she is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 12 bighas 10 biswas. Vide Agreement to Sell dated 01.07.1999, her brother Prithi Singh had agreed to purchase the said land from her for total sale consideration of Rs.6 lakh on behalf of his son Dilbagh Singh. Rs.3 lakh was paid as earnest money by Prithi Singh to the defendant at the time of execution of Agreement to Sell. However, subsequently, the said Agreement was cancelled between defendant and Prithi Singh by way of Writing dated 17.11.1999, vide which Prithi Singh had also received back the earnest amount of Rs.3 lakh from her, in presence of attesting witnesses. The writing regarding the cancellation of Agreement to Sell dated 01.07.1999 is typed on the back of first page of the Agreement at the instance of Prithi Singh and defendant; contents of which were read over to both of them by the Typist and which were stated to be true and correct by both; whereafter, they had put their respective signatures in Punjabi in the presence of attesting witnesses Mewa Singh and Kartar Singh, who had also affixed their signatures upon the said Writing dated 17.11.1999. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 16.05.2011:-

'1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of contract of sale as prayed for?OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of contact or in the alternative entitled for recovery of Rs. 6acs as prayed for? OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and have suppressed the material facts from the court?OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD.

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is time barred?OPD.

7. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD.

8. Relief'

6. Vide judgment and decree dated 11.02.2012, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura ha