Court emphasized that once agreements are executed and earnest money paid, specific performance can be enforced unless clear evidence of coercion or duress is presented.

JUDGMENT

Ramesh Kumari, J.

The appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred as 'defendant') has filed the present regular second appeal assailing the findings of learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 923 of 20.05.1993 decided on 22.10.2001 and first Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 87 of 19.11.2001. The learned trial Court decreed the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreements to sell filed by the respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred as 'plaintiffs') against the defendant was decreed by the learned trial Court with direction to execute the sale deed within one month from rendering of judgement by the learned trial Court, upon receiving balance sale consideration amount and in case, the defendant did not turn up, the plaintiffs were at liberty to get the same executed through court of law. The remaining sale consideration was also ordered to be deposited in Court within 15 days from passing of judgement and the defendant was directed to execute sale deed within one month of deposit of balance sale consideration amount. First appeal was dismissed on 09.04.2003.

THE FACTS

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that defendant entered into agreement to sell dated 30.04.1987 entered in the register of PW-1 Deed-writer Mahavir Parshad Jain, vide P-1 for sale of his 1/2 share in the suit property in favour of plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 to the extent of 1/3rd share and plaintiffs No. 4 to 7 to the extent of 2/3rd share @ Rs.39,000/- per killa of 4 bighas and received Rs.20,000/- as earnest amount. The possession of the suit property was also delivered to the plaintiffs on same day. On 31.03.1988, the plaintiffs gave Rs.2,000/- more as earnest amount on the demand of defendant and the defendant in continuation of earlier agreement dated 30.04.1987 executed another agreement Ex.P-2 dated 31.03.1988. The plaintiffs were informed at the time of execution of agreements that defendant has civil litigation at Rajpura pertaining to the suit property and he will intimate the plaintiffs through post regarding the decision of the suit and thereafter, the plaintiffs will get the sale deed executed and registered in their favour within two months of said intimation. The defendant did not intimate the plaintiffs about the result of civil litigation and he tried to alienate the suit property in the month of August, 1992 and threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. The plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction against him seeking prayer to restrain him from alienating the suit property to any person and of their dispossession. Interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant had submitted written statement Ex.P-3, wherein, he disclosed that civil suit has been dismissed in the year 1991-92. The defendant also took the plea that his wife and minor children are entitled for maintenance and they have also filed civil suit against the defendant. From the filing of written statement of the defendant, the plaintiffs came to know about the result of civil suit at Rajpura and it was clear from the averments of the written statement that the defendant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and in order to avoid specific performance of both the agreements, the defendant got filed a suit for recovery of maintenance against him from his wife and sons. The plaintiffs got the suit for permanent injunction dismissed as withdrawn vide order Ex.D-3 on 03.06.1993 and filed the present suit for specific performance of agreements to sell dated 03.04.1987 and 31.03.1988.

WRITTEN STATEMENT

3. The defendant filed written statement denying the execution of both the agreements and specifically alleged that the plaintiffs have not placed on record o