Specific performance can be denied due to inordinate delay and significant increase in property value, even if the plaintiff proves a valid contract.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This is a Regular Second Appeal by the Plaintiff challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The plaintiff's suit for specific performance was partly decreed, as the trial Court awarded recovery of Rs.62,500 with interest but declined specific performance. The plaintiff's first appeal was dismissed.

2. Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused. To avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

3. Defendant No.1 Smt. Gurnam Kaur, was allotted Plot No.1 in Scheme No.7 by the Kaithal Improvement Trust/Municipal Committee through allotment letter dated 19.06.1982 (Ex.D15) for a total price of Rs.17,375/-, out of which she deposited one-fourth ( Rs.4,375). The plot measured about 250 sq. yards approximately, subject to adjustment on actual measurement at the time of possession, with additional charges for access area, if applicable. The allot-ment letter also required execution of an agreement with the Improvement Trust within one month.

4. Defendant No.1 appointed defendant No.2 Kashmiri Lal as her general power of attorney holder vide registered GPA dated 24.09.1982 (Ex.P1). Based upon this GPA, defendant No.2 Kashmiri Lal executed an agreement to sell dated 16.05.1983 (Ex.P2) in favour of the Plaintiff for selling the said plot for total consideration of Rs.62,500/- and received an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards earnest money vide separate receipt (Ex.P3). Defendant No.2 undertook to deposit the balance instalments of the sale price and to inform the Plaintiff ac-cordingly about the same. parties agreed that sale deed will be got registered within one month from the date so intimated. Balance price of Rs.57,500/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. Usual default clauses were also stipulated in the said agreement. Later on, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid by Plaintiff to defendant No.1-allottee directly on 18.12.1983 (receipt - Ex.P4). Another amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by him to defendant No.1 on 14.05.1985 (receipt - Ex.P5). This way, an amount of Rs.55,000/- was received by defendant No.1 and only an amount of Rs.7,500/- was leD to be paid as per the agreement. In the mean time , defendant No.1 can- celled the GPA of defendant No.2 vide registered deed dated 14.01.1984.

5. Plaintiff brought the suit on 24.07.1986 contending that he has always been ready & willing and still ready & willing to perform his part of contract. However, defendant No.1 was backing out from the agreement entered through power of attorney. It was further alleged defendant No.3 Rajpal started claiming himself to be transferee from defendant No.1 in the plot, though Plaintiff denies the said fact. With this averments, Plaintiff prayed for a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.05.1983 by directing defendant Nos.1 and 2 to execute sale deed in his favour on receipt of balance amount of Rs.7,500/-. In the alternative, Plaintiff prayed for recovery of Rs.62,500/- with future interest.

6. Defendant No.1 i.e., allottee Gurnam Kaur neither disputed appointment of defendant No.2 as her GPA nor she denied execution of the agreement to sell. She also admitted having received an amount of Rs.55,000/- out of total consideration of Rs.62,500/-. However, she denied that Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. This defendant also pleaded that though she had informed Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee, who is brother-in-law of defendant No.3 Rajpal, about the existence of the agreement dated 16.05.1983 between her and the Plaintiff but still brother-in-law of de- fendant No.3 agreed to transfe