Specific performance is a discretionary remedy; a plea of hardship requires foundational pleadings and evidence demonstrating that the hardship was unforeseeable at the time of contract execution. Readiness and willingness must be established through consistent conduct and proven financial capacity.

JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (“RSA” for short) has been preferred assailing the judgment and decree dated 14.03.1995 passed by the learned District Judge, Karnal, whereby the civil appeal instituted by the respondents–plaintiffs was allowed, while the appeal preferred by the appellant–defendant was dismissed. Consequently, the suit filed by the respondents–plaintiffs for specific performance of the agreement to sell came to be decreed, albeit by modifying the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1990 passed by the learned trial Court, which had earlier confined the relief to the alternative claim of recovery of Rs.1,70,000/-.

2. The brief factual matrix, as emanating from the pleadings, is that the plaintiffs asserted that on 11.02.1985, the appellant–defendant, Rajrani, entered into an agreement to sell the house in question, as fully detailed and described in the headnote of the plaint, for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,40,000/-. It was further pleaded that a sum of Rs.85,000/- was paid in cash as earnest money, and the sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered on or before 31.12.1985 upon payment of the balance sale consideration. Possession of the property was also agreed to be delivered on the said date.

2.1 The plaintiffs averred that they had always remained ready and willing, and continue to remain ready and willing, to perform their part of the contract. However, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement, thereby compelling the plaintiffs to institute the present suit seeking specific performance.

3. The defendant contested the suit by categorically denying the execution of any such agreement to sell and asserted that the alleged transaction was a sham and fictitious arrangement, never intended to be acted upon. It was contended that the defendant’s family had suffered substantial business losses and was under financial distress, with creditors exerting pressure for recovery and threatening liquidation of family assets.

3.1 It was further pleaded that, owing to the trust reposed in the plaintiffs, and upon their suggestion, a nominal and sham transaction was executed in their favour solely to ward off the creditors, without any intention of effecting an actual transfer of the property. The defendantdenied having received any sum of Rs.85,000/- as earnest money and further disputed the plaintiffs’ assertion of readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract.

4. Upon a comprehensive and meticulous scrutiny of the pleadings on record, coupled with a consideration of the rival contentions advanced by the parties, the learned trial Court deemed it appropriate to crystallize the matters in controversy and, for the purposes of a structured and legally coherent adjudication, proceeded to frame the following issues for determination:-

1. Whether the parties entered into an agreement to sell the suit property for an amount of `3,40,000/- on 11.12.1985?0PP.

2. Whether the defendant had received earnest money of `85000/- on11.2.1985?0PP.

3. Whether the plaintiff was always and still willing to perform his part of the contract?OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to sue?OPD

5. Relief.

5. Upon the framing of issues, both parties were afforded full and adequate opportunity to lead evidence in support of their resp