JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant No.1 against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the ld. District Courts; whereby suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2, for possession by way of specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 12.10.2012; or in the alternative, suit for recovery of Rs.20 lacs; was decreed by the learned Trial Court for recovery of Rs.20 lacs; and in appeal by the first Appellate Court for amount of Rs.7 lacs alongwith simple interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit upto recovery of the same.

2. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 is shareholder to the extent of 11K 6 M (suit land) out of total land measuring 98K 9 M. On 12.10.2012, defendant No.1 had agreed to sell suit land to the plaintiffs for total sale consideration of Rs.52 lacs. Plaintiffs had paid Rs.7 lacs in cash to defendant No.1 as an advance sale consideration. Agreement to Sell was signed and thumb marked by defendant No.1 and witnessed by headmen of the village and also signed by Lakhbir Singh, one of the plaintiffs. As per the terms and conditions of the said Agreement to Sell dated 12.10.2012, Sale Deed was to be executed on or before 15.06.2013 after receiving balance sale consideration. It was further stipulated in the Agreement that in case of default of defendant No.1 due to which sale deed could not be executed, defendant No.1 will pay Rs.20 lacs as damages and even then, he shall be bound to perform his part of the contract. It was further pleaded that it was agreed that defendant No.1 shall clear the encumbrance upon the suit land before the execution of Sale Deed. Plaintiffs had further averred that on 15.06.2013, which was a Saturday, plaintiff had approached defendant No.1 at his residence and tendered balance sale consideration of Rs.40 lacs and requested the defendant to execute the Sale Deed. On 17.06.2013, plaintiff had again approached defendant No.1 and requested him to come to the office of Sub Registrar. It was averred that defendant No.1 had agreed and told the plaintiff to reach Tehsil office. Accordingly, plaintiff had reached Tehsil office with sufficient amount for the execution of Sale Deed. It was alleged that plaintiffs had waited for defendant No.1 till evening but the defendant No.1 did not turn up. Accordingly, plaintiff Gurwinder Singh got marked his presence by executing Affidavit of Attendance showing his willingness and readiness to complete the contract. After 17.06.2013, the plaintiffs were informed by defendant No.2 that defendant No.1 has entered into Agreement to Sell dated 06.07.2007 for the suit land in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 had filed a suit for grant of specific performance against defendant No.1. Later on, it had also come to light that defendant No.3, who is close relative of defendant No.1, had alleged that defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the suit land to defendant No.3 vide Agreement to Sell dated 21.05.2007. It was alleged that Agreements to Sell dated 06.07.2007 and 21.05.2007 are forged, fabricated and ante dated Agreements executed by defendant No.1 to harm the interest of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land. It was further stated that defendant No.3 has obtained a decree of possession of suit land from Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran vide judgment and decree dated 11.12.2013. However, the plaintiffs were not the party of the said judgment and decree. Therefore, the same is not binding upon the plaintiffs. It is contended that plaintiffs are still ready and willing to perform their part of contract. Accordingly, plaintiffs had requested defendant No.1 to execute Sale Deed in their favour or in the alternative, pay Rs.20 lacs as interest to the plaintiffs. But the defendant No.1 had refused to do so. Hence, present suit was filed on 26.08.2014.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the Civil Judge (Senior Div