JUDGMENT :

MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

Present Regular Second Appeal (RSA) has been preferred by defendant Nos.2 to 10 against impugned judgment & decree dated 22.12.2023, passed by learned First Appellate Court, granting relief of specific performance on the basis of Agreement to Sell dated 10.12.2010 regarding land measuring 65 Kanals 2 Marlas out of land comprised in Khata No.152//177, Khasra No.20//6, 15,16, 24, Kitte 5, to the extent of 27 Kanals 6 Marlas and Khata No.68/81, Khata No.21/11/1, 20, 21/1, Kitte 3, total 13-14, total Kitte 8 to the extent of 27 Kanals 27 Marlas out of 41 Kanals and Khasra No.5//16, 17, 18,24,25 and 6//20, 21/1, Kitte 7, to the extent of 37 Kanals 16 Marlas out of 47 Kanals 5 Marlas, situated at Village Mauja Jaswantgarh, Hadbast No.239, Tehsil & District Panchkula as per Jamabandi for the Year 2004-2005 (for short ‘suit property’) while modifying impugned judgment & decree dated 09.02.2018 of learned trial Court, vide which suit was partly decreed and appellants were directed to refund earnest money of Rs.10 Lakh (Rupees Ten Lakh only) along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of aforesaid Agreement till realization.

(2) BRIEF FACTS

(2.1) Case set up by respondent No.1-Narender Singh (hereinafter referred as ‘plaintiff’) is that appellants (hereinafter referred as ‘defendant Nos.2 to 10’) are owners of suit property and they appointed respondent No.2- Balwinder Singh (hereinafter referred as ‘defendant No.1’) as their General Power of Attorney, vide registration No.1191 dated 08.11.2010 (Ex.PW-2/1)(hereinafter referred as ‘GPA’) of the suit property.

(2.2) Defendant No.1, being GPA holder of defendant Nos.2 to 10, entered into an Agreement to Sell (Ex.P-1) with plaintiff on 10.12.2010 to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) per acre (08 Kanals) and plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) as earnest money to defendant No.1 with a stipulation that on behalf of defendant Nos.2 to 10, he shall execute the Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff on 29.07.2011 in the Office of Sub Registrar, Panchkula.

(2.3) On 29.07.2011 i.e. last date fixed for execution and registration of Sale Deed, plaintiff went to the Office of Sub Registrar, Panchkula along with balance sale consideration; necessary amount of stamp paper as well as registration charges and remained present there from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, but defendant(s) did not turn up. Plaintiff contacted defendant(s) telephonically and requested them to come present in the Office of Sub Registrar, Panchkula to perform their part of Agreement to Sell; but they flatly refused to execute Sale Deed in his favour.

(2.4) Plaintiff made several requests to defendant(s) to get the Sale Deed executed and registered in his favour on payment of balance sale consideration; but they always postponed the matter on one pretext or other and did not pay any heed; hence, plaintiff filed suit for possession by way of specific performance on the basis of Agreement to Sell dated 10.12.2010 seeking directions to defendant(s) to execute and register Sale Deed in respect of suit property on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.1,52,75,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two Lakh Seventy Five Thousand only) along with all the rights appurtenant thereto and to restrain the defendant(s) from alienating the suit land by way of sale, transfer and mortgage in any manner.

(2.5) It shall not be out of place to mention here that initially, plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction, which was amended later on, prior to framing of issues, to a suit for possession by way of specific performance on his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, vide order dated 26.09.2012.

(2.6) Defendant No.1 did not choose to appear before learned trial Court and was proceeded ex parte, vide order dated 07.06.2011.

(2.7) Defendant Nos.2 to 10 filed joint written statement while denying the averments made in plaint and raised preliminary objections of maintainability, locus sta