JUDGMENT :

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant–defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1989 passed by the learned 1^st Appellate Court, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed and the suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 11.03.1985, in respect of land measuring 28 kanals 13 marlas situated in village Sasoli, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, was decreed, while setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.04.1987 passed by the learned trial Court which had dismissed the suit for specific performance or, in the alternative, for recovery of Rs. 60,000/- as damages and refund of earnest money.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in terms of their status before the trial court.

3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted the suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 11.03.1985 on payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 48,840/- or in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 60,000/- as damages. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant agreed to sell land measuring 28 kanals 13 marlas situated in village Sasoli for a total sale consideration of Rs. 57,500/-. At the time of execution of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as earnest money. It was agreed between the parties that if the area of the land was found to be more or less at the time of execution of the sale deed, the sale consideration would be proportionately increased or decreased. The date fixed for execution and registration of the sale deed was 15.06.1985. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was residing abroad and, therefore, the agreement to sell was executed by his father, Rattan Singh, on his behalf. According to the plaintiff, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and had sufficient funds to pay the balance sale consideration. It was averred that notices dated 09.05.1985 and 21.05.1985 were served upon the defendant calling upon him to execute the sale deed, but the defendant avoided the same on one pretext or the other. It was further pleaded that 15.06.1985 being a holiday, the attorney of the plaintiff appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 14.06.1985 and again on 17.06.1985, but the defendant did not turn up to execute the sale deed. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant backed out of the agreement on account of rise in the price of the land and thereby committed breach of contract, causing loss to the plaintiff, which led him to institute the present suit.

4. Upon notice of the suit, the defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendant denied the execution of the agreement to sell and pleaded that the alleged agreement was vague, indefinite and not enforceable, as no specific khasra numbers or boundaries of the land were mentioned therein. It was further pleaded that the defendant was an old man and the plaintiff, in collusion with the marginal witnesses, obtained his signatures on blank papers under the pretext of selling only 13 marlas of land and paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- only. The defendant denied having received Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money. It was also pleaded that the land in dispute was joint Hindu family coparcenary property and that there was no legal necessity for its sale. The defendant further pleaded that upon raising an objection regarding the alleged fraud, the father of the plaintiff assured the defendant to not to execute the sale deed in pursuance of agreement to sell. Even otherwise, he had no authority to execute the said agreement as he had no authority to enter into agreement on behalf of the plaintiff and without authority the agreement to sell itself was void ab initio. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the l