JUDGMENT : 

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

CMs-221 & 222-C-2015

These applications were moved during pendency of the appeal, but vide an order dated 09.12.2022 of the Coordinate Bench, the same were ordered to be heard along with the main case.

By way of CM-221-2015, it was pointed out that during pendency of the appeal, appellant Sukh Pal had expired; that his legal heirs were not aware about the pendency of this appeal, or any order against alienation in the absence of any entry in the revenue record and they had executed a registered sale deed No.8975 dated 21.08.2012.

Both the applications [CMs-221 & 222-C-2015] are allowed. Subsequent events are taken on record, and subsequent transferees are permitted to be impleaded as respondents No.2 to 4. However, they will be bound by final outcome of this appeal.

RSA-2485-1995 (O&M)

This regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court dated 29.01.1994 and the learned First Appellate Court dated 22.07.1995, whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiff–Raja Ram (now represented through his legal representatives) for specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell dated 09.03.1989 was decreed, and the defendant–Sukhpal (now represented through his legal representatives) was directed to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land.

2. The defendant has approached this Court contending that the findings recorded by the Courts below suffer from perversity, having been returned without proper appreciation of material evidence, in disregard of settled principles governing proof of execution of agreements to sell and the mandatory requirement of readiness and willingness under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

3. Since the appeal arises from concurrent findings of fact, this Court is conscious of the limitations on its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. However, where such findings are shown to be based on misreading of evidence, non-consideration of material circumstances, or an erroneous approach to the law resulting in manifest injustice, interference by the High Court is not only permissible but obligatory.

4.1 Brief Factual Background : The suit filed by the plaintiff was founded upon an agreement to sell dated 09.03.1989 (Ex.P1), whereby the defendant allegedly agreed to sell his 1/3rd share measuring 6 kanal 16 marla out of the total land measuring 20 kanal 9 marla situated in village Bhupani, District Faridabad, for a total consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. It was pleaded that a sum of Rs. 500/- was paid as earnest money vide receipt (Ex.P2) on the date of the agreement, and another sum of Rs. 500/- was paid vide receipt (Ex.P3) on 10.01.1990, leaving a balance consideration of Rs. 59,000/-. The target date for execution and registration of the sale deed was fixed as 31.12.1990, though it was pleaded that time was not the essence of the contract.

4.2 The plaintiff asserted that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that he appeared before the Sub Registrar on the target date with the balance sale consideration, but the defendant failed to perform his obligation, allegedly on account of escalation in land prices. On these averments, a decree for specific performance, and in the alternative for damages, was sought.

5. The defendant denied the execution of any agreement to sell and pleaded that the amounts of Rs. 500/- each were advanced as loans and that his signatures and thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers under the guise of executing pronotes and receipts. It was further pleaded that the alleged agreement and receipts were forged and fabricated. Defendant also pleaded that he had no subsisting ownership in the suit property on the alleged date of agreement, as his share had already fallen to the share of his brother under a prior family settlement dated 16.07.1987. On these pleadings, dismissal of the suit was sought.

6. Fi