JUDGMENT :

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. 

1. The present appeal has been directed against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned trial Court and learned Appellate Court dated 21.01.2023 and 03.10.2025 respectively, whereby suit preferred by defendant for specific performance of the agreement has been decreed and a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 05.03.2014 has been passed in favour of plaintiff and defendant has been directed to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff within a period of three months on receipt of balance sale consideration.

2. Case of plaintiff is that defendant being owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 1 Kanal 08 Marlas detailed in the plaint, agreed to sell the same in favour of plaintiff vide agreement dated 05.03.2014 for a total sale consideration of Rs.5 lakhs out of which a sum of Rs.4,06,000/- was paid as earnest money at the time of execution of the agreement. The sale deed was to be executed upto 04.09.2014, on payment of balance sale consideration and on the said date, plaintiff remained present in the Office of Sub Registrar, Jhajjar with the balance sale consideration and other incidental charges for execution of the sale deed and got his presence recorded by getting the affidavit executed. However, defendant did not turn up. Plaintiff requested him several times to execute the sale deed but of no help. It is further submitted that plaintiff has always been ready and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and since defendant failed to execute the same, legal notice dated 23.09.2014 was issued to him but of no help which necessitated the filing of present suit.

3. Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed his written statement and denied execution of any agreement dated 05.03.2014 and receipt of earnest money. It was submitted that the agreement in question has been fraudulently procured by plaintiff and he has concealed true facts. Infact, the parties to the suit had entered into an agreement for sale of the land on 07.02.2013 and sale deed was to be executed on 06.02.2014. However, plaintiff could not get the sale deed executed as per terms of the agreement and he sought extension of time of the agreement dated 07.02.2013 and entry in respect of execution of agreement dated 07.02.2013 is duly recorded in the register of the deed writer which had been duly thumb marked by the parties to the suit as well as witnesses. Receiving of payment of Rs.04,06,000/- has also been denied. It was further pleaded that plaintiff has concealed the previous agreement dated 07.02.2013 and execution of the previous agreement is also not mentioned in the agreement dated 05.03.2014 relied upon by the plaintiff which creates doubt regarding execution of the said agreement. There is also no writing in respect of adjustment of the amount already paid by the plaintiff against the previous agreement and a prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.

4. From the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for specific performance as averred in the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi and no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court? OPD

6. Whether the agreement to sell has been fraudulently procured by the plaintiff? OPD

7. Relief.”

5. Thereafter, plaintiff himself has died and his wife Suman has stepped into the witness box as PW1 and examined other witnesses i.e., Hemraj as PW2, V.B. Kashyap, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert as PW3 and Swaroop Singh Yadav as PW4 and has relied upon following documents:-

Ex.P1 Copy of agreement dated 05.03.2014

Ex.P2 Copy of letter dated 04.09.2014

Ex.P3 Copy of affidavit of Rajbir

Ex.PW3/B Report of