JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

The present Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant as against the judgement and decree rendered by the First Appellate Court of Additional District Judge/3rd Fast Track Court, Haridwar in Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2009, Ompal Singh and another vs. Shanti Devi and another, as well as against the judgement and decree dated 28.10.2009, as passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haridwar in Original Suit No. 126 of 2006 Ompal Singh and another vs. Shanti Devi and another. By virtue of the judgement put to under challenge, whereby both the Courts below have concurrently decreed the Suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 25.07.2006 as executed by Darshani Devi and had directed the judgement debtor i.e. defendant/appellant herein to execute the sale deed within the time period as provided in the decree itself. It is these two judgements which are being impugned and put to challenge by defendant/appellant on two limited specific questions, one pertaining to the implications of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, secondly, which is also in relation to the relief sought for in the plaint, which would entail an interpretation of Section 21(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 which is the another substantial question of law, on which the present Second Appeal was instituted by the defendant/appellant, and as argued before this Court.

2. The Second Appeal in question came up for consideration before this Court at an admission stage on 10.02.2012, the coordinate Bench of this Court while admitting the Appeal has formulated the following substantial questions of law:-

(a) Whether in view of the provisions of section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, the relief for refund of earnest money was proper and sufficient relief and suit for specific performance could not have been decreed?

(b) Whether as per section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the court is not bound to grant relief of specific performance just because it is lawful to do so?

(c) Whether in view of the provisions of section 21(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the first appellate court ought to have dismissed the appeal since the plaintiffs had themselves sought the alternative relief of refund of earnest money and compensation?

(d) Whether in view of the notice dated 20.9.2006, the defendant no. 2/appellant could not have executed the sale deed as his name was not mutated in the revenue record in place of Smt. Darshani Devi within the period stipulated in the agreement to sell, hence specific performance of agreement to sell cannot be decreed against him?"

3. Before venturing to answer the substantial questions of law, on which this Second Appeal has been admitted, it becomes inevitable to deal with the case as pleaded by the parties to the dispute before the Court below.

4. Briefly put, the plaintiff to the Suit i.e. defendant herein on 27.11.2006 had instituted the Suit for the grant of a decree of specific performance for execution of the sale deed in pursuance to an agreement for sale said to have been executed by the predecessor of the defendant on 25.07.2006 whereby she has agreed to sell the property in dispute which constitutes to be a land lying in khasra No. 81 M, Khata No. 68 having an area of 1.302 hectares of village Solapur, Sikrora, Phargana & Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as “the property in dispute").

5. In the suit thus instituted on 27.11.2006, the relief which was modulated by the plaintiff/respondent was to the following effect: -

**vr% oknhx.k izkFkhZ gS fd%&

¼v½ fMØh rdehy egk;nk cgd oknhx.k cjf[kykQ izfroknhx.k vFkok muesa tks Hkh Jhefr n'kZuh e`rd dk mÙkjkf/kdkjh gksuk ik;k tkos] bl vk'k; ls ikfjr dh tkos fd os oknhx.k ls 'ks"k /kujkf'k vadu 3]56]000@& :i;s izkIr djds iz'uxr laifRr dk foØ;i= oknhx.k ds i{k esa vUnj vof/k fu/kkZfjr U;k;ky; jftLVMZ djk nsa] vU;Fkk izfroknhx.k ds [kpZ ij iz'uxr laifÙk dk foØ;i= oknhx.k ds gd esa ctfj;s U;k;ky;