Sushil Kukreja, Judge

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who were defendants No. 4(a) to 4(c) before the learned Court below against judgment and decree dated 17.12.2024, passed by learned Additional District Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 2/D/1/2023/2007, whereby suit filed by plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) was decreed with costs.

The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction directing the defendants to perform their part of contract vide agreement to sell dated 21.05.2007 and to execute a legal, valid and proper sale deed in favour of plaintiff and to get the same registered before Sub-Registrar Dharamshala in respect of land measuring 0-03-78 hectares i.e. land measuring 0-02-40 hectares, which is 240/1008 share of land comprised in Khata No. 198, Khatauni No. 385, Khasra No. 64, measuring 0-10-08 hectares and Khasra No. 68, measuring 0-01-38 hectares and land comprised in Khata No.200 min, Khatauni No.387 min, Khasra Nos.69 and 71, plots 2, measuring 0-62-89 hectares and land comprised in Khata No. 201, Khatauni No.388, Khasra No.1055/1047, measuring 0-03-88 hectares, in total 12 Kanals, situated in Mahal Khanyara Khas, Mauza Khanyara, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (For short “the suit land”). Further, prayer for setting aside sale deeds No. 685/2007, 684/2007 and 683/2007 executed by defendants No. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 4 with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant No. 4 from further alienating or creating any charge or changing the nature of suit land in any manner.

According to the plaintiff, defendants No. 1 to 3 are the owners of suit land, who were keen to sell the same and the plaintiff was interested to purchase it. Plaintiff was introduced to defendants No.1 to 3 by broker Shri Puroshotam Ram. Negotiations were held between the parties and they settled the price of land at the rate of Rs. 4,00,000/- per Kanal and total sale consideration of 12 Kanals of land worked out to Rs. 48,00,000/- Earnest money of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to defendants No.1 to 3 vide cheques No.133675, 133678 and 133679, respectively. The parties mutually agreed to execute and register sale deed within three months from the date of execution of agreements to sell. Defendants No.1 to 3 also sworn in a joint affidavit on 21.05.2007, wherein defendants No.1 to 3 have collectively agreed to sell about 12 Kanals of land to plaintiff forming part of a single transaction and in which they deliberately mentioned the rate of land at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per Kanal. Defendants No.1 to 3 served plaintiff with three separate notices dated 15.06.2007 averring therein that the amount received by them as earnest money has not been credited to their accounts. However, prior to issuance of notices dated 15.06.2007, defendants No. 1 to 3 have not made any complaint to the plaintiff that the earnest money has not been credited to their respective saving bank accounts. The amount was credited to defendants through Punjab National Bank, Delhi by bank transfer from CITI Bank Gurgaon on 26.05.2007, which means that the amount has come into the hands of an agent, which itself amounts to compliance of his part of contract by the plaintiff. Defendants No.1 to 3 returned the earnest money of Rs. 3,00,000/- vide three demand drafts No. 828205, 828206 and 828207 dated 26.06.2007 to plaintiff. Defendants No.1 to 3 were trying to back out of the agreement and might enter into some agreement to sell the suit land to some other party. The plaintiff issued notice dated 19.06.2007 to the defendants No.1 to 3 on 20.06.2007 asking them to refrain from selling the suit land to other person, which was replied by the defendants. However, the defendants sold the suit land to defendant No. 4 on 22.06.2007 vide three di