YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2026 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Palwal, vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal, whereby the suit instituted by the respondent was decreed, has been dismissed.

2. Case of the plaintiff is that defendant entered into an agreement to sell the house in question (suit property) owned by her in favour of plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 20.01.2015 for a total sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- was paid in cash as earnest money in the presence of witnesses on the same day against receipt. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 19.12.2015 on receipt of balance sale consideration. On 19.12.2015, plaintiff went to the office of Sub-Registrar, Palwal alongwith balance sale consideration and other incidental charges but defendant did not turn up and failed to perform her part of the agreement. Rather, she entered into an agreement to sell the suit property with one Mohan on 07.04.2016. It is further submitted that plaintiff has always been ready and willing and he is still ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and registered and repeated requests by the plaintiff to defendant to execute the sale deed fell on deaf ears, which necessitated the present suit. By way of present suit, plaintiff sought a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell in respect of the suit property.

3. Defendant in her written statement has denied the execution of the agreement or receipt of the earnest money. A plea has been taken that the plaintiff in collusion with defendant’s son namely Pratap obtained her thumb impressions on some blank papers and they might have converted the same into an agreement to sell. Her son has committed fraud with her. It has been denied that defendant has executed any other agreement in favour of one Mohan on 07.04.2016. It is further submitted that defendant owns only one residential house which is the suit property and she never executed the agreement. The value of the suit property was Rs.1,00,00,000/- and there was no reason to sell the same for such a meager amount and dismissal of the suit was sought.

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

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance by way of possession of contract/agreement to sell dated 20.01.2015 as well as permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPD

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

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

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act, conduct and acquiescence from filing the present suit.OPD

5. Relief.”

5. Plaintiff in support of his case has examined PW-1 Birpal, Halqa Patwari, PW-2 Ranjeet, Stamp Vendor, PW-3 S.S. Dalal, Advocate, PW-4 Narveer, PW-5 Preetam Singh, and plaintiff-Rameshwar himself appeared as PW-6 and he also examined PW-7 Lokesh, House Tax Clerk and he led in evidence documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P-15 and Mark PA to Mark PE and Mark DA.

5. On the other hand, defendant examined herself as DW-1 and has also led in evidence one FIR No.641 dated 26.10.2016, under Sections 420, 406, 201 and 120-B IPC, Police Station City Palwal, Ex.D1.

6. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on file, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant had executed the agreement in question by agreeing to sell the suit property in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- out of which she received Rs.40,00,000/- as earnest money and that she has failed to execute the sale deed. The plea of defendant that her thumb impressions were obtained fraudulently by her son in collusion with the