IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4296 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: October 19, 2011 Mohra .. Appellant Vs. Jai Ram and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J Having been slapped with the decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement on 22.7.2009 from the trial court, the defendants preferred two separate appeals which were also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Palwal on 27.5.2010. The factual matrix, necessary for disposal of the case, is that on 1.2.1999, the defendant No.1 (now appellant) executed an agreement to sell his agricultural land measuring 11 kanals situated in revenue estate of village Kishorepur, Tehsil Palwal, as fully detailed in the heading of the plaint, for a consideration of `2,30,000/- and executed an agreement dated 1.2.1999 after receiving the earnest money of `2,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff. The stipulated date for registration of the sale deed was fixed as 2.5.1999. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and appeared in the office of the Sub Registrar on 3.5.1999 (2.5.1999 being holiday), but the defendant No.1 did not turn up to execute the sale deed. Thus, he sought the possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of the said agreement. The defendants contested the suit and denied the execution of the agreement and passing of the consideration thereunder and further alleged that the plaintiff had concocted the agreement in collusion with the defendants. Actually, the plaintiff allured the defendant No.1 with a view to get him married with some lady known to the latter and took him to complete some formalities. While reposing confidence in the plaintiff, he put his thumb impression on some blank papers which were misused by R.S.A. No. 4296 of 2010 (O&M) -2- *** him. It was further averred that similarly, the defendant No.2 also denied the allegations and stated that the defendant No.1 has no right, title or interest in the suit property, whereas, the defendant No.1 had suffered relinquishment deed on 22.6.2001 in his favour, therefore, he has become owner of the same since then. The pleadings of the parties gave birth to the following issues :- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree for specific performance on the basis of the agreement dated 1.2.1999?OPP 1A. In alternative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of `2,00,000/- at the rate of 18% per annum and cost of `1,00,000/-?OPP 2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi?OPD 5. Relief. Issues No.1 and 1A were decided in favour of the plaintiff, whereas, issues No.2 to 4 were decided against the defendants. The defendants also failed in two separate appeals preferred by them. There is no denying a fact that both the defendants admit that earlier defendant No.1 was owner in possession of the suit property. This fact also stands established from the copy of the jamabandi for the year 2000-01 Ex.PA. The plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box to prove the terms of the agreement (Ex.PW1/A) and execution thereof. Rattan Lal Sharma Deed Writer has also corroborated the version set up by the plaintiff. Besides the aforesaid oral evidence, the plaintiff has also relied upon the documents i.e. agreement dated 1.2.1999 Ex.PW1/A, receipt dated 1.2.1999 (Ex.PW1/B), copy of the legal notice Ex.PW2/A, postal receipt Ex.PW2/B, copy of relinquishment deed Ex.PW2/C, affidavit Ex.PW2/D, registered envelope Ex.PW2/E, copy of the mutation No.1370 Ex.PW2/F, jamabandi for the year 2000-01 Ex.pA, khasra girdawari from Kharif 2007 R.S.A. No. 4296 of 2010 (O&M) -3- *** to Rabi 2008 Ex.PB, copy of mutation No.1370 Ex.PC, jamabandi for the year 1995-96 Ex.PD and jamabandi for the year 2005-06 Ex.PE. No sufficient evidence has been led to rebut the execution of the agreement to sell. It is also established on the record that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Mere fact that the suit was filed after the period of two years does not dis-entitle the plaintiff for relief of specific performance particularly when defendant has totally denied the execution of the agreement and did not set up any claim that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the contract failed due to the fault on the part of the plaintiff. As regards the relinquishment deed Ex.PW2/C, though the plaintiff did not seek the relief for declaration for declaring the relinquishment deed as illegal, null and void, but in para No.5 of the plaint he has specifically alleged that the defendant had executed fictitious and sham relinquishment deed in favour of his real brother just to defeat his legitimate rights and cause loss to him. Thus, he could avoid this relinquishment deed without challenging the same. The agreement to sell was executed on 1.2.1999, as such this relinquishment deed executed by the defendant in favour of the defendant No.2, his own brother on 22.6.2001, certainly having been suffered after the defendant executed the agreement to sell, would be of no consequence and does not effect the decree for specific performance and the said deed appears to have been executed just to defeat the right of the plaintiff for specific performance of the decree. No substantial question of law arises in this case for determination. There is no reason to decline the specific performance of the contract. Dismissed in limine. October 19, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge