RSA No. 206 of 2005 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 206 of 2005 Date of decision: September 4 ,2008 Tasvir Singh ..Appellant. Versus Randhir Singh and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. A.K.Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Mavender Rathee, Advocate for the respondents. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. By way of this appeal, the defendant/appellant has challenged the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit of the respondents for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 25.6.1988 was decreed. In nutshell, the case of the respondents is that the appellant being owner in possession of the land in dispute measuring 16 kanals executed an agreement to sell on 25.6.1988 for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the respondents and they also paid a sum of Rs.90000/- as earnest money. The appellant had agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondents within a period of 2 to 2-1/2 months. In spite of the request made by the respondents to the appellant, he did not execute the sale deed in their favour. On 9.9.1988, the respondents appeared in the office of the Sub Registrar for execution of the sale deed. However, the appellant did not turn up to perform his part of contract on the basis of the impugned agreement to sell. It is further averred in the suit that the respondents were and are still ready to perform their part of contract. Hence this suit. The appellant contested the suit pleadings that he never executed an agreement to sell on 25.9.1988 of the suit land as alleged nor he has received any earnest money amounting to Rs.90000/-. It was further pleaded RSA No. 206 of 2005 2 that he has never put any signatures on the alleged agreement to sell and it was a fictitious document. The trial Court held that it has been established on record that appellant agreed to sell his land measuring 16 kanals for a total sale consideration of Rs. 100000/- and received a sum of Rs.90000/- as earnest money from the plaintiffs and they are entitled to the specific performance for agreement to sell. The trial Court also held that the appellant failed to produce any cogent evidence for agreement to sell dated 25.6.1988 was procured by the respondents on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation. The suit filed by the respondents was also held to be filed within limitation. The appellant challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court by filing an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani vide his judgment and decree dated 15.10.2004. Shri A.K.Goel, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the courts below have erred in law while failing to note the fact about the filing of the instant suit by the respondents on the last date of limitation which is three years. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that even where time is not an essence of the contract, the plaintiff must perform his part of the contract within a reasonable time and said reasonable time has to be determined from all the surrounding circumstances. Since the vendee has woken up only on the last date of the limitation period as prescribed under law, it will be inequitable to give relief of specific performance in such a case. According to the counsel for the appellant, the conduct of the respondent is such that it could not be said to be an act of their readiness and willingness for performing their part of the agreement dated 25.6.1988, and thus the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon judgments titled as K.S.Vidyanadam Versus Vairavan 1997(2) RCR(Civil) 312 and Sant Ram Versus Brij Mohan Kaura 2006 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 769. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently contended that both the courts below have recorded a RSA No. 206 of 2005 3 concurrent finding of fact that the respondents have established on record that they were willing and are still ready to perform their part of contract of the impugned agreement to sell, whereas the appellant has failed to do so. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as stated by the counsel for the appellant. However, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the findings of the courts below on this issue. The respondents had already paid almost the whole of the amount of the sale consideration and only a meager sum of Rs.10000/- as balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The appellant has not placed on record any evidence to establish that the respondents were not having the required balance amount for performing their part of the contract. No circumstance has been shown by the appellant on the basis of which it could be stated that the respondents are not willing to perform their part of the agreement. Thus simply because the respondents have filed the instant suit on the last date of the limitation period, in the absence of any other circumstance as stated aforesaid will not dis-entitle them from enforcement for specific performance of the agreement to sell by giving a finding that the respondents were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. For the reasons recorded above, I find no substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court. No merit. Dismissed. September 4 , 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE