2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 165
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No. 4945 of 2009 (O&M)
Smt. Parkasho
v.
Vikas Kumar and Anr.
{Decided on 06/01/2010}
For the Appellant: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for Mr. K.S.Dhanora, Advocate.
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963--Specific Performance--Agreement to Sell--Plea of fraud--Marginal witness and deed writer testified to validity of agreement to sell and disposed that Rs.1,20,000/- was paid by purchaser to seller as earnest money--Sufficient evidence to show that purchasers was present in office of Sub-Registrar on appointed day alongwith pay order of Rs.20,000/- as balance payment--No material shown by Seller form where it can be inferred that he was victim of fraud--Plea taken by seller that it is inconceivable that on 27.2.2001 she purchased suit property and that she would agree to sell it by of agreement to sell on same day in favour of purchaser--Not tenable--There is evidence on record to show that seller had purchased property for a consideration of Rs.91,500/- but it was agreed to be sold for Rs.1,40,000/- to purchaser and therefore motive of profitering as an allurement to seller to execute agreement to sell cannot be discarded--Therefore, it cannot be said there agreement to sell was forged and fabricated document--Suit of purchaser rightly decreed. (P.10 & 15)
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963--Agreement to Sell--Specific Performance--Essential ingredients required to be pleaded--(i) existence of a valid agreement to sell (ii) passing of consideration or in lieu thereof and (iii) readiness and willingness on the part of the person seeking to enforce the agreement to sell, to perform his part of agreement.(P.9)
