Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
1. This is defendants second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.6.1999 and additional agreement dated 30.12.1999 executed by the appellants in favour of the plaintiff regarding suit property has been decreed and the appellants have been restrained from alienating the suit property forcibly and illegally to any other person except the plaintiff-respondent.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that the disputed property is owned by the defendants. The defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of land measuring 19 biswas 4 biswasis vide agreement to sell dated 25.6.1999 @ Rs. 50,000/- per bigha. At the time of the execution of the agreement, the respondents received Rs. 28,000/- in cash as earnest money from the plaintiff. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 30.12.1999. It was further stipulated that in case the defendants failed to execute the sale deed, then the plaintiff would be at liberty to get the sale deed registered through the process of law. The said date for the execution of the sale deed was extended from 30.12.1999 to 30.8.2000 vide additional agreement dated 30.12.1999. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff remained present before the office of Sub Registrar, Dhuri along with the remaining sale consideration and registration expenses on 30.8.2000 but the defendants did not turn up. He got marked his presence by submitting an affidavit. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he is still ready to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff has requested the defendants number of times to perform their part of the contract by executing the sale deed and to deliver possession of the suit property and not to alienate the suit property to any other person, but in vain. Then a notice was served upon the defendants on 1.9.2000 requiring them to reach before the office of Sub Registrar, Dhuri, but the defendants did not turn up. Hence, the present suit was filed.
3. Upon notice, the defendants-appellants filed the written statement contesting the pleas taken by the plaintiff. They have taken the legal objections that the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit, that the agreements are the result of fraud and misrepresentation. The suit property is a residential house and the value of the property is more than Rs. 6,00,000/- whereas in the alleged agreement the value of the property has been shown to be of Rs. 50,000/- per bigha therefore the alleged agreements are not admissible. The alleged agreement are unregistered documents and are not properly stamped under the Indian Stamp Act. The present suit is not maintainable. On merits, it was pleaded that in fact the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs. 18,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.6.1999 on interest @ 2% per mensem and executed pronote and receipt in his favour. However, the plaintiff might have obtained the thumb impression of the defendants on the blank stamp papers. The defendants have never executed any agreement to sell the property which is the residential house of the plaintiff. The defendants did not execute additional agreement on 30.12.1999, rather they borrowed an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff against pronote and receipt. They have denied the other pleas of the plaintiff and finally prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:
1. Whether the defendants had executed an agreement to sell dated 25.6.1999 in favour of the plaintiff regarding the suit property? OPP
2. Whether the defendants had also executed additional agreement dated 30.12.1999? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.6.1999 and additional agreement dated 30.12.1999? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
7. If issue Nos. 1 and 2 are proved. Whether the alleged agreement are the result of fraud and misrepresentation? OPD
8. Whether the alleged agreements are unregistered documents and are not properly stamped under Indian Stamp Act? OPD
9. Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD
10. Relief.
5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record the learned trial Court decided issues No. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Issue No. 5 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Issues No. 6, 7, 8 and 9 were decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff and consequently, as per the findings on the aforesaid issues, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance and also for permanent injunction.
6. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25.11.2006.
7. Still not satisfied, the defendants have filed the present appeal in this Court challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the agreement in question is a result of fraud and misrepresentation as it has been proved on record that there were money transactions between the parties and the plaintiff who is a clever person might have obtained thumb impressions of the appellants on blank stamp papers who were illiterate and simpleton persons otherwise the appellants never executed or agreed to enter into any agreement to sell the property which is their residential house. It is the further case of the appellants that they had already alienated their agricultural land to the plaintiff-respondent and nothing remains in their possession of the agricultural land. Since the suit property is a residential house and alleged agreement to sell is an act of fraud and misrepresentation, therefore, it will not be equitable to enforce the same against the appellants.
9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the findings of the courts below and has argued that the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the agreement to sell in question stands proved and therefore, the courts below were right in law while granting the relief of specific performance of the contract. Learned Counsel has also argued that no substantial question of law arises from the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court vide which the lower appellate Court has exercised its judicial discretion of granting the relief of specific performance in favour of plaintiff respondent and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. In this case the appellants have denied the execution of agreement to sell and have stated that the same is result of fraud and misrepresentation. Except the bald statement of appellant Surjit Singh who has appeared as his own witness as DW-1 there is no other corroborating evidence in support of the plea of fraud. A very heavy onus was upon the appellants to prove fraud in this case as execution of the agreement has been fully proved by the scribe and the attesting witness. The appellants have miserably failed to prove the plea of fraud practiced upon them.
12. There is also no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the suit property is a residential house and no decree for specific performance can be passed. A perusal of the agreement Ex. P-3 shows that the appellants had agreed to sell the house in question. The execution of this agreement has been fully proved. Therefore, now, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to say that it will not be equitable to grant specific performance against them for a residential house in which they are living. Explanation 1 appended to Section 20 clearly stipulates that merely inadequacy of consideration in its nature would not constitute an unfair advantage within the meaning of Section 20(2) of the Specific Relief Act. The contention of the appellants to the effect that the courts below should not have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in view of the hardship which would be visited by the appellants is liable to be rejected. The appellants were the owner of the house. They accepted the part payment from the plaintiff. Moreover, this plea of hardship is also not proved from the evidence on record of the case. It is not a case where the appellants did not foresee the hardship. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.D'Souza v. Shondrilo Naidu : (2004)6SCC649 , negatived the plea of hardship. Similarly, in the case of Madamsetty Satyanaranya G. Yellogi and two Ors. : [1965]2SCR221 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere delay is not sufficient to empower a Court to refuse the relief of specific performance. The judgment of the Apex Court reported in Sargunam (Dead) by Lrs. v. Chidambram : (2005)1SCC162 cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants is also of no help to him. In the present case, no such situation as envisaged under Section 20(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has arisen.
13. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises.
Dismissed.