JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Plaintiff-Dharamjeet Kaur has instituted the present suit under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 1 read with S.26 CPC for specific performance of contract arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant on 18.1.2014, whereby, allegedly the defendant agreed and contracted with the plaintiff to sell and transfer the ownership and possession of the land bearing Khewat Khatauni No. 48/70, Khasra No. 316/125 measuring 11-0 Bigha and Khewat Khatauni No. 170 Khasra No. 288/125, measuring 4-16 Bigha total land measuring 5-7 Bigha as entered in Jamabandi for the years 2006-07, situate in Village Mangseri, Pargana Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh by way of execution of registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In the alternative, plaintiff has also prayed for payment of compensation i.e. double the amount of earnest money and also for permanent perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from alienating, transferring or creating third party interest or changing the nature of the suit land in any manner whatsoever. 2. Plaintiff averred in the plaint that the suit land is owned and possessed by the defendant, who with a view to sell the same executed an agreement dated 18.1.2014 at Nalagarh, with the plaintiff for the transfer of the suit land in favour of plaintiff. As per agreement to sell, defendant agreed to sell his land at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/- per Bigha for total consideration of Rs.34,77,500/-. Plaintiff averred that at the time of execution of agreement, plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.8 Lakh to the defendant, which was duly received by the defendant. At the time of execution of agreement to sell, it was agreed between the parties that the balance amount i.e. Rs.26,77,500/-, would be paid to the defendant at the time final execution and registration of the sale deed. As per agreed terms, sale deed was to be executed and registered by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on or before 15.5.2014, after receipt of balance amount of Rs.26,77,500/- payable by the plaintiff. Plaintiff and defendant also agreed that in case, defendant refuses to get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff, plaintiff would be entitled to get the sale deed registered in his favour through process of court at the cost of defendant or the plaintiff would be entitled to receive double the amount of earnest money paid to the defendant. Averments contained in the plaint further suggest that it was also agreed inter se parties that in case the plaintiff refuses to make payment of the balance amount of sale consideration or get the sale deed registered,, the earnest money of Rs.8.00 Lakh paid by her to the defendant shall stand forfeited. Agreement to sell allegedly came to be executed inter se parties in the presence of the witnesses namely Madan Lal and Vikas Gupta. Defendant put her thumb impression on the agreement to sell and plaintiff put her signatures in token of the acceptance of terms and conditions of the agreement to sell in the presence of above named witnesses. Agreement to sell was duly registered in the Register of Shri J.S. Rana, Notary Public, Nalagarh. Plaintiff has averred that the agreement to sell was duly authenticated by the Notary Public, who read over the contents of the same to the defendant, who in turn put her thumb impression on the same, after fully understanding the contents thereof. Subsequently, plaintiff received a notice dated 3.3.2014, from the defendant through her counsel, alleging that agreement to sell in question was got signed from the defendant by the plaintiff by playing fraud upon her. Such notice was replied by the plaintiff through her counsel specifically denying therein the allegations of fraud. Plaintiff, vide aforesaid reply, also requested the defendant to get the sale deed registered after receiving balance sale consideration in terms of agreement to sell. Plaintiff kept on approaching the defendant again and again for doing the needful, however, she having found the defendant disinclined to get the sale deed registered, got her served with legal notice dated 14.5.2014 intimating therein that she would reach the office of Sub Registrar, Nalagarh at 10.00 AM for the registration of sale deed. Plaintiff reached the office of Sub Registrar, Nalagarh on 15.5.2014 at 10.00 AM and remained there upto 5.00 PM. Plaintiff had allegedly brought the total balance sale consideration for the registration of the sale deed but the fact remains that the defendant did not turn up. With a view to prove her presence in the office of the Sub Registrar, plaintiff got two affidavits attested from the Executive Magistrate one at 10.30 AM and another at 4.30 PM. Plaintiff had allegedly brought the total balance sale consideration for the registration of the sale deed but the fact remains that the defendant did not turn up. With a view to prove her presence in the office of the Sub Registrar, plaintiff got two affidavits attested from the Executive Magistrate one at 10.30 AM and another at 4.30 PM. Plaintiff averred in the plaint that she has been approaching the defendant time and again with the request to get the sale deed executed but to no avail. Plaintiff also made a request to the defendant for doing the needful on 18.5.2014, however, on that day, defendant clearly told the plaintiff that she would transfer the land in favour of third person. Plaintiff served another registered Acknowledgement Due notice on 20.5.2014 through her counsel calling upon the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration and thereafter, execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff specifically informed vide aforesaid notice that in case no reply is received from her, it would be assumed that the defendant is not ready and willing to abide by the terms of the said agreement. Aforesaid registered notice though reached the address of the defendant on 22.5.2014, but the defendant despite her being present at her given address between 20.5.2014 to 22.5.2014, purposely avoided receipt of the notice. Plaintiff again requested the defendant orally to perform her part of the contract on 23.5.2014 and 24.5.2014 but all such requests were rejected and declined by the defendant. Since despite best efforts put in by the plaintiff, defendant failed to get the sale deed registered in terms of the agreement to sell dated 18.1.2014, she filed the instant suit for specific performance of the contract. Plaintiff has averred that the cause of action first arose in her favour on 18.1.2014 when agreement to sell was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the suit land and when it was attested and authenticated by the Notary Public on 3.3.2014. Finally, cause of action is said to have accrued in favour of the plaintiff on 20.5.2014, when last notice was served upon the defendant by the plaintiff and said cause of action is said to be still continuing. 3. Finally, cause of action is said to have accrued in favour of the plaintiff on 20.5.2014, when last notice was served upon the defendant by the plaintiff and said cause of action is said to be still continuing. 3. Defendant, by way of written statement, denied the claim of the plaintiff as projected in the plaint, in toto by stating therein that the plaintiff has filed the suit with an oblique motive of harassing the defendant, specially stating therein that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. Defendant further stated that no cause of action, whatsoever has accrued in favour of the plaintiff and there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. Defendant averred that she had nothing to do with the alleged controversy. Defendant also alleged that the plaintiff is guilty of suppressing true and correct facts and suit has been filed on false and baseless facts, as such, same deserves outright dismissal. Defendant also averred that the agreement to sell dated 18.1.2014 was never entered into inter se plaintiff and the defendant nor the defendant had ever entered into the same and there is no valid and subsisting agreement to sell between the parties. Defendant alleged that the agreement to sell was fraudulent for the reason that no agreement to sell was ever entered into nor any earnest money was ever paid. Defendant alleged that the plaintiff taking undue advantage of the old age of the defendant and her simplicity, played fraud upon her. Defendant alleged that she had never entered into a valid agreement with the plaintiff and alleged agreement to sell being outcome of fraud, deceit and undue influence, does not affect the rights of the defendant. Defendant further averred that she is an old aged and uneducated lady, having no worldly knowledge. Defendant averred in the written statement that the plaintiff got thumb impression of the defendant on certain papers under the pretext of enhancement and receipt of widow pension. Defendant further averred that she is an old aged and uneducated lady, having no worldly knowledge. Defendant averred in the written statement that the plaintiff got thumb impression of the defendant on certain papers under the pretext of enhancement and receipt of widow pension. Defendant further averred that contents of the document, which was thumb marked by her, were never read over and she was never made to understand the contents thereof and it was only when defendant alongwith her nephew went to the Document Writer, who had scribed the papers at Nalagarh and had obtained thumb impression of the defendant on the Register as well as backside of the documents, it transpired that the alleged agreement to sell qua suit land has been got executed by the plaintiff by playing fraud upon her. Defendant has further averred in the written statement that she having come to know that fraud has been played upon her, served the plaintiff with legal notice that she is not under any obligation to get the sale deed registered in terms of the agreement to sell dated 18.1.2014. Defendant further stated hat she is an uneducated rustic lady and does not know the intricacies of law and she also does not how to sign. She further averred that the suit land is the only land, which is in her ownership and possession and as such there is no question of her entering into agreement to sell because in that eventuality she would become landless and homeless. She further averred in the written statement that there is litigation pending qua the suit land as such, there is no question of her having entered into agreement to sell with the plaintiff, with the aforesaid pleadings, defendant sought dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs. 4. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement, thereby refuting the contentions made therein and reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. 5. 4. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement, thereby refuting the contentions made therein and reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. 5. Before issues could be framed, plaintiff filed an application under Order 14 Rule 1 read with Order 10 Rule 2 and S. 151 CPC, seeking therein permission to examine the parties i.e. plaintiff and the defendant before framing of issues stating therein that since the defendant in the written statement has specifically stated that she was duped by the plaintiff regarding agreement to sell and she was made to put her thumb impression on certain documents under the pretext of pension, it is essential under the circumstances to examine the parties before framing of issues. Plaintiff averred in the application that in case thumb impression on agreement to sell is admitted by the defendant, controversy would narrow down and as such, plaintiff and defendant be examined before framing of issues. Aforesaid application came to be rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2015. 6. On 24.12.2015, this court, on the basis of pleadings of the parities, framed following issues: "1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance of contract as alleged? ...OPP 2. Whether in alternative plaintiff is entitled for decree of compensation as alleged? ...OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent perpetual injunction as alleged? ...OPP 4. Whether plaintiff is guilty of suppresio vari and suggestio falsi as alleged? ...OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit as alleged? ...OPD 6. Whether suit filed by plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? ...OPD 7. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action as alleged? ..OPD 8. Whether suit filed by plaintiff is false, frivolous and fictitious and vague as alleged? ...OPD 9. Relief." 7. Plaintiff with a view to prove her case examined six witnesses and on 28.9.2016, she closed her evidence in the affirmative, whereafter, the matter came to be repeatedly adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the defendant, for getting statement of the defendant's witnesses recorded. Defendant, by way of OMP No. 42 of 2017, prayed that since the defendant is an old aged lady, she may be permitted to examine herself after examination of formal witnesses. Defendant, by way of OMP No. 42 of 2017, prayed that since the defendant is an old aged lady, she may be permitted to examine herself after examination of formal witnesses. However, such application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 7.3.2017, whereafter, matter repeatedly came to be adjourned for getting the statement of the defendant recorded. Defendant also filed an application i.e. OMP No. 324/2017, under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of a Commission for the examination of the defendant, however, subsequently same came to be dismissed as not pressed on 13.9.2017. On 14.12.2017, this court granted one last opportunity to the defendant to remain present in the court on 10.1.2018 for getting her statement recorded but said order was laid challenge by way of OSA No. 11 of 2017, which came to be dismissed on 21.12.2017, as withdrawn. Finally, on 8.3.2018, defendant came present before the court alongwith her Power of Attorney, Shri Jaswant Singh son of Shri Karam Chand. Perusal of order dated 8.3.2018, reveals that on that day, learned counsel for the defendant, on instructions, submitted that the defendant is/was ready and willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in performance of her part of agreement to sell, after receipt of balance sale consideration alongwith interest. Learned counsel for the defendant also submitted that his client was ready and willing to indemnify her brothers, namely, Karam Singh and Sarwan Singh, with regard to Rs.1.00 Lakh allegedly received from them in 2001. It was further stated that the defendant was ready and willing to make statement on oath to this effect in the court. In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the defendant, Court also recorded statement of defendant Jagiro, on oath. It stands recorded in the aforesaid order that the plaintiff expressed her reservations with regard to payment of interest on the remaining consideration. It has been noticed in the aforesaid order that the defendant at the time of getting her statement recorded was quite vigilant and understood the subject matter. However, keeping in view her health condition, her evidence came to be deferred till the next date of hearing. It has been noticed in the aforesaid order that the defendant at the time of getting her statement recorded was quite vigilant and understood the subject matter. However, keeping in view her health condition, her evidence came to be deferred till the next date of hearing. Court specifically observed in the order that if defendant is not able to attend the court on the next date of hearing on account of her physical health, issue with regard to her presence for cross-examination shall be considered after recording examination-in-chief or filing her statement by way of affidavit. 8. Interestingly, in the aforesaid order, it also stands recorded that learned counsel for the plaintiff, defendant and proposed defendants (real brothers of the defendant), who also moved an application OMP No. 6 of 2018 under Order 1 Rule 10 for impleadment, which was rejected on 6.3.2019, submitted that from the statement of defendant, Jagiro, it appears that the dispute can be resolved through amicable settlement and as such, efforts to resolve the dispute amicably and to finalise modalities for settlement, matter be referred to mediation. Court, after recording aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, referred the matter for mediation to the Mediator, Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate, however, fact remains that the mediation failed and ultimately the matter landed before this court again, for decision on merit. 9. Vide order dated 22.3.2018, this Court dismissed OMP No. 61 of 2018 under S.10 CPC for stay of the suit, having been filed by Karam Singh and Sarwan Singh, i.e. real brothers of the defendant. Record reveals that subsequent to passing of the order dated 22.3.2018, matter repeatedly came to be adjourned for recording the evidence of defendant's witnesses, but on one pretext or the other, defendant avoided to get her statement recorded. 10. On 25.7.2018, the defendant filed an application under S.151 CPC (OMP No. 396 of 2018) seeking therein direction to the plaintiff to make balance payment or to deposit the balance sale consideration with upto date interest enabling her to get the sale deed executed in terms of agreement to sell. 10. On 25.7.2018, the defendant filed an application under S.151 CPC (OMP No. 396 of 2018) seeking therein direction to the plaintiff to make balance payment or to deposit the balance sale consideration with upto date interest enabling her to get the sale deed executed in terms of agreement to sell. In the application referred to herein above, defendant averred that in view of her statement recorded on 8.3.2018, she is ready and willing to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of balance sale consideration, as such, direction may be issued in favour of the defendant. Plaintiff, by way of reply, though expressed her readiness and willingness to pay the sale consideration but stated that she is not under any obligation to pay the interest, if any, on the sale consideration. 11. On 17.6.2019, learned counsel for the defendant, on instructions of the Attorney, stated that the defendant does not intend to appear in the witness box and she is ready and willing to get the sale deed registered in terms of agreement to sell dated 18.1.2014. Learned counsel for the defendant, while referring to OMP No. 396 of 2018, contended that prayer has already been made on behalf of defendant to issue appropriate directions to the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed and registered after paying balance sale consideration and such directions may be issued. 12. This Court, vide order dated 18.6.2019, 8.7.2019 and 18.9.2019, directed the defendant as well as her Attorney, Shri Jaswant Singh, to remain present in Court. On 26.6.2019, defendant, Smt. Jagiro as well as her Special Power of Attorney, Jaswant Singh, came present in the court. Shri Jaswant Singh, Special Power of Attorney also made available Special Power of Attorney executed in his favour by Smt. Jagiro, defendant, authorizing him to represent her in the present proceedings. On that day, defendant stated that in view of her old age, it is not possible for her to visit the court time and again and further action, if any, is to be taken by her after consulting her daughter, Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, who resides at Surajpur. 13. This Court, taking note of the fact that the examination-in-chief of Smt. Jagiro, already stands recorded on 8.3.2018, whereafter, the matter repeatedly came to be adjourned for her cross-examination, directed Mr. 13. This Court, taking note of the fact that the examination-in-chief of Smt. Jagiro, already stands recorded on 8.3.2018, whereafter, the matter repeatedly came to be adjourned for her cross-examination, directed Mr. B.B. Vaid, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff to cross-examine her on that day itself, so that defendant Jagiro, who is 90 years old, is saved from the ordeal of coming to the court again. Learned Senior Advocate for the defendant did not oppose the aforesaid process proposed to be adopted in the present case and accordingly, Mr. B.B. Vaid, learned counsel representing the plaintiff cross-examined Smt. Jagiro, defendant, whereafter, Ms. Sonia Saini, learned counsel for the defendant, on instructions, stated that no further evidence is required to be adduced on record, on behalf of the defendant, as such, evidence of the defendant be closed. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. Since all the issues are interconnected and interlinked, as such, are being taken up together for determination, to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. Issues No. 1 to 8 16. In order to prove the execution of agreement to sell dated 18.1.2014 and advance payment of Rs.8.00 lakh to the defendant, plaintiff has examined herself as PW- 1. While deposing before the court, she stated that agreement dated 18.1.2014 (Ext. PW- 1/A) was entered into between her and defendant, for the sale of suit land at the rate of Rs.6.5 Lakh per Bigha and a sum of Rs.8.00 lakh was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of execution of agreement to sell. Money was lent by her aunt Pyari Devi, after withdrawing the same from her account. Money was counted by nephew of defendant, Jaswant Singh. Agreement was typed out by Shri Raj Kumar, which was witnessed by Madan and Vikas. Jagiro (defendant) had thumb marked the agreement and then plaintiff had signed the agreement and thereafter the witnesses aforesaid. Contents of agreement to sell were read over and explained to the defendant. Agreement was produced before Notary Public, who read over the contents to the defendant. Plaintiff acknowledged factum of service of notice upon her by defendant, Ext. PW-1/B, which was replied to her vide reply, Ext. PW-1/C. She has stated that the sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.5.2014. Agreement was produced before Notary Public, who read over the contents to the defendant. Plaintiff acknowledged factum of service of notice upon her by defendant, Ext. PW-1/B, which was replied to her vide reply, Ext. PW-1/C. She has stated that the sale deed was to be executed on or before 15.5.2014. Plaintiff specifically stated that she visited the defendant many times. Plaintiff stated that she was present in the court campus on 15.5.2014 throughout the day, however, the defendant did not turn up. Plaintiff further deposed that she served the defendant with legal notice dated 18.5.2014 (Ext. PW-1/F). Post receipt is Ext. PW-1/G. Legal notice was received back by her undelivered, vide Ext. PW-1/H. Plaintiff specifically stated that she is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration. In her cross-examination, plaintiff stated that she does not know when husband of the defendant had expired and whether she was in receipt of any widow pension. She has denied that she called defendant to court premises on 18.1.2014 under the pretext of getting her pension enhanced. She has specifically stated that stamp papers were purchased by defendant. She further stated that the witnesses of the agreement to sell, Madan and Vikas were not known to her, rather they were known to Jaswant Singh. Agreement to sell was reduced into writing at the instance of the defendant. She has denied the suggestion put to her that she never paid Rs.8.00 lakh to the defendant. 17. PW-2 Jagat Singh Rana, has stated that plaintiff had gone to him for getting reply Ext. PW-1/C to legal notice, Ext. PW-1/B drafted from him. 18. PW-3 Vikash Gupta stated that he worked as a Document Writer. He was asked by the plaintiff to witness the agreement to sell. This witness has specifically stated that he was told by defendant that she has sold the land measuring 5 Bigha 7 Biswa to the plaintiff. This witness stated that he read over the contents of the agreement to sell to the defendant. Defendant told this witness that she received Rs.8.00 Lakh in advance. He has identified his signatures encircled at point 'A' on Ext. PW-1/A. This witness also identified signatures of plaintiff at point 'B' and that of defendant at point 'C' and that of witness Madan at point 'D'. In cross-examination, this witness has specifically stated that Jaswant Singh, nephew of defendant is known to him. He has identified his signatures encircled at point 'A' on Ext. PW-1/A. This witness also identified signatures of plaintiff at point 'B' and that of defendant at point 'C' and that of witness Madan at point 'D'. In cross-examination, this witness has specifically stated that Jaswant Singh, nephew of defendant is known to him. This witness has stated that Rs.8.00 Lakh was paid to defendant in his presence. This witness has further stated in his cross-examination that the agreement to sell was firstly thumb marked by defendant, then signed by plaintiff, witness Madan and lastly by him. This witness has denied the suggestion put to him that he being friend of plaintiff's brother, had managed to execute the sale deed to grab land of the defendant. 19. Madan Lal was given up by learned counsel for the plaintiff on 21.6.2016. 20. PW-4 Arvind Kumar, Registration Clerk of Tehsil Office Nalagarh produced record qua affidavits executed by plaintiff Exts. PW-1/D and PW-1/E. He has identified signatures of Tehsildar. In his cross-examination, he stated that these affidavits were attested by Tehsildar in his presence. 21. PW-5 Varun Singh, Junior Associate, State Bank of Patiala, Nalagarh produced photocopy of withdrawal voucher and account opening form submitted by Smt. Ram Pyari wife of Shri Hem Raj. He has verified that Ram Prayi had withdrawn Rs.8,00,000/- from her account on 18.1.2014. 22. PW-6, Smt. Ram Pyari has stated that plaintiff is daughter of her real sister Jabero, who was married to her husband as a second wife. She stated that she withdrew Rs.8,00,000/- from her account in State Bank of Patiala and paid the same to the plaintiff. This witness though appeared to be blind, but there was no medical record to prove the same. However, in her cross-examination, she stated that she was blind for the last 20 years. She has denied the suggestion that the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was not paid by plaintiff to the defendant. 23. PW Nand Lal was given up by learned counsel for the plaintiff on 28.9.2016. 24. Defendant has examined Trilok Singh Chandel, SWO, UCO Bank, Nalagarh. This witness stated that saving bank account of defendant was opened on the introduction by Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, which is compulsory in case of widow pension and senior citizens. 23. PW Nand Lal was given up by learned counsel for the plaintiff on 28.9.2016. 24. Defendant has examined Trilok Singh Chandel, SWO, UCO Bank, Nalagarh. This witness stated that saving bank account of defendant was opened on the introduction by Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, which is compulsory in case of widow pension and senior citizens. In his cross-examination, he admitted that in case of opening of account by widow pensioner and senior citizen, any other person known to the Bank Authority can identify the person opening the account. 25. DW Chhaju Ram was given up by learned counsel for the defendant on 21.3.2017. 26. Defendant appeared herself as DW-2 on 8.3.2018, wherein she has straightway admitted the factum with regard to execution of agreement to sell dated 18.1.2014 for a total sale consideration of Rs.34,77,500/- and receipt of Rs.8.00 Lakh at the time of execution of agreement to sell. She also stated that she was ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in favour of petitioner. She expressed her intention to refund Rs.1.00 Lakh to her brothers, namely Karam Singh and Sarwan Singh, since agreement with them had not been acted upon. Due to her ill-health, her cross-examination was conducted on 26.7.2019. During her cross-examination, this witness admitted that she had received Rs.8.00 lakh at the time of execution of agreement to sell dated 18.1.2014 (Ext. PW-1/A). She admitted in cross-examination that in case of payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.26,77,500/-, she was ready and willing to execute and register sale deed in favour of defendant. She has stated in her cross-examination that the agreement entered into with her brothers, namely Karam Singh and Sarwan Singh, was result of fraud and without her consent. She expressed her intention to consult her daughter, Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, before taking further action. She admitted Jaswant Singh to be her Special Power of Attorney. She also admitted copy of Special Power of Attorney, Ext. PW- 1/J, to be true and correct. Evidence of defendant was closed on 26.7.2019, with the cross-examination of the defendant. Most importantly, this witness categorically deposed in her examination-in-chief that she had received Rs.1.00 Lakh from her brothers, Karam Singh and Sarwan Singh, but she intended to return the same since the agreement with them could not be acted upon. 27. Evidence of defendant was closed on 26.7.2019, with the cross-examination of the defendant. Most importantly, this witness categorically deposed in her examination-in-chief that she had received Rs.1.00 Lakh from her brothers, Karam Singh and Sarwan Singh, but she intended to return the same since the agreement with them could not be acted upon. 27. Though the defendant tried to carve out a case in her written statement that the agreement to sell allegedly entered inter se parties is the result of fraud by the plaintiff, but the defendant has not led any evidence in this regard. The only evidence she has led is oral testimony of DW-1, Trilok Singh Chandel and her own deposition, wherein it has not been stated that the agreement to sell was either not executed between the parties or same was result of fraud. Defendant has not been able to prove that the plaintiff got the agreement to sell executed from the defendant under the pretext of receipt or enhancement of her widow pension. 28. From the evidence led on record, this court is convinced that Rs.8.00 Lakh was paid by the plaintiff at the time of execution of agreement to sell, whereby defendant agreed to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff on payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.26,77,500/-. As has been discussed herein above, evidence further reveals that the plaintiff remained ever ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in terms of agreement to sell by making balance sale consideration. On the other hand, defendant, on one pretext or the other failed to get the sale deed executed and registered despite her having received Rs.8.00 Lakh, which fact has been admitted by defendant in her statement given before this Court. Though, in the written statement, defendant made an attempt to dispute the execution of agreement to sell by stating that prior to execution of agreement to sell dated 18.1.2014, she had entered into agreement to sell with her brothers and she had received Rs.1.00 Lakh in advance but said stand taken by her in the written statement has not been corroborated by her by leading any evidence in this regard. To the contrary, in her statement, defendant has stated that she intends to return the sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh to her brothers since agreement alleged to have been executed with them had not been acted upon. 29. To the contrary, in her statement, defendant has stated that she intends to return the sum of Rs.1.00 Lakh to her brothers since agreement alleged to have been executed with them had not been acted upon. 29. In view of findings above, issues No. 1 to 3 are answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the plaintiff and issues No. 4 to 8 are answered in the negative i.e. against the defendant. 30. Defendant has shown her readiness to get the sale deed executed subject to payment of balance sale consideration alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum on account of escalation in the prices of the property. 31. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate for the defendant contended that since the defendant has shown her readiness and willingness to get the sale deed executed subject to payment of balance sale consideration, she may also be awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum, on account of escalation in the prices of property. In support of his contention, Mr. Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate placed reliance upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Prakash v. B.R. Sampath Kumar (2015) 1 SCC 597 , wherein it has been held that rise in price is a normal change of circumstance and, therefore, on that ground a decree for specific performance cannot be reversed. In that case, Hon'ble Apex Court had directed plaintiff to pay Rs.25.00 Lakh instead of Rs.16.10 Lakh since agreement to sell had been executed ten years back in that case. Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "18. Subsequent rise in price will not be treated as a hardship entailing refusal of the decree for specific performance. Rise in price is a normal change of circumstances and, therefore, on that ground a decree for specific performance cannot be reversed. 19. However, the court may take notice of the fact that there has been an increase in the price of the property and considering the other facts and circumstances of the case, this Court while granting decree for specific performance can impose such condition which may to some extent compensate the defendant-owner of the property. This aspect of the matter is considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Nirmala Anand vs. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. and Others, (2002) 8 SCC 146 , where this Court held :- "6. This aspect of the matter is considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Nirmala Anand vs. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. and Others, (2002) 8 SCC 146 , where this Court held :- "6. It is true that grant of decree of specific performance lies in the discretion of the court and it is also well settled that it is not always necessary to grant specific performance simply for the reason that it is legal to do so. It is further well settled that the court in its discretion can impose any reasonable condition including payment of an additional amount by one party to the other while granting or refusing decree of specific performance. Whether the purchaser shall be directed to pay an additional amount to the seller or converse would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a case. Ordinarily, the plaintiff is not to be denied the relief of specific performance only on account of the phenomenal increase of price during the pendency of litigation. That may be, in a given case, one of the considerations besides many others to be taken into consideration for refusing the decree of specific performance. As a general rule, it cannot be held that ordinarily the plaintiff cannot be allowed to have, for her alone, the entire benefit of phenomenal increase of the value of the property during the pendency of the litigation. While balancing the equities, one of the considerations to be kept in view is as to who is the defaulting party. It is also to be borne in mind whether a party is trying to take undue advantage over the other as also the hardship that may be caused to the defendant by directing specific performance. There may be other circumstances on which parties may not have any control. The totality of the circumstances is required to be seen." 20. As discussed above the agreement was entered into between the parties in 2003 for sale of the property for a total consideration of Rs.16,10,000/- . Ten years have passed by and now the price of the property in that area where it situates has increased by not less than five times. Keeping in mind the factual position we are of the view that the appellant should pay a total consideration of Rs.25 lakhs, being the price for the said property. 32. Ten years have passed by and now the price of the property in that area where it situates has increased by not less than five times. Keeping in mind the factual position we are of the view that the appellant should pay a total consideration of Rs.25 lakhs, being the price for the said property. 32. However, Hon'ble Apex Court in Nanjappan v. Ramasamy (2015) 14 SCC 341 has held that jurisdiction of decreeing specific performance is a discretion of the court and it depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. The court would take into consideration circumstances of each case, conduct of the parties, recitals in the sale agreement and the circumstances outside the contract have to be seen. Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "12. Under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, grant of specific performance of contract is discretionary. Though the decree for specific performance is discretionary, yet the court is not bound to grant such a relief merely because it is lawful to do so. But the discretion of the court is not arbitrary, but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles of law and capable of correction by a court of appeal and should be properly exercised keeping in view the settled principles of law as envisaged in Section 20 of the Act. The jurisdiction of decreeing specific performance is a discretion of the court and it depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. The court would take into consideration circumstances of each case, conduct of the parties, recitals in the sale agreement and the circumstances outside the contract have to be seen." 33. In the case at hand, plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform her part of contract and it is the defendant, who delayed execution of the sale deed. Plaintiff cannot be said to be responsible for any delay. As observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (supra), conduct of parties is to be seen while granting relief of specific performance. Thus, the interest claimed by defendant on the balance sale consideration, on account of rise in price or delay in execution of sale deed cannot be granted to her simply on account of her own act and conduct. As observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (supra), conduct of parties is to be seen while granting relief of specific performance. Thus, the interest claimed by defendant on the balance sale consideration, on account of rise in price or delay in execution of sale deed cannot be granted to her simply on account of her own act and conduct. Moreover, it stands duly established on record that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.8.00 Lakh at the time of execution of agreement to sell, but till date, despite her being ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and registered by paying balance sale consideration, defendant has failed to execute the sale deed, as such, loss, if any, on account of delay in execution of agreement to sell is that of the plaintiff, whose money (Rs.8.00 Lakh) came to be utilized by the defendant, for almost five years, without paying any interest. 34. Thus, the defendant has failed to make out a case for grant of interest on the balance sale consideration of Rs.26,77,500/-. 35. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above, suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed. Defendant is directed to execute and register sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of agreement to sell dated 18.1.2014 (Ext. PW-1/A) qua suit land i.e. land bearing Khewat Khatauni No. 48/70, Khasra No. 316/125 measuring 11-0 Bigha and Khewat Khatauni No. 170 Khasra No. 288/125, measuring 4-16 Bigha total land measuring 5-7 Bigha as entered in Jamabandi for the years 2006-07 situate in Village Mangseri Pargana Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh within a period of three months. Plaintiff is directed to deposit the amount of balance sale consideration of Rs.26,77,500/- with the Registry of this Court within a period of two months from today. However, in case, plaintiff fails to deposit the amount of Rs.26,77,500/- within the aforesaid period, the suit shall stand dismissed. In the event of failure on the part of defendant to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within stipulated time, the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the sale deed of the suit land executed through this Court. 36. So far decree for grant of compensation is concerned, since the suit stands decreed for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 18.1.2014, said relief has become redundant and is declined. 37. 36. So far decree for grant of compensation is concerned, since the suit stands decreed for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 18.1.2014, said relief has become redundant and is declined. 37. Defendant is further restrained from selling the suit property in favour of third party and changing the nature thereof till the time of execution and registration of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 38. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 39. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 40. File after due completion be consigned to record room.