JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Instant appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC, lays challenge to judgment and decree dated 13.5.2013, passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 10-CS/1 of 2009, whereby suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiffs”) for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 4.6.2008 of property comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 292/178 min Khasra No. 2938 to 2944 measuring 209.24 sq. meters of village Up Sampada, Badri Nagar, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. (in short the “suit property”) came to be decreed. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that plaintiffs filed suit before the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. averring therein that appellant-defendant (in short “the defendant”) is recorded as owner in possession of the suit property and major portion of the same is under a residential house, whereas some portion of the property is lying vacant. Defendant approached the plaintiffs and offered to sell the suit property to them for a total consideration of Rs. 14,50,000/-. Plaintiffs averred in the suit that they accepted the proposal and accordingly, agreement to sell of the suit property was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs on 4.6.2008, whereby the defendant agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs for total consideration of Rs. 14,50,000/-. Plaintiffs averred that defendant received sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, 3,50,000 and 1,50,000/- (total Rs. 7.00 lac) dated 4.6.2008, through cheques No. 9157792, 775605 and 915793, respectively, drawn on Punjab National Bank and State Bank of Patiala, Paonta Sahib. Plaintiffs averred that though as per terms of the agreement, defendant was to get the suit property redeemed from Punjab National Bank, Paonta Sahib as he had taken loan of Rs. 2.5 lac and mortgaged the suit property with the said bank, but he took no steps to redeem the suit property with a view to defeat the interest of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claimed that instead of getting the sale deed executed, defendant started negotiations with other party for selling the suit property despite there being existence of the agreement to sell in their favour. Plaintiffs claimed that instead of getting the sale deed executed, defendant started negotiations with other party for selling the suit property despite there being existence of the agreement to sell in their favour. Plaintiffs claimed that they repeatedly approached the defendant and expressed their readiness and willingness to perform their part, but yet he took no steps to get the sale deed executed and as such, they served him with legal notice dated 7.7.2008 calling upon him to execute the sale deed in their favour after redeeming the same within ten days. However, defendant failed to comply with the notice. Plaintiffs also claimed that vide affidavit dated 26.8.2008, defendant admitted the execution of the agreement and receipt of Rs. 7.00 lac and undertook to execute the sale deed within three days, but instead of executing the sale deed of suit property, he got the suit filed by his wife Mahinder Kaur against himself and the plaintiffs for declaration that suit property belongs to her and the entries of this property existing in favour of the defendant No. 1 were wrong. Plaintiff further averred in the plaint that they are/were ready and willing to perform their part of the sale agreement by making the balance payment of sale consideration of Rs. 7.5 lac. Plaintiffs averred that on 4.11.2008, though they were present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Paonta Sahib with the balance sale consideration amount and other expenses for registration and stamp papers, but since defendant did not turn up for execution of the sale deed despite assurances given to them. 3. Aforesaid claim put forth by the plaintiffs came to be resisted on behalf of the defendant by way of filing written statement, wherein he while taking the preliminary objections regarding absence of cause of action, locus standi of the plaintiffs to sue, jurisdiction estoppels, non-joinder of the necessary parties and suit being premature, though admitted himself to be owner in possession of the suit property, but pleaded that the suit property was purchased by his wife on his name in the year, 1997 with a view to obtain loan as he was the government servant. Defendant averred in the written statement that house on the land was also constructed by his wife with the financial help from his in-laws. Defendant averred in the written statement that house on the land was also constructed by his wife with the financial help from his in-laws. He specifically denied that he approached the plaintiffs for sale of the property and had executed the agreement to sell in their favour and received any money from them. He pleaded that he was in need of money and had approached Sh. Tiku Lala, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, who was known to him. Defendant further set up a case that said Tikku paid money to him and asked to execute the mortgage deed of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs as Tikku was non-Himachali agriculturist. Defendant averred that plaintiffs taking undue advantage of his illiteracy and simplicity fraudulently and illegally got prepared the agreement to sell. Defendant stated that when he and his wife came to know about the fraud played by the plaintiffs, they approached Sh. Tiku, who assured them that no injustice would be caused to them. Defendant alleged that since he could not arrange the money, relationship between plaintiffs and Tikku became strained. Defendant stated that plaintiffs gave false complaint in PS Paonta Sahib and police under pressure managed to obtain in writing from him that he would pay sum of Rs. 3.5 lac on or before 25.7.2008, but he was unable to arrange that money. He in his written statement stated that on 26.8.2008, SDPO Paonta Sahib pressurized him to execute the affidavit undertaking therein to execute the sale deed within three days. Defendant also stated in the written statement that plaintiff No. 2 Amit Saini and one Sh. Sonu also got the defendant arrested in a false case and insulted and threatened his wife regarding which case was registered against them with the intervention of ASP, Sirmaur. 4. By way of replication, plaintiffs denied all the pleadings of the defendant and reasserted their claim as setup in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, court below framed following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit, as alleged? OPD 2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit is valued properly for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction? OP Parties 4. Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the present suit, as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit, as alleged? OPD 2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit is valued properly for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction? OP Parties 4. Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the present suit, as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Whether the defendant entered into a valid agreement to sell and the plaintiffs had paid consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/- by way of part payment of the sale consideration, as alleged? OPP 7. Whether the agreement to sell is the result of fraud, as alleged? OPD 8. Whether the defendant had entered into agreement to sell with Tikku of Vikasnagar, as alleged, if so to what effect? OPD 9. Relief. 6. On the basis of evidence, be it ocular or documentary, led on record by the respective parties, learned trial court below decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of sale agreement dated 4.6.22008 (Ext.PA) and directed the defendant to execute and register the sale deed of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs at their expenses within three months from the date of the decree. Besides above, court below also directed the plaintiffs to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 7.5 lac before it within thirty days, failing which their suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, defendant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid judgment and decree. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, rather this Court on minute scrutiny of evidence, be it ocular or documentary, has no hesitation to conclude that court below has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and there is no scope for interference. 9. 9. In nutshell, case of the plaintiffs is that on 4.6.2008, defendant agreed to sell the suit property in their favour for total consideration of Rs. 14.50 lac, out of which sum of Rs. 7.00 lac was received as part payment by the defendant, whereas remaining sum of Rs. 7.5 lac was to be paid by the plaintiffs at the time of execution of the sale deed, which was to be registered on or before 4.11.2008. As per terms of the agreement, defendant was to get the suit property redeemed from Punjab National Bank, Paonta Sahib, from where he had taken loan to the tune of Rs. 2.5 lac. Since defendant failed to get the sale deed executed within the time stipulated in the agreement to sell dated 4.6.2008 despite there being readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to get the sale deed executed in terms of agreement dated 4.6.2008, plaintiffs had no option but to institute the suit as detailed herein above. If the written statement as well as evidence led on record by the defendant are perused juxtaposing each other, there is no specific denial, if any, with regard to execution of the agreement to sell dated 4.6.2008, rather an attempt has been made by the defendant to carve out a case that agreement was procured by the plaintiffs by way of fraud as he only wanted to execute the mortgage deed in their favour at the instance of Sh. Tikku Lala, from whom he had taken the money. Besides above, defendant also set-up a case that suit property belongs to his wife and as such, he was not competent to sell the same, but such stand of him stands totally demolished on account of his admission that he had taken loan of Rs. 2.5 lac for construction of the property on the suit land. If the cross-examination conducted on DW-1 Gulzari Lal is perused in its entirety, it clearly establishes on record that suit land was purchased on his name and mutation was also attested in his favour. Though defendant claimed that agreement to sell dated 4.6.2008 (Ext.PA), was forged, but he nowhere denied his signature upon the same. Cross-examination conducted on this witness further reveals that he got the map approved for construction of the house on the suit property from the competent authority at Paonta Sahib. Though defendant claimed that agreement to sell dated 4.6.2008 (Ext.PA), was forged, but he nowhere denied his signature upon the same. Cross-examination conducted on this witness further reveals that he got the map approved for construction of the house on the suit property from the competent authority at Paonta Sahib. On one hand, defendant claimed that no agreement to sell was executed and on the other hand, he tried to set-up a case that sale agreement was procured by the plaintiffs from him by way of fraud as he only wanted to execute the mortgage deed in their favour at the instance of Sh. Tiku Lala, but interestingly, Sh. Tikku Lala never acme to be examined. Defendant in his written statement claimed that when he and his wife came to know about the fraud committed by the plaintiffs, they approached Sh. Tikku Lala, who assured that no injustice would be caused to them and he asked the defendant to pay back the money to him, due to which, relationship between Sh. Tikku Lala and plaintiffs became strained. 10. To prove the aforesaid defence setup in the written statement, it was incumbent upon the defendant to examine Sh. Tikku Lala, but since he was never produced in the witness box, aforesaid assertion/claim made in the written statement or in ocular evidence is of no consequence as it never came to be proved in accordance with law. 11. Plaintiff with a view to prove their case examined as many as four witnesses. PW-1 S.K. Sarin, Advocate, who prepared the agreement to sell dated 4.6.2008, categorically deposed that defendant Gulzari Lal produced copy of Jamabandi for the year 2002-03 and tatima Shajara and told him that he had agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs for sale consideration of Rs. 14.50 lac. This witness also deposed that defendant No. 1 told him that he received three cheques of Rs. 7.00 lac as advance and he would execute the sale deed on 4.11.2008 after redeeming the suit property. This witness categorically stated that after having received the instructions, he drafted the agreement to sell Ex.PA, and read over and explained the contents of the same to the parties and thereafter both the parties put their signatures on both pages of the agreement. This witness categorically stated that after having received the instructions, he drafted the agreement to sell Ex.PA, and read over and explained the contents of the same to the parties and thereafter both the parties put their signatures on both pages of the agreement. He also stated that after preparation of the agreement, parties got agreement attested from him as Notary and he entered this agreement at Sr. No. 1857 dated 4.6.2008 in his register on which the parties also put their signatures. While making aforesaid deposition, he successfully proved on record copy of Jamabandi Ext.PB and Sahjara Ext.PC. He also stated that on 26.8.2008, defendant also got his affidavit Ext.PD attested from him regarding which he incorporated entries in his register at Sr. No. 2323 dated 26.8.2008. In the aforesaid agreement Ext.PD, defendant not only admitted execution of the agreement and receipt of Rs. 7.00 lac, but also undertook to execute the sale deed within three days. This witness categorically deposed that defendant has voluntarily executed Ext.PA and Ext.PD. If the cross-examination conducted upon this witness is perused in its entirety, it suggests that defence was unable to extract anything contrary to what this witness stated in his examination in chief. This witness categorically denied in his cross-examination that Ext.PA and ExPD were prepared at the instance of Tikku Lala and three cheques amounting to Rs. 7.00 lac were also given by Sh. Tikku. 12. Sh. Vinod Kumar (Plaintiff No. 1), while examining himself as PW-2 reiterated all the contents of the plaint and testified that defendant agreed to sell the suit property in their favour for sale consideration and had received Rs. 7.00 lac through three cheques as advance. He also deposed that they were and are ready and willing to perform their part of the sale agreement, but the defendant failed to perform his part of the sale agreement. In his cross-examination, this witness denied that the suit property was purchased by the wife of the defendant. He specifically denied the suggestion put to him that Ext.PA and Ext.PD were obtained in connivance with the witnesses and under pressure from the police. 13. PW-3 Rakesh Bhandari, officer in PNB, Paonta Sahib, produced the original record of the CC limit of Rs. 4.00 lac sanctioned by his bank in favour of Manju Confectionary and Sweets, which is owned by Sh. Rakesh Kumar. 13. PW-3 Rakesh Bhandari, officer in PNB, Paonta Sahib, produced the original record of the CC limit of Rs. 4.00 lac sanctioned by his bank in favour of Manju Confectionary and Sweets, which is owned by Sh. Rakesh Kumar. He also proved on record the application for loan Ext.PW-3/A, Hypothecation agreement Ext.PW-3/B and Guarantee deed, Ext.PW-3/C which was executed by defendant Gulzari Lal. This witness stated that cheque amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/- Ext.PW-3/E drawn by Sh. Amit Saini (Plaintiff No. 2) was drawn by the defendant on 4.6.2008. He also proved on record copy of statement of accounts of Manju Confectionary Ext.PW-3/F and Amit Saini (Plaintiff No. 2) Ext.PW-3/G. 14. PW-4 Sandeep Goyal, who is son of the plaintiff No. 1 Vinod and marginal witness of agreement to sell (Ext.PA) testified about the execution of agreement Ext.PA by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs in his presence. He stated that payment was made to the defendant through two cheques from his account. One cheque of Rs. 2.00 lac was debited to the account of Manju Confectionary and another cheque of Rs. 1.5 lac was debited in the account of the defendant No. 1. This witness also tendered in evidence copies of statement of accounts Ext.PW-4/A and Ext.PW-4/B and certificate Ext.PW-4/C issued by the bank. 15. If the statements made by all the plaintiff witnesses, as named herein above, are read in conjunction, this court has no hesitation to conclude that plaintiffs successfully proved on record that defendant had executed agreement to sell Ext.PA and Ext.PD dated 4.6.2008 and 26.8.2008, respectively, for sale of the suit property and he had received sum of Rs. 7.00 lac as part payment towards sale consideration. By examining official from the bank, plaintiffs successfully proved on record that cheques issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant as part payment towards sale consideration were duly honoured and amount was credited in his and his wife’s bank account. 16. DW-1 though in his examination in chief denied his having executed agreement to sell, but in his cross-examination admitted his signatures on Ext.PA. While making aforesaid admission, he stated that his signatures were obtained under the influence of liquor. In his cross-examination, he stated that suit property was recorded in his name, but same was purchased by his wife and son. While making aforesaid admission, he stated that his signatures were obtained under the influence of liquor. In his cross-examination, he stated that suit property was recorded in his name, but same was purchased by his wife and son. He nowhere stated in his examination in chief or cross-examination that complaint, if any, was ever made by him with regard to coercion exercised by the plaintiffs for execution of the agreement to sell Ext.PA. Though he denied factum with regard to his having received three cheques for Rs. 7.00 lac from the plaintiffs, which were also encashed by him, but claimed that he had received sum of Rs. 5.00 lac from Tikku Lala through cheque, which was debited by him in his account. Similarly he admitted his signatures on Ext.PD, but claimed that his signatures were obtained by the Dy. S.P. under the pressure, however he did not make any complaint against the Dy. S.P. 17. DW-2 Smt. Mohinder Kaur, wife of the defendant, deposed that suit property was purchased by her and her son in the name of her husband. She deposed that signatures of her husband were obtained under the influence of liquor to grab the suit property, current value of which is about Rs. 50.00 lac. In her cross-examination, she disclosed that she is a house wife and the suit property was purchased for Rs. 3.00 lac, but while deposing before the court below, she was unable to explain that from where and whom, she purchased the suit property. 18. If the aforesaid evidence led on record by the defendant is perused in conjunction, there is no specific denial with regard to execution of the agreement to sell Ext.PA and Ext.PD, rather an attempt has been made to carve out a case that the aforesaid agreements as detailed herein above are result of fraud and coercion, but no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be led on record qua the aforesaid aspect of the matter. Moreover, particulars of fraud and coercion are totally missing in the pleadings. No specific evidence, if any, ever came to be led on record by the defendant to prove issue No. 7. Onus to prove the same was though on defendants. Version put forth by the defendant No. 1 that suit property belongs to his wife and son is totally contrary to the record available on record. No specific evidence, if any, ever came to be led on record by the defendant to prove issue No. 7. Onus to prove the same was though on defendants. Version put forth by the defendant No. 1 that suit property belongs to his wife and son is totally contrary to the record available on record. DW-1 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he had taken loan from the bank to construct a house on the suit land. He also admitted that suit land was purchased on his name. Though, he claimed that suit property was purchased with the money of his wife, but DW-2, wife of the defendant, failed to disclose the source from where she arranged sum of Rs. 3.00 lac for purchasing the suit property in the year, 1997. No doubt in the case at hand, wife of the defendant filed suit against her husband and plaintiffs, but same appears to be a collusive act to defeat the rightful claim of the plaintiffs, especially when it is not in dispute that aforesaid suit came to be instituted after execution of the agreement to sell Ext.PA. Moreover DW-2 in her statement specifically stated that current value of the suit property is about Rs. 50.00 lac, meaning thereby, intention and effort of the defendant was to get the amount enhanced, which was admittedly fixed as Rs. 14,50,000/- as per agreement to sell Ext,PA. Execution of documents Ext.PA and PD stands duly proved on record by the testimony of DW-1, who not only scribed the document, but also notarized the same. 19. PW-4 being marginal witness of the agreement to sell Ext.PA testified about the execution of the agreement by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs in his presence. Though defendant claimed that he had taken money from Tikku Lala, but for the reasons best known to them, he was not examined. Defendant set up two contradictory please, on one hand, he claimed that he did not execute any agreement to sell, but on the other hand, he claimed that his signature on the agreement to sell were obtained under the influence of the liquor. Onus was upon the defendant to prove the coercion or fraud, if any, exercised by the plaintiffs for execution of the agreement, which he miserably failed to discharge. Though defendant claimed that he was under pressure of Dy. Onus was upon the defendant to prove the coercion or fraud, if any, exercised by the plaintiffs for execution of the agreement, which he miserably failed to discharge. Though defendant claimed that he was under pressure of Dy. S.P. but there is no cogent and convincing evidence to prove such claim, there is no evidence available on record that signatures on the affidavit were obtained by Dy. S.P. under pressure. It clearly emerges from the record that plaintiffs successfully proved on record the factum with regard to execution of agreement to sell Ext.PA by the defendant in their favour. In terms of agreement to sell Ext.PA, though plaintiffs made the part payment of Rs. 7.0 lacs by way of three cheques, but yet defendant failed to take steps for getting the sale deed executed. Plaintiffs successfully proved on record that on 4.11.2008, they presented themselves in the office of Sub-Registrar, Paonta Sahib, alongwith balance sale consideration amount, but defendant failed to turn up, as a consequence of which, sale deed could not be executed. PW-2 Vinod Kumar (Plaintiff No. 1) successfully proved that on 4.11.2008, he remained present in the office of Sub Registrar Paonta Sahib. Needless to say that relief of specific enforcement of contract is a discretionary relief and the court is not bound to grant the same because it is lawful to do so. However, conduct of the parties is of utmost importance while considering prayer for grant of discretionary relief. In the case at hand, conduct of the defendant has been not up to the mark, rather he did not divulge the true facts to the court while filing written statement. Though he denied his having received part payment from the plaintiffs, but as has been taken note herein above, plaintiffs successfully proved on record by examining the bank officials that three cheques issued by them were credited in the bank account of the defendant and his wife. 20. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, which appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence and pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties and as such, no interference is called for. 21. Accordingly, appeal fails and dismissed being devoid of any merits. 22. Since plaintiffs have paid the part payment of Rs. 21. Accordingly, appeal fails and dismissed being devoid of any merits. 22. Since plaintiffs have paid the part payment of Rs. 7.50 lac to the defendant in the year, 31.5.2013, coupled with the fact that sum of Rs. 7.00 lac already stands received by the defendant through cheques, costs of Rs. 30,000/- is hereby imposed upon the defendant to be paid to the plaintiffs within four weeks from today.