1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2000 by the learned Principal District Judge, Amravati on 4.8.2014 whereby the Judgment and decree passed by Joint Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Amravati for specific performance of agreement to sell in Special Civil Suit No.136 of 1987 was confirmed.

2. The brief facts are as under :

Original plaintiff (respondent) had instituted Special Civil Suit No.136 of 1987 against the present appellants (original defendants) on the ground that the first defendant for himself and on behalf of defendant nos. 2 to 4 had purchased the immovable property known as Old Milan Hotel building, Opposite Government Polytechnic Compound, Gadge Nagar and undertook construction of Shopping Complex of 60 ft. x 66 ft. of field bearing Survey No. 28, mouza Shegaon, Pragane Nandgaonpeth, Tq. And Distt. Amravati. Construction was of five shops and one room, out of which one shop premises admeasuring 10 ft. x 17 ft. was agreed to be sold by defendant no.1 for himself and other defendant nos. 2 to 4 to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.77,000/-. Earnest amount in the sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff. The defendants were supposed to inform the plaintiff about the exact area and the sale deed to be executed on 21.9.1987 pursuant to agreement to sell dt.19.7.1987. But the defendants did not complete the transaction as agreed and sought extension till 5.10.1987. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was all along ready and willing to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff had issued notices and telegrams calling upon the first defendant to execute the sale deed. He had also issued public notice in Newspaper dt. 4.10.1987. But the defendant failed to execute the sale deed as promised. The plaintiff had, thus, filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell in respect of the suit shop, alternatively claiming damages with refund of earnest money.

3. The defendants by Written Statement (Exh.25) resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract and that extension was sought by the plaintiff for execution of sale deed. The appellants (original defendants) contended that here was no evidence that defendant nos. 2 to 4 were bound by act of defendant no.1 and secondly that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract.

4. The learned first Appellate Judge found that defendant nos. 2 to 4 were bound to concur with defendant no.1 to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It was held by the first Appellate Court that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and therefore, no interference was required in the decree passed by the trial Court.

5. The defendants contended that the plaintiff had examined power of attorney and he could not have deposed on behalf of the plaintiff to adduce evidence regarding readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to comply with the agreement to sell.

6. The learned first Appellate Judge, on appreciation of the evidence, found that the power of attorney was none other than father of plaintiff who was personally aware of the facts and was also present at the time of transaction. It is also found that documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the plaintiff such as copy of notice sent to the defendant (Exh.63), copy of telegram dt.2.10.1987 (Exh.55) and copy of telegram dt.3.10.1987 (Exh.56) and copy of telegram dt.7.10.1987 (Exh.59) and stamp papers purchased by plaintiff on 5.10.1987 (Exh. Nos.57 and 58) to show that the plaintiff was all along interested not only to insist upon execution of sale deed but he had attended the Sub-Registrar's Office in order to get the sale deed executed pursuant to agreement to sell (Exh.53). The defendants had agreed to specify the area of suit shop before accepting balance consideration and to execute the sale deed on 25.9.1987 or earlier.

7.