JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

1. By this common judgment two second appeals are being disposed of, which arise out of common set of facts.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the rival parties were heard on four substantial questions of law recorded in order dated 09/10/2019. Although the said order is recorded in Second Appeal No. 241/2019, the said questions have arisen in Second Appeal No. 253/2019 also and the learned counsel were heard on these questions pertaining to both the appeals.

3. The facts leading up the filing of the second appeals are that one Ramesh Krushnarao Deshmukh entered into an agreement with one Amartya s/o. Surendra Deshmukh through his grand-father Haribhau on 11/11/2010 for sale of agricultural land at field survey No. 49/3, admeasuring 2 H 06 R, located at Mouza Dastarpur Tah. Bhatkuli Dist. Amravati, for total consideration of Rs. 22,50,000/-. On the same day, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid to the said Ramesh. On 09.12.2010, an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- was paid and sale deed in respect of 1 H 21 R was to be executed on or before 30/6/2011. Sale deed was executed in respect of 1 H 21 R portion of the said field upon receiving further consideration of Rs. 9,30,000/- and delivery of possession of the said portion was also given.

4. On 04/01/2011, sisters of the said Ramesh Deshmukh and his son Gopal sent a legal notice to the grandfather of said purchaser i.e. Haribhau as well as Ramesh, calling upon them to cancel the aforesaid sale deed, claiming that as the aforesaid property was ancestral property, the said Ramesh Deshmukh did not have any authority to alienate the same. The said Haribhau sent a reply asserting that the property was self-acquired property and that it was not ancestral property. On 06/4/2011, the respondent sent a notice to Ramesh to execute sale deed in respect of remaining portion of land as per agreement between the parties. Ramesh did not send reply to the said notice.

5. On 25/4/2011, sisters and son of the said Ramesh filed Special Civil Suit No. 158/2011 (Renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No. 608/2012), for declaration, permanent injunction, partition and separate possession. In this suit, the said purchaser Amartya Deshmukh through his grand-father Haribhau, Ramesh Deshmukh and Haribhau Deshmukh himself were made defendants. The declaration sought was in respect of the aforesaid sale deed dated 23/12/2010, claiming that the property in question was ancestral property.

6. On 30/5/2011, said Haribhau sent another notice calling upon Ramesh Deshmukh to execute sale deed on 04/06/2011, expressing his readiness and willingness to pay balance consideration. On 06/6/2011, the said Ramesh Deshmukh sent reply to the notice, stating that he had already received a notice from other co-sharers in the property and that the aforesaid civil suit was also filed, as a result of which he was not in a position to execute the sale deed. In this backdrop, on 15/11/2011, the said purchaser Amartya Deshmukh through his grand-father Haribhau, filed Special Civil Suit No. 324/2018, for specific performance of contract against said Ramesh.

7. The plaintiffs and defendants in both these suits led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective stands. It was claimed by the appellants in second Appeal No. 241/2019 that the property in the hands of Ramesh Deshmukh was ancestral and that, therefore, the sale deed in question could not have been executed by him. In Second Appeal No. 253/2019, the said Ramesh Deshmukh, being the original defendant, resisted the suit for specific performance on the ground that the respondent therein was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that there had been a breach of the agreement. It was claimed that the respondent therein was not entitled to grant of decree of specific performance.

8. The Trial Court i.e. the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amravati, dismissed the suit filed by the appellants in Second Appeal No. 241/2019 i.