S.K.Katriar, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant against a judgment of reversal. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.6.98, passed by the learned 7th Addl. District Judge, Begusarai, in M.T.A. No. 17 of 1991 (Satya Narain Sahu V/s. Ram Charitra Mahto), whereby the defendants appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree dated 18.7.91, passed by the learned Munsif, second court, Begusarai, in Title Suit No. 58 of 1989 (Ram Charitra Mahto V/s. Satya Narain Sahu), has been set aside. The learned trial court had decreed the suit for specific performance of contract. We shall go by the description of the parties obtaining in the plaint.

2. The plaintiff (the appellant herein) had instituted the suit for specific performance of contract with the defendant (respondent). The plaintiffs case as stated in the plaint is that the defendant (respondent herein) had executed a Mahadnama (Ext.5), being an agreement for sale, for sale of a plot of land, bearing Khesra nos. 2696 and 2697, appertaining to Khata no. 2442, Tauzi no. 826, covering an area of 18 dhurs and 5 dhurkis with a house situate thereon for a total consideration money of Rs. 8,000/-. The plaintiff had handed over a sum of Rs. 7,116/- to the defendant towards part payment of the consideration money at the time of execution of the agreement for sale, and the balance sum of Rs. 884/- was to be handed over at the time of registration of the sale deed which had to be executed on or before 31.3.89. The plaintiffs further case is that he thereafter pressed the defendant to execute the sale deed which he always avoided. In fact, the plaintiff was once called by the defendant to the registration office for execution of the sale deed but he (the defendant) had failed to turn up. The plaintiff is still willing to perform his part of the contract and pay balance of the consideration money.

3. On the other hand, the defendants case, as stated in the written statement, is that he had never executed the Mahadnama (Ext.5) in question. It does not bear his thumb impression or his signature. His further case is that the parties were earlier partners in a business of broken glasses. Differences arose between the parties during the course of business and a Panchayati was held in which the defendant had handed over to the Panches a blank piece of paper bearing his left thumb impression which he apprehends has been converted into a Mahadnama (Ext.5). The defendants further case is that the plaintiff has never shown willingness to perform his part of the contract. Therefore, according to the written statement, the suit is hit by the provisions of section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

4. The trial court framed the following issues for adjudication:

(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?

(ii) Has the plaintiff any cause of action or right to sue?

(iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation, principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence?

(iv) Is the execution of Mahadnama executed by defendant is genuine?

(v) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree as prayed for?

(vi) To what relief or reliefs, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to?

The trial court found that the Mahadnama (Ext.5) is a valid and genuine document. The plaintiff has been willing to perform his part of the contract and was always willing to pay the balance of the consideration money. The suit was decreed. Aggrieved by this judgment, the defendant appealed which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and that of the trial court has been set aside. The learned court of appeal below has held that the plaintiff was not willing to perform his part of the contract. Hence the present appeal at the instance of the plaintiff.

5. While assailing the validity of the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the plaintiff (appellant) submits that this appeal raises a substantial question of law for consideration, namely, the lower appellate court has recorded perverse f