The plaintiff must plead and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the essential terms of the contract for specific performance. The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, and the subsequent purchaser for value and without notice of the original contract cannot be enforced against for specific performance.

This appeal has been filed by the defendant 2nd set-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 18.7.1995 passed by Subordinate Judge-III, Buxar in Title Suit No. 58 of 1983 by which the suit for specific performance of contract for purchase of the suit property by the plaintiff has been decreed.

2. The facts as unfolded in this appeal, are that the suit land admittedly belonged to defendant no. 1, Ram Raj Mishra. The plaintiff has claimed that Ram, Raj Mishra, agreed to sell his land with the plaintiff for a total amount of Rs. 75,000/- and had also executed an agreement for sale on 21.5.1982. It is the plaintiff's case that the total consideration money had been agreed at Rs. 75,000/- out of which Rs. 35,000/- had been paid and Rs.25,000/- had been adjusted to the previous dues and the remaining Rs. 15,000/- was to be paid after execution of the sale deed. The sale deed was to be executed within six months. It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendant no. 1 ignored the request of the plaintiff to execute the sale deed after the permission from the consolidation authorities, and ultimately the plaintiff got issued registered legal notice also but to no effect. On the aforesaid premises the plaintiff has prayed for a decree for specific performance of contract against the defendant no. 1 directing the defendant no. 1 to accept the remaining consideration money of Rs. 15,000/- and to execute the sale deed.

3. The defendant no. 1, Ram Raj Mishra, has filed his written statement and denied the execution of the agreement for sale dated 21.5.1982. He has also denied to have received any amount, as alleged by the plaintiff. The receipt of legal notice by registered post has also been denied. It is the specific case of the defendant no. 1 that the plaintiff on 16.8.1982 in the morning at 8 A.M. intercepted defendant no. 1 in the way while he was returning after taking bath in the Ganges and after threatening the plaintiff on the force of rifle, obtained his thumb impressions on three blank papers. It has been stated that the defendant no. 1 had filed the Complaint Case No. 268C/82 before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar and after cognizance the matter had been sent to the S.D.J.M. Buxar for trial. The defendant no. 1 has also alleged that the said three plain papers containing his thumb impressions had been obtained for fabricating the agreement for sale (Mahadanama). It has been further stated by the defendant no. 1 that he had transferred the suit property by registered sale deeds dated 7.3.1983 and 16.8.1982 to Ram Brat Singh, Narendra Singh and Shree Ram Singh after receiving appropriate consideration and also put the purchasers in possession over the suit property. The defendant no. 1 has denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.

4. The purchasers from the defendant no. 1 were subsequently added as defendant 2nd set in the suit on the prayer of the plaintiff and they have filed their separate written statements. It is the case of the defendant 2nd set that they are purchasers of the suit property from defendant no. 1 for valuable consideration and they had no knowledge of the agreement for sale of the plaintiff. Reiterating the stand of the defendant no. 1, it has been further stated by the defendant 2nd set that no agreement for sale had been executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and the agreement for sale which has been propounded by the plaintiff is a forged, fabricated and manufactured document.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed the following issues in the suit:-

1. Is the suit as framed maintainable?

2. Has the plaintiff any valid cause of action or right to sue?

3. Is the suit barred by law of limitation, estoppel waiver, acquiescence and res judicata?

4. Is the Mahadanama deed genuine, valid and enforceable in the eye of law?

5. Are the defendants 2 to 4 purchasers for value and .for consideration wit