Khatim Reza, J.—Heard Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

2. This Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants/appellants against the judgment of affirmance dated 08.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-5, Samastipur, in Title Appeal No. 33 of 1998 whereby judgment and decree dated 31.08.1998 passed by the Sub-Judge-Ist, Samastipur in Title Suit No. 32 of 1996 was affirmed.

3. Following substantial questions of law have been formulated for determination:-

(i) Whether the courts below having failed to consider and decide specifically about the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract, the impugned judgments are vitiated in law?

(ii) Whether the appellate court judgment is at all a judgment in law against the appellants in as much as only the appeal of defendant no.1 namely T.A. 4 of 1999 has been taken into account and it has not complied with any requirement of XLI Rule 31 C.P.C. and has put a stamp of approval on the trial court judgment?

(iii) Whether the appellate court judgment is vitiated on account of absolute non-consideration of the evidence of appellants except one or two and has not even considered all the documents produced by the appellants?

(iv) Whether the judgments of the courts below are vitiated on account of wrong approach, putting wrong onus of proof on defendants as well as misreading and misconstruing the documents on record?

(v) Whether the Courts below having failed to consider and decide that the plaintiff has not sought the relief that the admitted Sale Deed dated 10.01.1996 executed by the Defendant no. (1) in favour of the Defendant 2nd set be declared as void and it be cancelled as required under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, the suit is barred by limitation and no relief can be granted and thus the judgments and decree of the Courts below are fit to be set aside and the suit is fit to be dismissed?

4. The respondents herein was the plaintiff before the learned trial court. The appellants here in were defendants. The plaintiff/respondents filed Title Suit No. 32 of 1996 for Specific Performance of Contract which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.08.1998 passed by the learned Sub Judge-I, Samastipur. Being aggrieved, the defendants/appellants filed Title Appeal No. 33 of 1998 which was affirmed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-V, Samastipur vide judgment and decree dated 08.03.2010. Hence, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants/appellants.

5. In order to gauge the matter in its correct perspective, it is necessary to briefly re-state what the suit entails. The plaintiff/respondents filed Title Suit No. 32 of 1996 for Specific Performance of Contract in respect to the lands appertaining to C.S. Khata No. 704, Plot Nos. 1666 and 1668 areas 3 kattha 10 dhurs and further for a direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of the balance consideration money and in the event of non-execution the same should be executed through the process of the court.

6. The case of the plaintiff, is that, Bhaju Khirhar was the recorded tenant of Khata No. 704 (Cadestral Survey Khatiyan) who died leaving behind his two sons, namely, Bhadai Khirhar and Ruplal Khirhar, who inherited the property of his father and came in possession of the said Khata No. 704, Plot Nos. 1666 and 1668. Thereafter, they sold 3 kattha 15 dhurs of Plot No. 1666 and 3 kattha 5 dhurs of Plot No. 1668 to Bhonu Rai and Deo Lal Rai, who after purchase came in possession of the said land. Both Bhonu Rai and Deo Lal Rai purchased half and half area of both the plots. After death of Bhonu Rai, his son Jai Mangal Rai sold 3 katha and 10 dhurs of Plot Nos. 1666 and 1668 to Nand Lal Rai through registered sale deed dated 03.05.1954. Thereafter, remaining lands of the said plots were also purchased by Nand Lal Rai (defendant n