1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19-06-2014 passed by the First Additional District Judge to the Court of 3rd Additional Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.59-A/2013, by which, suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for specific performance of contract has been dismissed.

2. The appellants filed a suit seeking decree of specific performance of contract on the pleadings inter alia that the defendant No.4-Ashok Jaiswal, a Power of Attorney Holder of defendants No.1 to 3 executed an agreement on 01-05-2007 for sale of suit land in dispute (Khasra No.77, 78 & 80, admeasuring 1.06 Acres, 2.60 Acres and 0.78 Acres, total ad measuring 4.44 acres situated in Village Lokhandi, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur), in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.43,75,000/- and received advance of Rs.6 Lakhs. According to the plaintiff's pleadings, as per the conditions stipulated in the agreement, the sale deed was required to be executed within a period of three months and before that, demarcation of the suit land was required to be carried out, so that balance payments could be made. Moreover, according to the plaintiff, 30 feet wide road on the western side of the land in dispute was also required to be made available to the plaintiff in order to provide access to the land in dispute from the main road.

According to the plaintiff, though, he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the defendants failed to provide 30 feet wide road as per the agreement and therefore, the plaintiff expressed that the sale deed of the land in dispute may be executed by reducing the amount of sale consideration by Rs.15 Lakhs, which the defendants agreed, but despite several demands, the defendants failed to perform his part of contract, giving rise to the dispute.

3. The defendants contested the plaintiff's suit on the pleadings that even though, demarcation report indicated existence of road, despite giving notice on 20-11-2007, the plaintiff did not appear before the Deputy Registrar for execution and registration of the sale deed along with payment of the balance amount of consideration. Therefore, the plaintiff having failed to perform his part of contract, he is not entitled to any relief. It was also pleaded that the suit otherwise was barred by limitation.

4. The learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and issues arising therefrom, framed as many six issues, which are as below:-

Øekad	okn Á'u	fu"d"kZ
1	D;k] oknh ,oa Áfroknh Øekad&1 ls 4 ds e/; oknxzLr Hkwfe ds laca/k esa fu"ikfnr vuqca/k fnukad 1-5-2007 fujLr gks pqdk gS] vxj gka rks ÁHkko \	^^ugha**
2	D;k] oknh vuqca/k dk viuk i{k fu"ikfnr djus ds fy, lnSo rS;kj jgk gS \	^^gka**
3	D;k] Áfroknh Øekad&1 ls 4 ds }kjk vuqca/k dh 'krZ ¼30 QhV jkLrk laca/kh½ dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k x;k gS \	^^ugha**
4	D;k] oknh }kjk lIre O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k oxZ&2] fcykliqj ds le{k ÁLrqr O;ogkj okn Øekad&271&v@07 ds fujLr gksus ds ifjÁs{; esa Á'uk/khu Ádj.k pyus ;ksX; ugha gS \	^^ugha**
5	D;k] oknh dk okn le;ckf/kr gS \	^^ugha**
6	lgk;rk ,oa okn O;; \	^^fu.kZ; dh dafMdk 32 ds vuqlkj**

The learned Trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff succeeded in proving that the agreement to sell was executed on 01-05-2007 in respect of the land in dispute and further that it was one of the stipulations that 30 feet wide road would be made available. The learned trial Court therefore, proceeded to hold in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on the first issue that the agreement dated 01-05-2007 was not cancelled. On the second issue, the learned trial Court also recorded a finding that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. On the third issue, the learned trial Co