JUDGMENT :

1. This is plaintiff’s first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2013 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge of First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2012, by which the plaintiff suit for specific performance of contract dated 31.12.2019 has been dismissed and also prayer for declaring the sale deed dated 28.02.2011 executed in favour of defendant no. 5 to 7 to be declared as null and void has been rejected.

2. Brief facts reflected from the plaint are that the land bearing khasra no. 222/02 area .96 acres situated at village Pandhi P.H. No. 18, Revenue Circle Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur is recorded in the name of defendant no. 1 to 4 (which in subsequent paragraph will be referred to as suit property). It has been contended that the suit property was inherited by defendants No. 1 to 4 from their ancestral Karamat Khan and they have full legal right to transfer the said property. It has been further contended that defendant No.1 for her family expenditure and for herself and her wards defendants No. 2 to 4, has executed an agreement on 31.12.2019 for sale of the property @ 5000 per dismal and after execution of the sale deed the property was handed over to the plaintiff. On the date of execution of agreement on 31.12.2009 an advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given to the defendants No. 1 to 4. It was specifically mentioned in the terms of the agreement that defendant No. 1 will conduct demarcation in presence of the plaintiff and whatever area of the suit property is physically available after demarcation the sale deed will be executed for that part of property only and the sale consideration will be given accordingly. But the defendant has not done the demarcation.

3. It has been further contended that in the agreement it has been specifically mentioned that the sale deed will be executed up to 28.02.2010 but in absence of demarcation the sale deed till that date could not be executed despite persuasion made by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 for execution of sale deed. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract on 28.02.2010 and even thereafter also till today, the amount of sale consideration is kept reserved by him for execution of sale deed which is still lying with the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 has sent legal notice on 01.03.2011. From bare perusal of the said notice, it is reflected that defendant no. 1 is not willing to perform his part of contract. The defendant No.1 has not declared the agreement dated 31.12.2009 as null and void still she has executed sale deed in favour of defendants No. 5 to 7 on 28.02.2011. On above factual matrix, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaring the sale deed dated 28.02.2011 executed between defendant no.1 and defendant No. 5 to 7 to be declared as null and void and also prayed for execution of sale deed in pursuance of agreement dated 31.12.2009 executed between the plaintiff and the defendants No. 1 to 4. It has also been prayed that in case defendant no. 1 to 4 failed to perform their part of contract then it may be executed by the intervention of this Court.

4. Defendant No. 1 to 4 have filed their written statement denying the allegation made therein. It has been specifically pleaded in the written statement that the demarcation of the suit property was very much clear and the plaintiff was never ready for measurement of suit property and even he was not ready to execute the sale deed despite persuasion made by defendants No. 1 to 4. It has been specifically admitted by defendants No. 1 to 4 that on the date of agreement i.e. 31.12.2009 she has received Rs. 1,00,000/- as advance but the plaintiff has not made any attempt to execute the agreement, therefore, on the basis of plaintiff disinterest to execute agreement the same has been cancelled. It has been further submitted that since the plaintiff has not shown their willingness to execute the agreement the defen