JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. Heard.

2. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2020 passed by the District Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG), in Civil Suit No. 61-A/2014, whereby, a suit filed for Specific Performance of the Contract was dismissed. Therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs are before this Court.

3. A Civil Suit was filed with a pleading that the defendants owns a land bearing Khasra No. 459 admeasuring 0.07/2 decimal, wherein, three shops of 33 x 11 feet in size exists. The defendants agreed to sell the same and entered into an agreement on 18.10.2013 for a sale consideration of Rs.10,21,000/- and at the time of execution, Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as earnest money. Subsequently, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid on 08.02.2014, on 04.03.2014 another payment of Rs.1,00,000/- was made and on 05.09.2014 a sum of Rs.50,000/- was further paid towards the sale consideration. It was not in dispute that on the date of agreement, in the suit property, name of the father of the defendants was mutated. Since he had died, as such, it was agreed between the parties that after the names of the defendants as a legal heir are recorded, the sale deed would be registered. The sale-deed having not been registered, a legal notice was served to the defendants on 05.11.2014, which was replied by the defendants and it was stated that by efflux of time, the agreement has come to an end and the defendants failed to register the sale-deed. The agreement further postulates that in January, 2014, Rs.1,00,000/- would be paid and thereafter after the Holi Festival of 2014, Rs.4,00,000/- would be paid and the rest of the amount would be paid within 1 year from the date of agreement of 18.10.2013. The plaintiffs stated that the defendants did not inform the correction of the mutation of their names in the revenue records, as such, they were not in know of the fact for execution of the sale deed. The plaintiffs further stated that the amount of sale consideration was agreed to be settled after the demarcation of the suit property but the suit property was never demarcated and on some pretext or other, the defendants avoided to execute the sale deed, therefore, eventually the suit was filed.

4. Per contra to the plaint allegation, the defendants resisted the claim and stated that within 1 year from the date of execution of agreement dated 18.10.2013, the entire sale consideration was agreed to be paid. The defendants further stated that the agreement stipulated that after payment of earnest money of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid in January, 2014 and after the Holi Festival of 2014, Rs.4,00,000/- was to be paid and rest of the amount was to be paid within one year from the date of agreement dated 18.10.2013. The defendants stated that as per the terms of agreement, the plaintiffs did not pay the amount and they themselves committed breach of agreement and on false pretext, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as earnest money and subsequently, on the different dates, Rs.3,00,000/- was paid, whereas, the plaintiffs were further required to pay Rs.6,00,000/-. The defendants further stated that the sale-deed was to be executed within 1 year and as agreed upon, they got the revenue records’ mutation corrected and the area was demarcated before the date of agreement on 17.10.2013, which was duly informed to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs having verified the mutation proceedings, entered into an agreement on 18.10.2013, but did not adhere to the terms of payment nor got the sale deed executed within 1 year, instead served them notice, whereas the agreement came to an end on 17.10.2014. It was further stated that the plaintiffs served the notice after the agreement came to an end, therefore, they were not entitled for suit for specific performance and as agreed upon, the entire earnest money was required to be forfeited for breach of the sale conditions.

5. The learned trial court framed six issues and held that the plaintiffs were not ready and