JUDGMENT :

C.L. Soni, J.

This Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is at the instance of original defendant against whom respondent herein had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 37 of 2006 praying for mandatory order directing the appellant to execute registered sale deed in respect of suit property bearing survey No. 639, Block No. 715 admeasuring 3 hector, 15 Are, 10 Sq.meter situated at Mangrol, District Surat, by accepting remaining amount of sale consideration of Rs. 100,000.00 from the respondent. The respondent has also prayed for execution of the sale deed through the Court Commissioner, on failure of the appellant to execute sale deed and also for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from transferring the suit land or in any manner dealing with the suit land except transferring the same to the respondent.

2. The suit was resisted by the appellant by filing written statement at exhibit 18 whereby the appellant not only denied the execution of agreement to sell but also denied the receipt of notice at her address and simultaneously contended that the suit was time barred. It was also stated in the written statement that the factum of issuance of notice was just created to earn sympathy of the Court because if at all the respondent was ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of considerations, the respondent could have deposited such amount of consideration with the Court but no such procedure to deposit the remaining amount of consideration was taken by the respondent.

3. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the suit for specific performance of the contract was on the basis of registered agreement to sell dated 27.12.2002 and price for the suit land agreed upon was Rs. 1,48,400.00 out of which 48,400.00 was stated to be paid in cash by the respondent to the appellant. The agreement to sell further recorded that the remaining amount of consideration of Rs. 100,000.00 was to be paid on or before 31.12.2002 and on payment of such amount, the appellant agreed to execute the sale deed.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, learned Trial Judge framed following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit land is purchased on 27.12.2002 by a registered agreement to sell(Banakhat).

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed.

3.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of necessary parties.

5. In the suit, respondent examined her husband Nashir Mustafa Belim who also happened to be Power of Attroney of the respondent. The respondent also examined another witness named Harising Anupsingh at exhibit 42 to prove that though the respondent was ready and willing to pay remaining amount of consideration to get the sale deed executed, still the appellant did not come forward to execute the sale deed in spite of repeated requests.

6. On the other hand the appellant examined herself at exhibit 56 stating that the agreement to sell was got up and that she never agreed to sell her suit land and that the suit was filed with an intention to snatch away her property.

7. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, learned Trial Judge allowed the suit and ordered the appellant to execute the sale deed on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 27.12.2002 in favour of the respondent by accepting the remaining amount of consideration of Rs. 100,000.00 and to hand over the possession of the suit land.

8. The appellant challenged the above judgment and decree by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2008 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Surat. Before the First Appellate Court, the main contentions were to the effect that the appellant had not executed the agreement to sell, notice was not served to the appellant, that the suit was not filed within the time limit, that the evidence was given by the power of attorney which was not permissible, that the details about frequent visits by the respondent of the appellant f