JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. S. Kemprai, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Gautam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 has submitted that the respondent No.1, who is the husband of the respondent No.2, had expired. He further submitted that the respondent No.2, being a legal representative of the respondent No.1, the estate of the respondent No.1 is well represented and as such there is no requirement for further substitution. Taking into account the said submission and as such admittedly the respondent No.2 is the wife of the respondent No.1 and the estate of the respondent No.1 also devolves upon the respondent No.2, this Court is of the opinion that there is no necessity for further substitution of the respondent No.1 pursuant to his death as his estate is duly represented by the respondent No.2.

3. This Court vide an order dated 26.07.2006 formulated three substantial questions of law while admitting the appeal, which for the sake of convenience, are reproduced herein under:

“1. Whether the counter claim of the defendants can be entertained in the Title Suit preferred by the appellants after expiry of the period of limitation without considering the question relating to limitation?

2. Whether the court below is justified in allowing the counter claim of the respondent for specific performance of contract without discussing the provisions of Sections 12, 17 & 20 of the Specific Relief Act?

3. Whether the lower appellate court is justified in affirming the decree of counter claim directing to perform the specific performance of contract when the lower appellate court found that the plaintiffs have no title over the land?”

4. For the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the said substantial questions of law so formulated are involved in the instant appeal, this Court deems it proper to briefly take note of the facts involved in the instant case.

5. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they stood before the Trial Court.

6. The appellants herein as plaintiffs had instituted the suit being Title Suit No.110/1996 wherein the respondent Nos.1 & 2 were impleaded as the principal defendants and the proforma respondent Nos.3 to 12 were arrayed as proforma defendants.

7. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that vide the registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.5226/1983, the proforma defendant No.8 transferred 17 lechas of land covered by Dag No.126, PP No.4 of Town Hoiborgaon Kissam under Town Mouza in the district of Nagaon, Assam to the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that as the principal defendant Nos. 1 & 2 who were the brother-in-law and the sister of the plaintiff No.1 having no other place to take shelter requested the plaintiffs to allow them to reside in the said suit land. However, at a later stage, when the plaintiffs requested the principal defendants to vacate the suit land, the principal defendants did not vacate the land. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs had entered into a registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.813/1995 dated 07.02.1995 whereby the plaintiffs agreed to sale the land to the principal defendants. It is pertinent herein to take note of that in terms with the said agreement for sale dated 07.02.1995 that the Deed of Sale would be executed in favour of the principal defendants after obtaining necessary permission from the Government and on receipt of the balance amount. It further appears from the perusal of the plaint that in 18.05.1996, pleader’s notice was issued on behalf of the principal defendants to the effect that if the plaintiffs did not execute the Deed of Sale on receipt of balance amount of Rs.3,000/- from the principal defendants, they would file a suit for specific performance of the contract. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs never denied or disagreed not to sell the land but on