The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract, the existence of the agreements, and the issue of limitation were crucial in granting the decree for specific performance.

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-Suit for specific performance of contract being Civil Original Suit No. 34/1983 filed on 5.1983 by the plaintiff-Narpat Singh was decreed after trial by the Civil Judge, Bali (District Pali) by the Judgment and decree dated 9.1987. The appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant Bheru Singh being Civil Appeal (Decree) No. 4/1987 was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bali on 17.1990. Hence, the unsuccessful defendant in two Courts below has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

2. The present second appeal was admitted by this Court on 110.1990 formulating the following

substantial question of law, -"Whether the lower Courts have seriously erred in holding that the suit was within limitation?"

3. Although the question of law so formulated by this Court requires consideration of the question of limitation only, however, the learned Counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing in the alternative that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the question as to whether the plaintiff has been able to establish his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract and further question as to whether the equitable relief of specific performance could be granted to the plaintiff who has belatedly approached the Court by way of the suit also require consideration. In order to consider the submissions at bar, it shall be useful to refer to the facts available on, and the circumstances emerging from the record.

4. Although the plaintiff has sued as Narpat Singh son of Hamir Singh Rajput and defendant has been shown as Bheru Singh son of Devi Singh Rajput but the fact remains that both the plaintiff and the defendant are natural born sons of the same father Devi Singh.

5. Briefly put, the plaintiff averred in the plaint that a house (referred as `Rawala) was situated at Mokampura, Tehsil Bali, in which, he was having ownership rights over half of the portion and the remaining half was of the ownership of Smt. Mohan Kanwar widow of Hamir Singh. The said Smt. Mohan Kanwar gifted her property to the defendant and in this manner, the defendant acquired ownership rights over the half portion of the Rawala. In the year 1973, various disputes arose between the plaintiff and the defendant relating to various immovable properties and ultimately with the intervention of the respectable persons of the community, on 111.1973, all the disputes were settled regarding which a document was executed between the mother of the plaintiff Smt. Ugam Kanwar and the defendant.

6. The plaintiff further averred that on the same day (i.e. 111.1973), a separate agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant, according to which, the half portion of the ownership of the defendant in the said Rawala was agreed to be sold by the defendant to the plaintiff for Rs. 4,000/-. The defendant received Rs. 100/-towards sale consideration on the same day and for payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 3,900/-and for registration (of the document), 12 months period was fixed. The plaintiff averred that in accordance with the agreement, he requested the defendant several times to complete the registration as he was ready to make payment of the sale consideration but the defendant kept on avoiding. When all the efforts on his part failed, then before adopting legal proceedings, he made efforts for resolution of the dispute with the intervention of the respectable persons sympathetic to both the parties. Thereupon, on 12.1975, in the presence of respectable persons, a settlement was arrived at, according to which, new terms of the transfer of the half share of the house (Rawala) on the basis of the agreement dated 111.1973 were settled and the sale consideration was enhanced from Rs. 4,000/-to Rs. 7,000/-. Apart from the amount of Rs. 100/-paid on 111.1973, the plaintiff further made cash payment of Rs. 2,900/-on 12.1975 and it was decided that upon payment