An agreement for sale of land is not enforceable if the plaintiffs are not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and the suit is barred by limitation.

1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 19.11.2013 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, whereby, the appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh was upheld.

2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the appellants plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 10.08.1990 on 14.08.2003 with the averments that defendant Lekh Ram for fulfilling family requirements required money and, therefore, after receiving a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in cash from the plaintiffs' father/husband Bagaram executed agreement dated 10.08.1990 and handed over the same to him and in part performance of the agreement handed over the possession of the land to him; after taking possession, Bagaram/plaintiffs got the land surrounded by barbed wire and constructed a room; the plaintiffs have been ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in their favour; after the restriction was removed on 23.12.1992 the plaintiffs requested the defendant to obtain sanad and get the sale deed registered; the defendant avoided obtaining sanad and after some time refused to do so; the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for specific performance; the defendant was bent upon transferring the land to somebody else and is threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs; ultimately, a decree for specific performance was sought.

3. A written statement was filed by the defendant and execution of the agreement was denied; it was also denied that possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiffs after receiving a sum of Rs. 25,000/-; other averments made in the plaint were also denied.

4. In additional plea, it was claimed that plaintiffs' father/husband Bagaram had a partnership business with one Gajanand; both of them proposed to the defendant to use the land for setting up a colony and that they would get commission and for the purpose of showing the land an agreement would be required and, therefore, a fake agreement was executed, no agreement for sale of land was entered into, no consideration was received and no possession was handed over; it was claimed that besides the above, on account of water logging the scheme did not materialise and the document was not admissible for deficient stamp duty; the civil court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter and prayed that the suit be dismissed.

5. The trial court framed seven issues and after oral and documentary evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that defendant Lekh Ram received consideration of Rs. 25,000/- on 10.08.1990 and plaintiffs have proved that the disputed agreement was executed between the parties; possession of the suit property was handed over to Bagaram/plaintiffs in part performance of the agreement; the court fees paid was sufficient and as the agreement was impounded and stamp duty along with penalty has already been deposited, the agreement was admissible in evidence; the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they were ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and the suit was barred by limitation; the trial court also came to the conclusion that as at the relevant time the sale of fragment was prohibited under the provisions of Section 42(a) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Tenancy Act'), despite the fact that the prohibition came to an end on account of deletion of the provision, it cannot be said that the agreement was valid and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable and, consequently, dismissed the suit.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed first appeal under Section 96 CPC.

7. The first appellate court after hearing the parties maintained the dismissal of the suit on coming to the conclusion that the appellants cannot be said to be ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and the suit was barred by limitation.

8. Learned counsel for the appe