Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this first appeal filed by plaintiff-appellants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, judgment and decree dated 26.05.1991 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Civil Original Case No.148/88 is under challenge.

2. According to facts of the case, the appellants filed suit against the defendant-respondent Smt. Tej Kaur in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Raisingh Nagar for specific performance of contract on 14.04.1988. In the suit, it was stated that Smt. Tej Kaur entered into agreement to sell her agricultural land comprising of muraba No.22 (New No.12), kila No.16 to 25, total 10 bigha, situated in Chak 4 PS (Tehsil Raisingh Nagar). In the agreement, rate of land at Rs.11,200/- per bigha was agreed upon and the said agreement was executed in between the parties on 10.03.1986. As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, Rs.50,000/- were paid by the plaintiff-appellants to defendant-respondent Tej Kaur and rest of the amount of Rs.62,000/- was to be paid by the appellants at the time of registration of the sale-deed. According to the appellants, possession of the land was given to them upon which water supply was also provided and registered sale-deed was to be made by 18.06.1986 as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.

3. In the plaint, it was stated by the plaintiff-appellants that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and told the respondent-defendant to execute the sale-deed in their favour as per the terms and conditions of the agreement but she could not perform her part of the contract and it has resulted into compelling the appellants to file the suit before the Court, therefore, they have preferred the suit in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Raisingh Nagar. As per the appellant-plaintiffs, they have spent Rs.25,000/- on the improvement of the land in question and the defendant-respondent wants to sell the land in question to other persons on account of increase in the price of land. As such decree for specific performance of contract may be passed against the defendant-respondent.

4. The suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was contested on the ground that the appellants themselves have not fulfilled the terms and conditions and violated the terms and conditions and have failed to perform their part of the contract and, so also, it is refuted that no amount has been spent for improvement of the land because possession of the land is with the defendant-respondent. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiffs themselves have violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and they have failed to fulfill the term of obtaining the bona fide domicile certificate and are not ready and willing to pay the rest of the amount; and, somehow, they were delaying the matter but, after expiry of the date which is specifically mentioned in the agreement i.e., 18.06.1986, the defendant-respondent was not under obligation to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs and, so also, no decree for specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiffs can be passed. Therefore, the defendant prayed that the suit may be dismissed.

5. The learned trial Court after filing of the written-statement proceeded to frame the following issues for adjudication of the controversy :

^^1- vk;k oknhx.k fookfnr bdjkjukek fnukad 10-3-86 dh vuqikyuk gsrq ges'kk rRij ,oa bPNqd jgs gS\

2- vk;k oknhx.k mä fookfnr bdjkjukek cS; dh fof'k"B vuqikyuk dh fMØh izkIr djus ds fof/kd vf/kdkjh gS\

3- vk;k oknhx.k us bdjkjukek dh 'krZ ds vuqlkj fnukad 18-6-86 rd ewy fuokl izek.k i= o cdk;k /ku jkf'k izfroknh;k dks ugha nh bl izdkj mUgksaus bdjkjukek dh 'krksZ dh vogsyuk dh gS\

4- vk;k izfroknh;k us djusyflag ls ,d lkSnk Hkwfe Ø; djus ckcr~ fd;k gqvk Fkk tks oknhx.k 18-6-86 dks izfroknh;k dh iSlk vnk u djus ds dkj.k fujLr gqvk rFkk izfroknh;k dks uqdlku gqvk\

5- vk;k izfroknh;k us oknhx.k dh VkyeVksy uhfr ds dkj.k fnukad 10-3-87 dks uksfVl ds t