Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 28 June, 1993 (decree signed on 12.7.1.993) passed by the learned Sub-Judge-i, Ranchi, where by learned Trial Court has dismissed the plaintiffs-appellants suit being T.S. No. 34 of 1991 in the said suit, the plaintiffs-appellants had sought relief for a decree for specific performance of contract against the defendant, directing her to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants in accordance with the agreement on accepting the balance consideration amount.

2. The case of the plaintiffs-appellants, in brief, was that the parties had entered into an agreement for sale of the residential building along with garage standing over a portion of R.S Plot no 1651 being sub-plot No. 1651/5/R appertaining to Khata No. 329 of village-Hinoo., P.S. Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi, measuring an area of 5 kathas more or less, fully described in Schedule-B of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant-respondent offered to sell the said property for a total consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The plaintiffs had accepted the terms and agreement dated 20 th October, 1990, which was executed and signed by the parties. The plaintiffs had paid a sum of Rs. 35.000/- as an advance against the consideration amount on the date of execution of the said agreement. According to the plaintiffs, they had also subsequently paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- through Cheque No. 636470 dated 15 th December, 1990 and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in cash on 19.1.1991, According to the plaintiffs, the said amount was duly received by the defendant. The defendant had agreed to complete all the legal formalities and to hand over the relevant documents to the plaintiffs, so that the plaintiffs may be able to yet loan from the Bank for the purpose of purchasing the said property. The defendant had agreed to execute the sale deed by 315t December, 1990 in favour of the plaintiffs or their nominees but the defendant failed and neglected and did not comply with the legal formates required for action and registration of the sale deed. According to the plaintiffs, they were always ready and willing to perform their part or agreement and were stilt willing to purchase the said property on payment of the balance consideration amount to the defendant. The plaintiffs through their lawyer sent a registered notice on 23 rd January, 1991 demanding the relevant papers and calling upon the defendant to perform her part of the agreement but in spite of receipt of the notice, the defendant failed and neglected to comply with the terms of the agreement. On the contrary, the defendant in reply to the said notice asked the plaintiffs to take refund of the advance amount by her letter sent through her lawyer dated 28 th January, 1991 stating that she was not ready and willing to execute and register the safe deed. The plaintiffs, thereafter, sent a reply to the said notice asking her to register and execute the sale deed in accordance with the terms of the agreement but the said defendant refused to accept the said reply. the plaintiffs having no alternative remedy thereafter filed the instant soil.

3. The case of the defendant, in brief, was that the suit was false and frivolous and was also barred by imitation. It was stated that the plaintiffs failed to perform their part of the contract within 31 st December, 1990, which was the period fixed for execution and registration of the sale deed. It was sidled that the suit property was earlier purchased by her late husband Mohinder Mohgn. who, after acquisition of land, had constructed residential house. He died on 8m March, 1988 leaving behind defendant as a widow and three daughters, as heirs and legal representatives. The said daughters are also necessary parties in the suit and the suit was bad for their non-joinder. The defendant has disputed and denied the statements made in the plaint. It was stated that as per the ter