The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract for specific performance.

1. The third defendant is the appellant. The first respondent filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 5.7.1994 executed by respondents 2 and 3 herein. That suit was dismissed and the first respondent/plaintiff filed appeal and that appeal was allowed and against the same, the second appeal is filed by the third defendant.

2. The case of the first respondent/plaintiff was that the suit property belongs to respondents 2 and 3 and on 5.7.1994, he entered into an agreement with respondents 2 and 3 for the purchase of the suit property for a sale consideration of Rs.35,000/= and on that date itself, he paid Rs.28,000/= and possession was handed over to him and it was agreed that the sale shall be completed within a period of one year and he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract from the date of the agreement of sale and whenever respondents 2 and 3 were approached, they were evasive and he came to know that respondents 2 and 3 were attempting to sell the property to the third parties and therefore, issued a notice dated 2.12.1994 to respondents 2 and 3 calling upon them to execute he sale deed dated 6.12.1994 informing that he would be present in the Registrar's Office with the balance sale consideration and respondents 2 and 3 did not turn up and he later came to know that respondents 2 and 3 sold the property to the appellant on 5.12.1994 and he sent a notice dated 19.5.1995 to respondents 2 and 3 and the appellant and thereafter filed the suit for specific performance.

3. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a statement denying the agreement of sale in favour of the first respondent and stated that they entered into an agreement of sale with the appellant for the sale of the suit property on 26.8.1994 and also executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant on 5.12.1994 and possession was handed over to the appellant and the appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the first respondent was not put in possession of the property under the alleged agreement of sale dated 5.7.1994.

4. The appellant filed a separate statement contending that he was the bona fide purchaser for value without knowledge of the alleged agreement of sale and he also disputed the agreement of sale executed by respondents 2 and 3 in favour of the first respondent and as he is the bona fide purchaser for value and in possession of the property, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for.

5. The Trial Court held that the agreement of sale was not proved and respondents 2 and 3 did not execute the agreement of sale and dismissed the suit.

6. The first appellate court reversed the finding and held that the agreement of sale was executed by respondents 2 and 3 and possession was handed over to the first respondent under the said agreement of sale and the agreement of sale in favour of the appellant is not a genuine one and the appellant will not get any title to the suit property as the agreement of sale in favour of the first respondent was prior in point of time and the first respondent is entitled to the relief of specific performance and decreed the suit. Hence, the third defendant filed the second appeal.

7. The following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission of the second appeal:-

"1. Whether the lower appellate court is justified in decreeing the suit for specific performance when the plaintiff put a false case of possession?

2. Whether the lower appellate court is right in displacing the burden of proof upon the appellant, when it is the obligation of the plaintiff to prove and establish the genuineness?

3. Whether the courts below are right in accepting Ex.A1 of having been executed on 5.7.94 when the documentary proof under Ex.A6 is otherwise?

4. Whether the lower appellate court should not have applied the principles under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and dismiss the suit assuming the agreement is true?

5. When the plaintiff had plea