L.N.Mittal, J.

1. Legal representatives of original plaintiff Jaswant Singh have preferred the instant second appeal after they were successful in the trial court, but have been non-suited by the lower appellate court.

2. Jaswant Singh - plaintiff filed suit against Dayal Singh - defendant (since deceased and represented by respondents as his legal heirs). In fact, one of the legal representatives of plaintiff and defendant each has also since died and they are represented by the remaining legal representatives.

3. Plaintiff alleged that on 02.05.1973, defendant Dayal Singh entered into agreement to sell the suit land to the plaintiff and received Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money. Thereafter, another agreement to sell dated 06.08.1984 was entered into between the parties for sale of the suit land by defendant to plaintiff for total consideration of Rs. 64,575/- in supersession of the first agreement. Earnest money of Rs. 5,000/- given under the first agreement was adjusted in the second agreement. It was stipulated in the second agreement that plaintiff shall pay Rs. 30,000/- to the defendant as further part sale consideration up to 15.11.1984. It was further stipulated in the impugned second agreement that the defendant, after getting conveyance deed in his name from the State Government, shall execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff up to 01.06.1985. However, sale deed of the suit land could not be executed in favour of defendant himself up to 01.06.1985 - the date stipulated in the agreement and therefore, defendant could not execute the sale deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, date for execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was extended and it was agreed that defendant shall execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within three months from the date conveyance deed is produced by the defendant. Endorsement to this effect was made on the back of the impugned agreement. Defendant received Rs. 30,000/- on 10.11.1984 and further amount of Rs. 12,000/- on 16.04.1986 as further part payment of the sale consideration. Thus, in all, plaintiff had paid Rs. 47,000/- to defendant against total sale consideration of Rs. 64,575/-. The plaintiff alleged that he always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, but the defendant failed to do the needful. Conveyance deed in favour of the defendant was issued by State Government on 7/8.06.1993. Mutation on its basis has also been sanctioned in favour of the defendant. Accordingly, defendant was bound to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff up to 08.09.1993. However, instead of doing so, he started negotiating for sale of suit land to other person. Accordingly, plaintiff had to file suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant to alienate suit land to anybody else other than the plaintiff. Temporary injunction to this effect was granted in the said suit. However, on expiry of the stipulated date of sale deed i.e. 08.09.1993, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement. Accordingly, suit for permanent injunction was withdrawn and instant suit for possession of the suit land by specific performance of the impugned agreement to sell dated 06.08.1984 was instituted.

4. Defendant, in his written statement, raised various objections. However, impugned agreement dated 06.08.1984 was admitted. The defendant, however, pleaded that the amount of Rs. 30,000/- payable up to 15.11.1984, as per terms of the agreement, was not paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant served notice dated 20.11.1984 requiring the plaintiff to pay the said amount of Rs. 30,000/-, but the plaintiff did not pay the said amount and rather sent reply dated 07.12.1984 alleging that the plaintiff never agreed to pay Rs. 30,000/- up to 15.11.1984. Plaintiff had not paid any amount to the defendant and he might have created bogus receipts dated 10.11.1984 and 16.04.1986. Other plain