The court has the discretion to grant or deny the relief of specific performance, and in this case, the court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to the relief even though the vendor and his legal heirs had died.

1. This is defendants second appeal against whom suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale has been decreed by both the courts below.

2. The three plaintiffs, sons of Hari Singh, filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 8th April, 1968, Exhibit P. 1, executed by Bachittar Singh (deceased) in their favour agreeing to sell the suit land for Rs. 20,000.00 . A sum of Rs. 10,000.00 was said to have been paid as earnest money at the time of the execution. Bachittar Singh died on 20th May, 1968 and the suit was instituted on 6th June, 1972, as the sale deed was to be executed on or before 15th June, 1969. This suit was filed against the legal heirs of the deceased Bachittar Singh, i.e. his widow and the daughter. According to the plaint, the sale deed could not be executed due to the death of Bachittar Singh before 15th June, 1969 and hence suit for specific performance was being filed against the legal heirs of the deceased. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and to purchase the land in dispute : In the alternative to a decree for specific performance, the plaintiffs sought recovery of Rs. 10,000.00 as refund of the earnest money and also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 3600.00 . The suit was contested primarily on the ground that Bachittar Singh had not agreed to sell the land to the plaintiffs nor had executed the agreement of sale nor had received the advance money of Rs. 10,000.00 . It was further pleaded that 3 or 4 months before his death, he had remained bed-ridden. Thus they pleaded that the alleged agreement of sale was a forged document. A plea was also taken that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement. The trial Court found that agreement of sale Exhibit P-1 was validly executed by late Bachittar Singh. It was further found that there was no material to show that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. It was also held that the discretionary relief of specific performance of contract in the instant case could not be declined to the plaintiffs under the law. In view of these findings, the plaintiffs suit for specific performance of the contract was decreed on payment of Rs. 10,000.00 . In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants have filed this second appeal in this Court.

3. During the pendency of this appeal both the defendants i.e. Har Kaur and Amarjit Kaur her daughter had died and thus the brothers of Har Kaur widow of Bachittar Singh have come on the record as the legal representatives of the deceased Har Kaur.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that Bachittar Singh who was suffering because of fracture of his spinal cord, was bed-ridden and was not in a position to execute any document and the agreement Exhibit P.1 dated 8th April, 1968 was never executed by Bachittar Singh and was a forged document. It was pointed out that as a matter of fact Hari Singh father of the plaintiffs was the author of the said document. He is a person who is not trustworthy. He forged certain documents earlier against one Arur Singh and in a suit filed by Arur Singh it was so held that Hari Singh committed the offence of perjury in fabricating the alleged sale deed. Thus argued the learned counsel, the relevant facts have not been considered by the courts below while appreciating the evidence. Moreover the suit was filed after the death of Bachittar Singh and that too just before 10 days from the expiry of the limitation. In case the plaintiffs had paid the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 as earnest money then there was no reason for them to wait for such a long time for filing the suit. It was also contended that in any case since Bachittar Singh as well as h