Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- The present appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellants against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below.

2. The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking decree for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 01-05-1987, purported to have been executed by the defendant and his deceased brother Hanifa in his favour on payment of Rs.27,000/- in respect of land measuring 1 Kanals 5 Marlas, comprising of khewat/khatauni no.499 min/690 min, khasra no.305/2 and a Khadda measuring 2 Marlas and house bearing 16 Akhas (Khanns) situated in Village Samlehri, Tehsil and District Ambala.

3. The defendant contested the suit. In the written statement, preliminary objection No.1 was taken to the effect that there has been no agreement dated 01-05-1987 between the Plaintiff and the defendant and if there is any such agreement, then it is false, frivolous and fabricated. In nut shell, the agreement was denied.

4. The Plaintiffs filed replication. It was reiterated that the agreement dated 01-05-1987 was duly executed between the Plaintiffs, the defendant and his brother Hanifa. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues on 29-08-1988 :

(i) Whether the defendant and his deceased brother Hanifa had entered into agreement dated 01-05-1987 with the Plaintiffs to sell the land as alleged ? OPP

(ii)Whether the Plaintiffs has been ready and willing to perform the part of his agreement and is still ready and willing to do so?OPP

(iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged in preliminary objection No.2 of W.S.?OPP

(iv) Whether the suit is false and frivolous, as alleged, if so, its effect?OPD

(v) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of L.Rs of deceased Hanifa, if so, its effect?OPD

(vi) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties, if so, its effect?OPD

(vii) Relief

5. Parties to the suit led both oral as well as documentary evidence in which, besides producing three witnesses, the Plaintiffs placed on record the documentary evidence Exhibit P-1 to P-11. Defendant produced one witness and produced documentary evidence Exhibit D-1 to D-3.

6. The first issue was to the effect as to whether there was an agreement between the parties dated 01-05-1987. The Plaintiff was burdened to discharge the onus for which he produced Exhibit P-1 on record and produced Nand Kishore as PW-2 and Jati Singh as PW-3 who were the attesting witnesses of Exhibit P-1. Both the Courts below have held that the agreement to sell was executed by the defendant in favour of the Plaintiff and on the basis of findings recorded on issues No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 suit for possession by way of specific performance was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff on payment of Rs.15,000/- as balance consideration and the defendant was granted four months’ time to get the sale deed executed in favour of the Plaintiff.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of this appeal, an application C.M. no.1978-C of 2008 has been filed by the Plaintiffs-respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for leading additional evidence by way of placing on record application dated 09-06-1993 as R-1 filed before S.D.O. (C), Ambala by the defendants against the Plaintiffs and the reply thereto as R-2 dated Nil. The aforesaid application is allowed as the same is not objected to by learned counsel for the defendant and the documents R-1 and R-2 are taken on record for the purpose of consideration as evidence in the present appeal.

8. Shri Sudhir Aggarwal, counsel for the appellants has submitted to this Court following substantial questions of law, which according to him, are arising in the present appeal :-

1. Whether the learned Courts below have not misread, misinterpreted the agreement to sell dated 1.5.1987?

2. Whether the relief of specific performance can be granted without showing his willingness and readyness?

3. Whether the a