The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform a contract beyond doubt, as mandated by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Mahesh Grover, J. - The plaintiffs-appellants have filed the present appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 4.9.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Hisar (hereinafter described as the lower Appellate Court) whereby the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1999 rendered by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court) was set aside.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that one Khairati Lal (arrayed as defendant No. 1 in the suit and now represented by his legal heirs) executed an agreement to sell dated 13.9.1989 regarding the suit land for a sum of Rs. 3,06,500/-. According to the terms of the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed by 25.6.1990. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid as earnest money and the rest of the amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed (Rs. 50,000/- were paid on 13.9.1989 and Rs. 50,000/- were paid on 9.10.1989). Khairati Lal defaulted in carrying out his part of agreement and on 12.6.1990 when he was threatening to sell the suit land to some other persons, the appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction against him, Sheo Lal and Birbal (arrayed as respondent Nos. 7 and 8 herein) seeking to restrain Khairati Lal from alienating the suit property by way of sale in favour of respondent Nos. 7 and 8. On 13.6.1990, temporary injunction was granted in favour of the appellants. Subsequently, it transpired that Khairati Lal sold the suit land to respondent Nos. 9 to 11 herein. The suit was then converted into a suit for possession by way of specific performance by making an appropriate application on 17.10.1990 which was allowed on 22.10.1990.

3. The case set up by the appellants was that they were always willing and reading to perform their part of agreement and on 25.6.1990, they remained present in the office of Sub Registrar, but Khairati Lal did not appear. On 10.7.1990, a registered notice was served upon Khairati Lal and he was asked to execute the sale deed on 17.7.1990, but he again did not turn up. According to the appellants, their willingness to get the sale deed executed is also reflected from the fact that they had filed a suit for permanent injunction, but Khairati Lal defaulted and sold the land to some other persons, who are, in fact, the sons of Sheo Lal. They pleaded that the sale in favour of respondent Nos. 9 to 11 was bad and that their suit for possession by way of specific performance deserved to be decreed.

4. Khairati Lal died during the pendency of the suit and he is now represented by his legal heirs, who have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein. In his written statement, Khairati Lal had admitted the execution of the agreement to sell in favour of the appellants, but had pleaded that they had not come to the office of Sub Registrar on 25.6.1990 and rather, he had been present and an affidavit to that effect was sworn by him. He had further pleaded that the appellants had met him, but they had expressed their inability to pay the balance amount. The receipt of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as earnest money was not denied by him, but it was averred that the same could not have been returned according to the terms of the agreement which stipulated that the same would stand forfeited in case of default. He had further averred that the land in dispute was sold for the same consideration to present respondent Nos. 9 to 11.

5. Respondent No. 7-Sheo Lal, who was arrayed as defendant No. 2, did not contest the suit and respondent No. 8 - Birbal, who was defendant No. 3, pleaded in his written statement that an oral agreement to sell the suit land had been made by Khairati Lal in his favour and he had paid Rs. 1000/- as earnest money, but when he came to know of the agreement to sell with the appellants, he refused to purchase the same.

6. In their written statement, respondent Nos. 9 to 11 set up a plea to say that they were the bona fide purchasers of the suit land which was purchased vide registered