Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.:- Vide this judgment RSA No.754 of 2012 titled as Gurjinder Singh Vs. Paramjit Kaur and another and Crossobjection No.15-C of 2012 are being decided.

2. Plaintiff Gurjinder Singh filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.12.1999 in respect of land measuring 1 kanal as depicted in the head-note of the plaint. In alternative, suit for recovery of Rs.96800/- along with interest i.e. 80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- earnest amount and 40,000/- penalty+ Rs.1680/- as interest @ 12 % per annum from 12.02.2000 upto 15.10.2002) and forfeiture interest @ 12 % per annum was also pressed into service. Plaintiff alleged that agreement to sell was executed on 17.12.1999 for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,74,000/-. Defendant No.1 received Rs.40,000/- as earnest amount at the time of execution of agreement to sell in the presence of attesting witnesses namely Purshotam Singh and Darshan Singh. The target date for registration of sale deed was fixed as 15.02.2000. It was agreed between the parties that in case plaintiff resiles from the agreement his earnest amount would be forfeited by the defendant No.1 and in case of default on the part of defendant, he would pay double of the earnest money. Plaintiff alleged that he remained always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and remained present in the Teshil Office on 15.02.2000 along with balance sale consideration but defendant No.1 did not turn up and he got his presence marked by way of affidavit. Subsequently, plaintiff came to know that defendant No.1 has illegally executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 13.11.2000 which is claimed to be collusive, null and void and is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 had full knowledge of agreement to sell because Purshotam Singh had already witnessed the agreement to sell. Plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 12.04.2002 to the defendant but the same was received back unserved. Again a notice dated 24.09.2002 was received back as refused by defendant No.1.

3. The suit has been contested by defendant No.1 on all the grounds. Readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff was denied. It was submitted that defendant No.1 remained present in the office of Sub Registrar but plaintiff did not turn up as he was not ready and willing to perform his part of agreement. Plaintiff did not turn up during working hours. Defendant No.1 got her presence marked by way of affidavit. She was in need of money and the plaintiff did not approach her even after the stipulated date. No notice was received by her. Defendant No.2 also contested the suit and claimed that he is a bona fide purchaser without notice. No litigation was pending at the time of purchase of land for valuable consideration.

4. Plaintiff filed replication. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 17.12.1999? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to alternative relief of recovery as alleged? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement? OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the defendant No.2 is bona fide purchaser and he is protected under the provision of Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act? OPD

7. Relief.”

5. To prove their case, both the parties led their respective evidence.

6. Trial Court took issues No.1, 3 and 6 jointly and discussed the evidence of scribe Ajay Pal and other witnesses. Trial Court decided issues No.1 and 3 against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants. Issue No.6 was also decided in favour of defendants. It is only under issue No.2 the trial Court held that plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance as he was not ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Since the