The main legal point established is that a party seeking specific performance must demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform the contract, and the suit must be filed within the limitation period.

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.

This regular second appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 2.11.1987 of the lower court below whereby suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 11.6.1983, holding that the sale deed dated 21.5.1986 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 to 7 in derogation of the agreement and being without the authority and with an intention to cause loss to the plaintiff, was decreed and the appeal preferred by the vendee defendants against the said decree of the lower court, was also dismissed on 7.3.1991.

2. Darshan Singh, defendant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein, being owner of the land in suit had agreed to sell the same to plaintiff Joginder Singh (since deceased and being represented by his LRs), respondent No.1 @ Rs. 9,000/- per killa vide agreement to sell dated 11.6.1983, when earnest money of Rs. 5,000/- had also been paid. Sale deed was to be executed on or before 8.12.1983. Another sum of Rs. 5,000/- was received by the owner defendant from the plaintiff on 23.6.1984 vide writing made on the back of the original agreement. When defendant owner Darshan Singh did not come forward to execute the sale deed when whereas the plaintiff continued to be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, on the appointed date he went to the office of the Sub Registrar, Muktsar ready with the balance sale consideration as also money to defray expenses for stamp and charges as also miscellaneous expenses but the defendant did not turn up for execution of the sale deed. Consequently waiting for the whole day, the plaintiff made application (Ex.P1) wherein Naib Tehsildar Muktsar making endorsement Ex.P1/A, noticed his presence.

3. Claiming himself to be ready and willing to perform the agreement, notice (Ex.P7) was sent on 30.11.1984 to the defendant owner Darshan Singh through his counsel calling upon the vendor-defendant to execute the sale deed within a week but the defendant even then did not take any steps in that direction and continued defiance to perform his part of the contract.

4. When the plaintiff had continuously been waiting being ready with the balance sale consideration and money for defraying charges for stamp and registration as also miscellaneous expenses, the defendant sold the land to defendants No.2 to 7 (now appellants) vide sale deed Ex.D1 on 21.5.1986, thus prejudicing the rights of the plaintiff flowing from agreement (Ex.P5). Sequelly, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement and claiming the sale deed in favour of the defendants to be null and void and thus being of no consequence.

5. Non-appearance of defendant No.2 despite service resulted in ex-parte proceedings against him on 21.11.1986.

6. In their joint written statement furnished by vendee defendants No.2 to 7, they have claimed agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff to be incomplete and uncertain. Suit of the plaintiff was also contested on the plea that as per the agreement, total land was 44 kanal whereas the suit had been filed for specific performance of land only for 35 kanals 11 marlas. Claiming themselves to be bona-fide purchasers for value and consideration, they had denied knowledge of any agreement in favour of the plaintiff. Rest of the case of the plaintiff was also denied, praying for dismissal of the suit.

7. In replication preferred by the plaintiff, controverting all the averments of the contesting defendants, case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint, was reiterated.

8. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled for adjudication by the lower court on 7.1.1987:-

1. Whether Darshan Singh defendant executed agreement dated 11.6.81 for sale of land in dispute to the plaintiff? If so to what effect? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement? OPP

3. Whether defendants No. 2 to 7 are bona-fide purchasers for value of the suit land? If so to wh