Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard Sri Ashfaq Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K.M. Sahai, learned counsel who has appeared for respondents through caveat.

2. This is plaintiffs’ Second Appeal arising out of O.S. No. 383 of 1986. The suit was filed on 8.7.1986 for specific performance of an unregistered agreement for sale dated 14.7.1975 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Alimun Nisa defendant No. 1 since deceased and survived by legal representatives. She was either divorcee or separated from her husband due to his second marriage. It was further stated that son of Smt. Alimun Nisa was involved in some criminal cases, hence, Smt. Alimun Nisa requested plaintiff No. 2 Mohd. Usman, her real nephew to help her financially, accordingly, plaintiff No. 2 advanced money to her and she executed unregistered agreement for sale of her already separated share in the ancestral house in favour of plaintiff No. 1 Maimunun Nisa w/o plaintiff No. 2 for Rs. 30000/- and she was paid Rs. 15000/- as earnest money as plaintiffs who are husband and wife were not having ready money. It was further pleaded that at the time of agreement Smt. Alimun Nisa also delivered possession of one room of the house in dispute to the plaintiffs. It was further stated that Rs. 7000/- were subsequently paid on different dates till May 1986 to one of the sons of Smt. Alimun Nisa. The property in dispute was subsequently sold on 8.7.1986 (the date on which suit was filed) by Smt. Alimun Nisa to respondent No. 4 since deceased and survived by legal representatives in 1986.

3. The suit was decreed on 10.5.2002 by Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No. 2, Varanasi. Against the said judgment and decree Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2002 was filed by the legal representatives of defendant No. 4 subsequent purchaser Haji Shamsuddin which was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2002. A.D.J. Court No. 14 Varanasi through judgment and decree dated 25.7.2011 allowed the appeal set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs hence this Second appeal.

4. It was specifically pleaded by the plaintiffs that due to involvement of her son in criminal case Smt. Alimun Nisa had incurred debt and creditors were pressurising her to repay the debt and she was in dire need of money. The agreement was executed only in favour of Maimunun Nisa plaintiff No. 1. It is not clear that why her husband Dr. Mohd. Usman plaintiff No. 2 was impleaded as plaintiff. The suit was filed on 8.7.1986 i.e. after 11 years of alleged agreement. It was alleged that Rs. 7000/- were paid on different dates till May 1986 to one of the sons of Alimun Nisa. It was further alleged that on 5.7.1986 plaintiffs came to know that defendant No. 1 was going to execute the sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 4, hence they filed application before the Ceiling Department for permission.

5. The lower appellate Court held that for 11 years neither notice was given by the plaintiff No. 1 to the defendant No. 1 for execution of the sale-deed nor she took any other step towards that.

6. It was also pleaded in the plaint that in the year 1975 State of U.P. had imposed restriction on transfer of Urban Properties. However, that restriction stood lifted by passing of Urban Land Ceiling Act 1976. Under the said Act if only constructed portion was to be sold no permission was required and even if constructed portion and some open appurtenant land was to be sold, it could be sold with the permission. Plaintiffs did not take any step for obtaining the permission until filing of the suit. Plaintiff No. 1 in whose favour agreement was alleged to have been executed did not appear as witness to prove that she was always ready and willing to get the sale-deed executed. Lower appellate Court further held that no dates of subsequent payment of Rs. 7000/- were mentioned in the plaint. Lower appellate Court further held that no witness of the plaintiff (apart from plaintiff No. 2) st