By the Court.—Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for appellants. None appeared on behalf of respondent though the appeal has been called in revised and names of Sri Devendra Dahma and Sri A.S. Jadaun, Advocates for respondent are shown in the cause list. Therefore, we proceed ex parte to decide the appeal.

2. It is a plaintiff’s appeal.

3. This First Appeal, under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, has arisen from judgment and decree dated 10.12.2001, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No. 2, Aligarh in Original Suit No. 143 of 1998 (Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and others v. Smt. Bitta Devi @ Bitti), whereby it has dismissed Original Suit No. 143 of 1998, in so far as the relief of specific performance was prayed by plaintiffs appellants but has decreed to the extent of refund of advance money alongwith interest.

4. The plaintiffs appellants instituted Original Suit No. 143 of 1998 impleading Smt. Bitta Devi @ Bitti W/o Aedal Singh as sole defendant. The plaint case set up by the appellants was that the defendant is owner in possession of property in dispute, situate at village Madrak Paragana and Tehsil Koil, District Aligarh. A registered contract for sale, dated 9.7.1993, was executed for a total sale consideration of Rs. 5,49,150/-, out of which Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant as earnest money. Rest of the amount was payable at the time of execution and registration of sale-deed. The parties agreed to execute sale-deed after defendant collect clearance certificate from income tax department and inform the plaintiffs accordingly, but within one year from the date of execution of agreement to sell. Since the requisite clearance from income tax department could not be received by defendant within time, the parties agreed to extend period of one year more for execution of sale-deed vide another registered agreement to sale dated 20.5.1994. Since defendant did not thereafter abide by its own terms of contract, the plaintiffs served notice dated 12.8.1997 requiring defendant to appear before Sub Registrar, Koil on 5.9.1998 for execution of sale-deed. They (plaintiffs) also presented themselves in the office of Sub Registrar on the said date but defendant did not come, hence suit for specific performance was instituted by plaintiffs.

5. The defendant contested the matter, wherein she denied execution of agreement to sale on 9.7.1993 and also denied receipt of advance money of Rs. 50,000/- from plaintiffs. She also denied execution of another registered agreement to sale dated 20.5.1994 and claimed that it is false and manufacture.

6. Since the very foundation of plaint case was disputed by defendant. Trial Court formulated following issues for deciding suit :

**1- D;k izfrokfnuh us okn i= esa of.kZr lEifŸk dk iathd`r bdjkjukek fn0 9-7-1993 dks oknhx.k ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr fd;k \

1. Whether the lady defendant executed a registered agreement in favour of the plaintiffs on 9.7.93 of the property mentioned in the plaint?

2- D;k oknh bdjkjukek dh 'krksZ ds vuqlkj lnSo cSukek djus ds fy, bPNqd jgk vkSj vc Hkh rS;kj o bPNqd gS] ;fn gkW rks izHkko \

2. Whether the plaintiff, as per conditions of the agreement, was always willing to enter into a sale-deed and is still prepared and willing? If so, its effect?

3- D;k oknh dk okn /kkjk 2 ch] 2,p-] 2lh-] rFkk 10 o 20] lafonk vf/kfu;e ls ckfèkr gS \

3. Whether the plaintiff’s suit is barred by the Section 2B, 2H, 2C, 10 and 20 of the Contract Act?

4- D;k nkok le; vof/k ls ckf/kr gSa \

4. Whether the suit is time barred?

5- D;k nkok fof'k"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e dks /kkjk 12] 16 o 20 ls ckf/kr gSa \

5. Whether the suit is barred by the Section 12, 16 and 20 of the Specific Relief Act?

6- vuqrks"kA

6. Relief.**

(English translation by the Court)

7. Issue Nos. 1 and 3 were taken together. The trial Court recorded a finding that two agreements for sale possess signature of defendant but plaintiffs had not signed both these documents and