Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of admission of second appeal and perused the records.

2. Original suit No. 88 of 2001 (Ram Charan Sharma v. Smt. Rajwati Devi) was filed for specific performance of contract. The plaint case in brief was that registered agreement to sell dated 31.3.1999 was executed between the parties, by which defendant Smt. Rajwati Devi had agreed to sell her bhumidhari plot No. 316 to plaintiff Ram Charan Sharma for a consideration of Rs. 72,000/- and had received advance consideration of Rs. 64,000/-. It was agreed that defendant will execute the sale-deed of this property to plaintiff after receiving remaining consideration within one year and hand over its possession. But defendant had not taken interest in executing the sale-deed, then plaintiff had sent her legal notice and also orally requested. On the basis of assurance given on behalf of defendant, the plaintiff has been waiting in Sub-Registrar Office at stipulated time for sale-deed, but the defendant had not turned up. The plaintiff has been ready ad willing to perform his part of contract by paying remaining consideration for getting the sale-deed executed but defendant is not willing to perform her part of contract, therefore, plaintiff had filed suit for specific performance of aforesaid registered agreement for sale.

3. Defendant Smt. Rajwati Devi had filed written statement in original suit, by which plaint case was not admitted. It was further pleaded that defendant had no intention to sell her property of plot Khasra No. 316. In fact plaintiff is money-lender and defendant had asked him for loan of Rs. 64,000/-, then plaintiff had agreed to give loan of Rs. 64,000/- on interest, but asked her to execute surety bond for loan. The plaintiff is a clever litigant person who had ulterior motive, so he colluded with scribe and witnesses who prepared the document, and in place of document of loan, they prepared the document of agreement for sale by playing fraud on defendant. The document of said agreement dated 31.3.1999 was never read over or explained to defendant and her thumb impression was taken on it in garb of document of surety bond. This fraud was committed by plaintiff by taking advantage of illiteracy and simplicity of defendant. Defendant had returned the amount of Rs. 18000/- of loan to plaintiff, but in spite of it plaintiff had filed this suit for specific performance of contract on basis of incorrect facts. The plaintiff’s suit is time barred and is liable to be dismissed.

4. After framing issues, accepting evidences and affording opportunity of hearing to parties, the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Aligarh had decreed the original suit by its judgment dated 29.7.2003 and directed the defendant to receive remaining consideration of Rs. 8,000/- from plaintiff and execute the sale-deed of disputed property, failing which plaintiff would be entitled to get the sale-deed executed through Court. In this judgment, trial Court had appreciated the evidences and contentions of the parties and gave specific finding that in this matter although defendant is illiterate but she is not entitled to the benefits available to pardanashin ladies. The trial Court had held that in this matter registered agreement to sell was executed in presence of husband of defendant who is literate person and who had verified the signature of defendant and no fraud was committed; and also that there is no evidence that transaction in question was for loan, or that any loan amount of Rs. 18,000/- was refunded by defendant. On the basis of evidences the trial Court had also given finding that the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform is part of contract regarding execution of sale-deed, which is proved from evidences. The trial Court had also appreciated this argument of defendant (present appellant) side that whether the alternative relief of refund of money should be granted. It held that such