JUDGMENT :

1. The instant second appeal has been preferred by the defendants-appellants emanating from a suit for specific performance of contract filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, wherein the trial Court by means of the judgment and decree dated 07.04.1992 refused the decree of specific performance which was assailed before the lower Appellate Court and the lower Appellate Court by means of its judgment and decree dated 02.12.1992 has set aside the decree of trial Court and has decreed the suit for specific performance, prompting the defendants-appellants to knock the doors of this Court under Section 100 CPC.

2. The instant second appeal was admitted by the Court on 24.03.1993 on the substantial question of law as formulated in the memo of appeal, Clause A, which reads as under:-

A. Whether the learned court below have misread and misinterpreted documents on record which renders their findings, perverse, incorrect, illegal?

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the second appeal, certain relevant facts relating to the suit are being noticed hereinafter.

4. Ganesh Prasad and Satish Kumar, both minors sons of Kanhaiya Lal, through their father and natural guardian, had instituted a suit for specific performance of contract dated 12.08.1983 in terms whereof the original vendor, namely, Sarju Prasad had agreed to sell the property in dispute bearing No.367 (New No.346), situate in Jawahar Nagar, District Unnao. In terms of the said agreement executed by Sarju Prasad, it was agreed that for a total sale consideration of Rs.12,500/-, Sarju Prasad would sell the property in dispute to the minor sons of Kanhaiya Lal for which a sum of Rs.500/- was paid by the plaintiffs to Sarju Prasad as earnest money and the remaining consideration was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale-deed. The agreement also contemplated that the sale-deed would be executed within a period of one month and the possession will be transferred to the plaintiffs at the time of execution of the sale-deed.

5. It was also pleaded that before the sale-deed could be executed, Sarju Prasad expired and he was survived by his wife and three children, who were impleaded as the defendants. It was aslo recorded in the plaint that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of contract and they had requisite means of paying the remaining consideration. However, the defendants were evading to perform their obligation, as a result, the plaintiffs had sent a notice dated 12.08.1983 and despite the same, the defendants did not comply with their obligations which led the plaintiffs to institute the suit for specific performance before the Court of Civil Judge, Unnao which was registered as Regular Suit No.52/1986.

6. The said suit was contested by the defendants, who were the legal heirs of the original executant of the agreement Sarju Prasad and while denying the execution of the agreement, it was specifically stated that Sarju Prasad prior to his death was suffering from a respiratory disease due to which he had become very weak and was also not mentally alert. It was further pleaded that neither Sarju Prasad executed the agreement nor he had the authority to do so. Sarju Prasad did not even have the need to sell the property and as such it appears that the plaintiffs in order to usurp the property got the agreement executed through impersonation as Sarju Prasad had died on 23.09.1982 and as such the agreement which is dated 10.08.1983 could not have been executed by him. For the aforesaid reasons, it was pleaded that the suit for speci