JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard Sri Shyam Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned senior counsel along with Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This is the defendants' second appeal under section 100 CPC preferred against the judgement and decree dated 28.05.1984 passed by the Sixth Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Regular Civil Appeal No.67/1983 by which the plaintiff's first appeal was allowed as a result a suit for specific performance of contract, which was dismissed by the trial court, was decreed by the lower appellate court.

3. The appeal came to be admitted by this Court on 22.08.1984 but no substantial question of law was formulated. Later on 24.11.2021, this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties formulated the following three substantial questions of law, which read as under:-

I. Whether the plaintiff can establish his readiness and willingness in order to obtain the relief for specific performance of contract dated 20-07-1977.

II. Whether the lower appellate court has incorrectly interpreted the agreement to sale dated 20-07-1977.

III. Whether the lower appellate court has incorrectly exercised its discretion in granting relief of specific performance of the contract dated 20-07-1997 contrary to the provisions of sections 19 & 20 of the Specific Relief Act.

4. It will also be relevant to notice that in the instant second appeal, the appellant no.1, Ramzan Ali was the defendant no.1 whereas appellant no.2, Musheer Ahmad was the defendant no.2 and both of them have died during the pendency of the instant appeal and their legal heirs have been duly brought on record and are represented by Sri Shyam Mohan, Advocate. Altafur Rahman, the original plaintiff, the respondent in the second appeal also expired and his legal heirs have been brought on record and are represented by the learned senior counsel Sri Mohd. Arif Khan. For the sake of convenience, the Court shall be referring to the parties as they were impleaded at the time of the institution of the case. The reference to plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 shall also include their legal heirs and representatives.

5. Before adverting to the respective contentions of the parties, brief facts giving rise to the instant second appeal are being noticed first.

6. Sri Altafur Rahman, as plaintiff, instituted a suit for specific performance of contract impleading the defendant no.1, who was the owner of 81 paisa share in House No.422/20 situate at Tope Darwaza, Police Station Saadatganj, Lucknow. It was pleaded that Ramzan Ali had earlier purchased the aforesaid property from the plaintiff by means of registered sale deed dated 25.02.1969 for a sum of Rs.3, 000/-. The mother and sister of the plaintiff along with her husband (brother-in-law of the plaintiff) were residing in the upper portion of the said house while the defendant no.2, Musheer Ahmad was residing on the ground floor as tenant. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was residing in Delhi on account of his embroidery business and in first week of July, 1977, it came to his knowledge that the defendant no.1 was intending to dispose of his share in the said house.

7. After negotiations, the defendant no.1 agreed to sale his 81 paisa share in the house in question to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.8, 900/-. A sum of Rs.3, 000/- was paid to the defendant no.1 as earnest money and it was agreed that the defendant no.1 after obtaining necessary permission for transfer of share to the plaintiff shall inform the plaintiff within a month of having obtained such permissions and thereafter the plaintiff within a month thereof would get the sale deed executed. In case, if the plaintiff failed to get the sale deed executed, his earnest money would stand forfeited while in case defendant no.1 avoided the performance of his obligation then the plaintiff would have right to get the sale deed executed through the Court of law.

8. It is the case of