Plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform the contract is mandatory under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. Lack of bonafide purchase and notice of agreement to sell precludes exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. No need for cancellation of sale deed before granting specific performance.

Heard Sri V. K. Kohli, the learned senior counsel duly assisted by Sri I. P. Kohli, the learned counsel for the appellants defendants and Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the respondents plaintiffs.

2. The plaintiffs respondents filed a suit for specific performance of a registered agreement to sell. The plaintiffs contended that by a registered agreement, the defendant no.1 Pritam Singh had agreed to sell the land to the plaintiffs measuring 2.90 acres of land in Khasra No.48 of village Jamniwala, Tehsil Kashipur for a sum of Rs.20,300. It was contended that a sum of Rs.7000/- was paid as advance and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant was requested several times to execute the sale deed, which fell on deaf ears and, ultimately, it was found that the defendant no.1 had sold the land in question to defendant nos.2 & 3 by means a registered sale deed dated 06.09.1983 selling 1.60 acres of land and by another sale deed dated 12.12.1983, the remaining land was sold to defendant nos.2, 3 & 4 for Rs.28,000/-. The plaintiffs accordingly prayed that the defendants be directed to execute the sale deed and deliver the possession of the land to the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant no.1 Pritam Singh died and his legal heir Smt. Bhagwati Devi was substituted, who filed the written statement and submitted that the plaintiff no.2 Murari Singh was her brother and that plaintiff no.1 Karan Singh was a friend of Murari Singh. The defendant admitted that a registered agreement to sell the land in question was executed since it was apprehended that the original defendant late Pritam Singh, i.e. the vendor, would sell the land in question to a third party, an agreement to sell was executed without payment of any consideration.

3. The defendant no.2 and 3 filed their written statements alleging that they had no knowledge or notice of any agreement to sell between the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 and that they are the bonafide purchasers and that they had purchased the property in good faith for valuable consideration and without notice. The defendants further contended that Murari Singh plaintiff no.2 had not filed the suit nor had signed the plaint and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. It was also alleged that the agreement to sell the property in question, if any, was executed without payment of any consideration. Similar allegation was also made by the defendant no.4 in his written statement.

4. The trial court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed various issues and, after appreciating the evidence that was brought on record, decreed the suit and directed the defendants to execute the sale deed. The trial court held that the plaintiff Murari Singh admitted that an agreement to sell was executed by the original vendor late Pritam Singh and that the signatures on the said document were of that late Pritam Singh and that the said agreement was duly registered before the Sub Registrar’s Office. The trial court further found that the legal heir of defendant no.1 also admitted in her written statement about the execution of the agreement to sell and, therefore, concluded that the original vendor had executed a registered agreement to sell. The trial court further found that the defendant no.2 to 4 are not the bonafide purchasers and were deemed to have notice of the agreement to sell. The trial court further found that since the defendants did not enquire from the office of Sub Registrar, the defendants had deemed knowledge of the alleged agreement to sell. The trial court further found that on the other hand, the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and, in this regard, had issued notices dated 30.05.1983 and 04.10.1983 requesting the defendant no.1 to execute the sale deed. The trial court further found that inspite of the receipt o