( 1. ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the defendants aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 8-12-2004 passed by Second Additional district Judge, Sehore in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2003.

( 2. ) THE plaintiff respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sale dated 10-3-1995. The suit was filed as against Kalimurrahman [since deceased, represented by defendants appellants No. 1 (a) to 1 (g)] and defendant Abdul Qadeer [since deceased, represented by defendants appellants no. (a) to 3 (g)]. An agreement was entered into for a consideration of Rs. 3,70,000/-, plaintiff paid part of consideration of Rs. 40,000/- to Kalimurrahman at the time of agreement through her deceased husband. Kalimurrahman refused to execute the sale-deed and to transfer the suit house in the name of defendant and ultimately sold suit house to original defendant in two parts vide sale deeds dated 18-9-1996 which the plaintiff claimed to be null and void.

( 3. ) THE defendants No. 1 and 2 in their written statement contended that agreement dated 10-3-1995 had never been executed by Kalimurrahman; same is forged and fabricated document. Abdul Qadeer was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. Abdul Qadeer had already purchased a part of suit house from Kalimurrahman vide registered sale deed (D-2) dated 7-2-1990. It was also contended that plaintiff was in occupation as tenant, earlier an agreement was entered into with late Afzal Ahmad, husband of plaintiff, sum of Rs. 40,000/-was paid in cash and Rs. 70,000/- was paid by cheque. As the cheque was dishonoured, plaintiffs husband had no arrangement of money. The sum of Rs. 40,000/- was also refunded to him. Thereafter, there was no question of executing the agreement dated 10-3-1995. The defendant No. 3 also took similar stand in the written statement. ( 4. ) ON the basis of purchase made by Dr. Anees Ansari he had filed a suit for ejectment under section 12 (1) (a) (c) (g) (h) of M. P. Accommodation Control act. It was not disputed that earlier the house in question was owned by late kalimurrahman. Husband of the plaintiff namely Afzal Ahmad was a tenant in the suit premises @ Rs. 65 per month. Afzal died on 15-3-1995. Kalimurrahman has also died. Two sale deeds were executed in favour of Dr. Anees Ansari on 18-9-1996. Transfer was made in favour of Dr. Ansari by late Kalimurrahman. Temporary injunction was operating against Kalimurrahman not to alienate the property. Plaintiff Najma had also filed a regular Civil Suit 12-A/98 against Dr. Anees Ansari and others, in that also injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff. It was directed that possession of the plaintiff not to be interfered with otherwise than in due course of law. Plaintiff Najma had served a notice on kalimurrahman for specific performance of agreement to sale. Kalimurrahman had sent a reply to the notice.

( 5. ) THE trial Court as per the impugned judgment and decree has decreed the suit filed by plaintiff Najma C. S. No. 5-A/03 whereas suit filed by Dr. Anees ansari C. S. No. 4- A/03 for ejectment has been dismissed. Specific performance of agreement to sell the property has been ordered. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2003 this appeal has been preferred by the defendants.

( 6. ) SHRI Imtiyaz Hussain, learned counsel appearing for appellants has submitted that plaintiff has not been able to establish readiness and willingness to purchase the property. She had arrangement of fund for purchase of property, has not been established. It is necessary upon the plaintiff to aver that she is ready to bear the stamp duty and registration charges in view of provisions of section 29 (1) (c) of Stamp Act and 55 (1) (d) of T. P. Act. Decree has been granted including part of house sold to Kalimurrahman vide sale deed Ex. D-2 dated 7-2-1990. He has further submitted that plaintiff may at the most be entitled for refund of Rs. 40,000/-in case agreement Ex. P-1 is found to be prove