The court emphasized the sufficiency of physical boundaries to identify the property and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

These appeals are filed under Section 100 of the CPC and clustered for purpose of disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as these appeals have emerged from the suit being Title Suit No. 51 of 2006 instituted by the respondent No.1, in both these appeals, for specific performance of contract. By the common judgment dated 07.05.2012 delivered in Title Appeal No. 31 of 2008 and Title Appeal No. 32 of 2008 by the District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar [as he then was], the judgment dated 26.06.2008 delivered in Title Suit No. 51 of 2006 has been reversed.

2. The suit filed by the respondent No.1 was dismissed by the trial court [the Court of the Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Kailashahar, North Tripura] so far the specific performance of contract dated 15.12.2005 for purchase of suit land is concerned. However, the suit was partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent to the effect that he would get back the earnest money of Rs.20,000/- with 10% simple interest per annum from the appellant herein calculating interest from 20.12.2005 till realization with cost of the suit.

3. Two separate appeals were filed. One by the appellant herein being Title Appeal No.31 of 2008 [Md. Abdul Sattar vs. Md. Maruf Ali] challenging the money decree as stated and the other appeal was filed by the respondent No.1 herein being Title Appeal No.32 of 2008 [Md. Maruf Ali vs. Md. Abdul Sattar and another].

4. The plaintiff-respondent filed the said appeal being Title Appeal No.32 of 2008 for obvious purpose so that he could get a decree of specific performance. The appellate court by the impugned judgment dated 07.05.2012 has decreed the suit by reversing the finding of the trial court on the specific performance of contract. However, as consequence of that finding, the title appeal being TA No.31 of 2008 was dismissed. Against the said reversal finding, the appellants have filed these appeals. At the time of admitting these appeals identical substantial questions of law have been framed by this court for hearing and those are as under:

“(1) Whether the learned first appellate court can pass any decree in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the agreement marked as Ext.1 which is not enforceable in aw in view of the transfer of suit land by the defendant No.1-appellant in favour of the defendant No.2?

(2) Whether a registered sale deed bearing No.1-341 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 can be looked into by the lower appellate court when such registered sale deed was not under challenge?”

5. For appreciating the substantial questions of law as stated, the essential facts may briefly be introduced at the outset. The appellant being the owner and the possessor of the suit land, as described in the plaint, entered into a written agreement [unregistered bainapatra] for sale of the suit land to the plaintiff-respondent. It was agreed that the appellant would execute the sale deed within 20.12.2005 in favour of the respondent No.1. The plaintiff-respondent paid the earnest money being Rs.20,000/- out of the total consideration money of Rs.40,000/- by a bank cheque. The plaintiff-respondent has also pleaded that while preparing the agreement a mistake crept in recording khatian number of the land, that was proposed to be sold out. Khatian No.188 was recorded in place of khatian No.953. One deed writer, namely, Quesh Ahmed had written that bainapatra. Despite repeated requests for executing the sale deed in terms of the said bainapatra on accepting the remainder of Rs.20,000/-, the appellants did not perform their part. As a result, the plaintiff-respondent on 18.01.2006 issued a demand notice on the appellant in RSA No. 45 of 2012. Despite the contract to sale was in force, the appellant sold out the land to the defendant No.2-respondent, the appellant in RSA No.46 of 2012. But no step was taken to perform the said contract for sale. In that circumstance, the suit for specific performance was instituted. The foll