JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. - This is a defendants appeal against a decree of the lower appellate court directing specific performance of an agreement for re-conveyance of the property in suit dated December 1, 1966 in favour of the plaintiff-respondents on fulfilment by them of certain conditions mentioned in the decree. The trial court had dismissed the suit. 2. The case of the plaintiff-respondents was that they had borrowed a sum of Rs. 5000/- from the appellant and had executed a sale-deed in his favour of the property in suit The appellant, according to the case of the plaintiffs had executed the agreement dated December 1, 1966 for re-conveying the property in case the plaintiffs paid the amount to him. The trial court did not accept the plaintiffs case and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court reversed that decree. 3. Appellant Babu, the defendant, had set up the case that the plaintiff, had executed two sale-deeds on February 25, 1967 in favour of others in respect of the property in suit so that they had no right left in them to seek specific performance dated December 1, 1966. It also was that the plaintiff did not repay the amount which they were required to do as a condition-precedent for seeking re-conveyance of the property. Further they had failed to establish that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract as mentioned in the agreement dated December 1, 1966. As such also, the plaintiffs were said to have lost their right of seeking specific performance of the agreement for re-conveyance. 4. The lower appellate court, on a consideration of the evidence an record, concluded that the amounts due to be paid by them were actually paid by the plaintiffs. This being a finding of fact is binding upon this court. The lower appellate court also held, on a consideration of the evidence on record that the plaintiffs had been ready to perform their part of the contract. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no averment in the plaint about the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiffs to perform their part of contract. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no averment in the plaint about the readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiffs to perform their part of contract. The lower appellate court has referred to paragraph 7 of the plaint in the judgment saying that it contained an averment that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to pay any amount found due according to the agreement dated December 1, 1966. In this view of the matter, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in this respect cannot be accepted. 5. Considerable emphasis was laid by the appellants counsel on one aspect of the case, namely, that the plaintiffs had no right to sue for specific performance of the agreement dated December 1, 1966. The submission in this respect was that having executed sale-deeds in respect of the property in suit, on February 25, 1967, the plaintiffs ceased to have any right to seek specific performance of the agreement dated December 1, 1966. The plaintiffs, until the re-conveyance of the property in suit in their favour, could hardly be said to have any subsisting right in the property in suit to transfer it, on February 5, 1967. As such, also, they cannot be said to have lost their right to seek specific performance of the agreement of the re-conveyance in their favour contained in the Iqrarnama dated December 1, 1966. 6. The finding of the lower appellate court upon the three questions posed by it for determination in the appeal do not suffer from any error of law. They do not merit any interference by this court. 7. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed but, in the circumstances of the case, without any orders as to costs.