JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by the defendants Dakha Bai and Moti Devi is directed against the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Tonk dated September 9, 1987. The plaintiff respondents have also filed cross objections. Brief facts of the case are that Girdhari Lal and Damodar Lal (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance, and possession of a shop situated in the town of Niwai. The case of the plaintiffs was that there is a shop situated in the town of Niwai which was agreed to be sold by defendants Dakha Bai Mott Devi and Pradeep Kumar for Rs. 15,000/- in the presence of Padam Chand on July 8, 1980. In persuance to the above agreement the plaintiffs paid an amount of Rs. 8,500/- to defendant Nos. 1 to 3 on July 8, 1980 and also paid Rs. 664/-for purchasing stamps from the treasury. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on the same day purchased the stamps of Rs. 664/- but at the time of executing the sale-deed for Rs. 15,000/- it was revealed that the total stamp duty was Rs. 1,114/- and as such the plaintiffs paid an amount of Rs. 450/- for purchasing the stamps from treasuary to defendants on July 9, 1980. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 purchased the stamps of Rs. 450/- on July 9, 1980 and gave the stamps worth Rs. 1,114/- for writing the sale-deed to Nemichand Jain Deed- writer of Niwai. 7 he defendant Nos. 1 to 3 gave directions to Nemichand to write the sale-deed of the shop in favour of the plaintiffs. 2. It was further alleged that the sale-deed was to be registered on July 9, 1980 itself but on account of the inspection of Tehsil by the Collector, the Sub- Registrar (Tehsildar) Niwai remained busy with the Collector and the plaintiffs were also not able to withdraw the amount of Rs. 6,100/- from the bank as such the execution and the registration of the sale-deed could not take place on July 9, 1980. In the morning of July 10, 1980 the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 went to Mandsor (Madhya Pradesh) in connectirn with the marriage of their relations and returned back to Niwai on July 15, 1980. 6,100/- from the bank as such the execution and the registration of the sale-deed could not take place on July 9, 1980. In the morning of July 10, 1980 the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 went to Mandsor (Madhya Pradesh) in connectirn with the marriage of their relations and returned back to Niwai on July 15, 1980. It was further alleged that on July 15, 1980, the plaintiff' Na' Girdhari Lal along with Padam Chand went to the house of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and gave Rs. 6,500/- to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 namely Dakha Bai and Moti Devi and thereafter the above defendant Nos. 1 and 2 told that defendant No. 3 Pradeep Kumar will becoming within a short time and thereafter all the three would come in the office of the Sub-Registrar. On this under standing the plaintiff Girdhari Lal. Padam Chand and one Damodar Prasad came to the office of sub-registrar (Tehsildar) and informed Nemi Chand deed-writer that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 would be reaching in the office of the sub-registrar for getting the sale-deed registered within half an hour Deed-writer Nemi Chand then prepared the sale-deed so that no delay may take place and the defendants who were woman folk may not have to wait for a long time in the office of the Registrar. It has been further alleged in the plaint that as soon as the plaintiff reached in the office of the Sub-registrar from the house of the defendants. Nos. 1 to 3 the defendants Nos. 4 to 6 namely Ramjeewan, Bansi Lal and Nand Lal reached the house of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and made an agreement for the sale of three shops including the suit shop by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant Nos. 4 to 6. The defendants Nos. 4 to 6 settled to purchase the three shops for Rs. 36,000/- and the defendants Nos 1 to 3 accepted Rs. 10,000/ - as earnest money and in this way the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 resiled from completing the sale in favour of the plaintiff's and did not come to the office of the sub-registrar. The plaintiffs on receiving the above information immediately went to the house of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and asked them to get the sale-deed registered in favour of the plaintiffs but the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 resiled from completing the sale in favour of the plaintiff's and did not come to the office of the sub-registrar. The plaintiffs on receiving the above information immediately went to the house of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and asked them to get the sale-deed registered in favour of the plaintiffs but the defendant Nos. 1 and told that the agreement in favour of the plaintiffs may be considered as cancelled as they had sold all the three shops to one party. The plaintiffs in these circumstances filed the present suit on July 17, 1980, for specific performance of the agreement to safe made in their favour and to hand over possession of the suit shop. 3. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed a written statement on October 4, 1980 and took the plea that no agreement to the suit shop was made with the plaintiffs. It was alleged that there was another shop of the defendants outside the office of Tehsil, Newai in which Ram Kishan Todwal was a tenant Over this shop here is a house of Padam Chand and his brothers. Some talks for selling this shop for Rs. 1500/- had taken place between Padam Chand and the answering defendants. After the said talk defendant No. 3 Pradeep Kumar went to the market and in his absence Padam Chand got the signatures of Dakha Bai and Mori Devi defendants on a challan for purchasing the stamps Padam Chand thereafter brought the stamps and also got the signatures of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on the stamps. On July 9, 1980 in the morning Padam Chand again came to the house of answering defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and told them to get the registration of the shop outside Tehsil in his favour and on this the defendant Pradeep Kumar told that they would get the registration for not less than Rs. 15,000/- Padam Chand on this told them to get the registration done for Rs. 10,000/- and not to waste the expences for Rs. 5,000/- but the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 refused to do so and this annoyed Padam Chand, but thereafter Padam Chand further got the signatures of the defendants on the challan for purchasing stamps worth Rs. 450/- and these stamps of Rs. 450/-were also brought Padam Chand then took away the entire stamps of Rs. 1,114/-. 5,000/- but the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 refused to do so and this annoyed Padam Chand, but thereafter Padam Chand further got the signatures of the defendants on the challan for purchasing stamps worth Rs. 450/- and these stamps of Rs. 450/-were also brought Padam Chand then took away the entire stamps of Rs. 1,114/-. Thereafter, defendants No. 2 and 3 went to Mandsaur on July 10, 1980 in a marriage. Padam Chand -hereafter did not come back to the defendants. Thus, the case of the defendants No. 1 to 3 was that they had made no agreement for the sale of the suit shop with the plaintiffs. They had not received any amount of Rs. 850 /- from the plaintiffs The stamps of Rs. 663/- and Rs. 450/- were purchased for the transaction alleged to be made with Padam Chand. The defend in its hart not given the stamps to Nemi Chand, deed-writer nor had given any instructions to Nemi Chand to write any sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs Defendant No. 1 had not gone in any marriage and was in Newai Defendant No. 2 had returned hack to Newai on July 11, 1980, and defendant No. 3 had returned back on July 15, 1980. On July 16, 1980 the plaintiffs had neither come to the defendants nor gave any money and the entire story of agreement to execute any sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs was imaginary. 4. It was further alleged that an agreement to sell three shops in favour of the defendants No. 4 to 6 was made on July 15, 1940 itself for Rs. 41,000/ When the plaintiffs came to know about the sale of the three shops, then the plaintiff Girdhari came to the defendants and made entreaties to sell one shop to him whose one portion was in his tenancy but the defendants declined to do so. The plaintiff Girdhari Lal on this gave a threatening that if the defendants would not give the shop by consent then he would take it by other means. Thereafter, the plaintiffs in collusion with Padam Chand who was the friend of plaintiff Damodar Lal made a conspiracy and got a sale-deed written in favour of the plaintiffs on the stamps which were with Padam Chand. Thereafter, the plaintiffs in collusion with Padam Chand who was the friend of plaintiff Damodar Lal made a conspiracy and got a sale-deed written in favour of the plaintiffs on the stamps which were with Padam Chand. Thus when no talk had taken place for selling the shop in question to the plaintiffs, there was no question of resiling from such agreement. The plaintiff Girdhari Lal was a cunning sort of person and he also lodged a false report in the police and was unnecessarily harassing the defendants. 5. The defendants No. 4 to 6 filed a separate written statement and their plea was that no agreement had been made by the defendants Nos. 4 to 3 to sell the suit shop to the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 4 to 6 had no knowledge of such agreement. They further pleaded that it was wrong that they had gone to the residence of defendants No. 1 and 2 on July 16, 1980 and settled to purchase the three shops for Rs. 36,000/- and paid any earnest money. It was further alleged that the defendant No. 4 had purchased the suit shop for Rs. 15,000/- on July 17, 1980 from defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and after paying the entire sale money of Rs. 15,000/- to defendant Nos. 1 to 3 he obtained possession and ownership of the shop. The defendants No. 1 to 3 in this regard also got the sale-deed registered in favour of defendant No. 4 on July 11, 1980. The defendant No 4 has already purchased the suit shop before filing the present writ. The answering defendants No. 4 to 6 had no knowledge of any agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 4 is a bona fide purchaser in good faith after paying the full consideration of the suit shop. 6. The plaintiffs thereafter got the suit amended and further added in the plaint to get the sale-deed dated July 17, 1980 registered in favour of the defendant 4 to be declared null and void as the defendant had full knowledge about the transaction of sale of the suit shop by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiffs. In the prayer clause it was added that the sale-deed made by defendant No. 4 by registered sale-deed dated July 17, 1980 may be declared null and void and cancelled. 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiffs. In the prayer clause it was added that the sale-deed made by defendant No. 4 by registered sale-deed dated July 17, 1980 may be declared null and void and cancelled. 7. All the defendants submitted amended written statement and took almost the same stand which had been taken in the original written statements. 8. The trial Court on the basis of the above pleadings of the parties framed the following issues : 1- vk;k okni= ds pj.k la0 1 esa of.kZr fooknxzLr nqdku izfroknh ua0 1 rk 3 esa 15]000@& :0 esa cspus dk vuqcU/k oknhx.k ls fnukad 8-7-80 dks fd;k ,oa bl vuqcU/k ds isVs mlh fnu 8500@& :0 izfroknh ua0 1 rk 3 dks oknhx.k us fn;s\ 2- vk;k izfroknhx.k ua0 4 rk 6 ls izfroknh ua0 1 rk 3 ls feydj fooknxzLr nqdku ds lkFk lkFk vU; nqdkuksa dk lkSnk 36]000@& :0 esa dj fy;k tcfd izfroknhx.k 1 rk 6 dks cknhx.k ls gq, vuqcU/k ds ckjs esa Kku FkkA 3- nknjlhA fnukad 21&8&87 dks oknhx.k dh izkFkZuki= ij fuEufyf[kr ethn rudh;kr cukbZ xbZA 4- vk;k oknh ua0 1 fxj/kkjhyky us fnukad 16-7-88 dks izfroknhx.k ua0 1 o 2 dks muds ?kj ij ine pUn dh mifLFkfr esa vuqcU/k dh 'ks"k jde 65000@& :0 vnk dj fn;sA 5- vk;k oknhx.k us izfroknhx.k dks 664@& : fnukad 8-7-80 dks ,oa 450@& :0 fn0 9-7-80 ds eqrkfcd vuqca/k fodz; vfHkys[k rdehy djus gsrq lVkEi [kjhnus ds fy, fn;s\ 6- vk;k jpuk okn xyr gS blfy, nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 9. The plaintiffs in support of their case examined four witnesses and the defendants examined six witnesses. The learned trial Court decided issues Nos. 1, 4 and 5 in favour of the plaintiffs. Under issue No. 2, learned trial Court decided that the defendants No. 4 to 6 had no knowledge about the agreement made in favour of the plaintiffs. Under issue No. 6 the trial Court held that the plaintiffs having failed to plead that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, no relief of specific performance could have been granted in their favour. In the result, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for the relief of specific performance but granted a decree for Rs. 15,000/- against the defendants Nos. In the result, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for the relief of specific performance but granted a decree for Rs. 15,000/- against the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. 10. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Mst. Dakha Bai and Moti Devi have filed the appeal challenging the findings of issue Nos. 1, 4 and 5 and the award of a decree for the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and interest, against them. the plaintiffs Girdhari Lal and Damodar Lai have filed cross objections challenging the finding of issue Nos. 2 and 6 decided against them by the trial Court and have prayed that a decree for specific performance be passed in their favour and the sale-deed executed by the defendants No. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 4 on July 17, 1980 be cancelled and made ineffective. In the alternative, it has been further prayed that if the suit for specific performance is not decreed, the plaintiffs are further entitled to recover Rs. 1,114/- cost of stamps along with the amount of consideration of Rs. 15,000/- and the interest should be allowed at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. 11. I may first deal with the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the defendants No. 4 to 6 with regard to the cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs. Mr. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents Nos. 4 to 6 contended that the plaintiffs had not filed any appeal against the judgment of the learned trial Court. They were not entitled to file any cross-objection against the co-respondents, namely; defendants No. 4 to 6. It was submitted that under Order 41 rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure, no cross-objection could have been filed against the co-respondents Mr. Kejriwal in this regard place reliance on (1) Vadlamudi Venkateswarlu and another v. Ravipati Ramamma and another, AIR l950 Madras 37 (2) Smt. Shahzsdi Begum v. Vinod Kumar and another, AIR 1978 M.P. 20 and (3) United Insurance Co Ltd. v. Harbhjan Lal & Ors., 1987 (1) RLR 767 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the plaintiffs were entitled to file cross objections against the defendants Nos. 1 to 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the plaintiffs were entitled to file cross objections against the defendants Nos. 1 to 3. who have filed the present appeal and claim a decree for specific performance against them and a consequence of such decree would be that the sale-deed executed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of defendants No. 4 to 6 would be cancelled and made ineffective. It was thus submitted that the main relief sought by the plaintiffs was against defendants No. 1 to 3 of seeking specific performance of contract of sale against them and the relief of cancellation and declaring the sale-deed in effective, which was executed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 4 was incidental and consequential. Reliance in support of the above contention was placed on (4) (Mirza) Husain Yar Beg v. Radha Kishan and others, AIR 1935 Allahabad 134 . 12. I see no force in the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the defendant- respondents No. 4 to 6. The plaintiffs had brought a suit for specific performance of contract of sale made by the defendants No. 1 to 3 in their favour. They had also prayed that the subsequent sale of the suit shop made in favour of defendant No. 4 may be cancelled and declared ineffective. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have filed the appeal and thus, the plaintiff respondents were entitled to file cross objections praying a relief of specific performance of the contract made in the favour by the defendant-appellants and in that view of the matter they were also entitled to seek a relief of cancellation of the sale deed executed by defendants No. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 4. It is not a case where the relief sought by way of cross-objections against the defendants No. 1 and 2, who have tiled the appeal, may not have any connection whatsoever with the relief sought against the defendants No. 4 to 6. The authorities cited by Mr. Kejriwal. It is not a case where the relief sought by way of cross-objections against the defendants No. 1 and 2, who have tiled the appeal, may not have any connection whatsoever with the relief sought against the defendants No. 4 to 6. The authorities cited by Mr. Kejriwal. learned counsel for the defendant-respondents No. 4 to 6 are totally irrelevant to the kind of relief sought in the cross-objections in the present case In (Mirza' Husain Yar Beg's case (4) (supra) it has been laid down that the expression 'cross objection' is clearly indicative of the fact that it should be directed against the appellant; but it may be taken against a co-respondent also if there is community of interest between the latter and the appellant. The above observations fully apply in the case in hand before me. The cross-objections in the present case are directed against the appellants, who are defendants No. 1 and 2 and they have a community of interest between them and the defendant-respondents No. 4 to 6. That apart sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 41, Civil Procedure Code, Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 reads as under: (1)- Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree (but may also state that the handing against him in the Court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour, and may also take any cross-objection) to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal, provided he has filed such objection in the Appellate Court within one month from the date of service on him or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for bearing the appal, or within such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow. Explanation - A respondent aggrieved by a finding of the Court in the judgment on which the decree appealed against is based may, under this rule, file cross-objection in respect of the decree in so far as it is based on that finding. notwithstanding that by reason of the decision of the Court on any other finding which is sufficient for the decision of the suit, the decree is wholly or in part, in favour of that respondent." 13. notwithstanding that by reason of the decision of the Court on any other finding which is sufficient for the decision of the suit, the decree is wholly or in part, in favour of that respondent." 13. The above provision in its plain language clearly permits a respondent to take any cross-objection that the findings against him in the court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour. The explanation further makes the point clear that a respondent aggrieved by a finding of the court in the judgment on which the decree appealed against is based may file cross-objection in respect of the decree in so far as it is based on that finding. 14. In a recent decision in (5) Dhangir v. Madan Mohan and others, AIR 1980 SC 54 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have hell that when the appeal by some of the parties cannot effectively be disposed of without opening of the matter as between the respondents interse or in a case where the objections are common as against the appellant and co-respondent, the court in such cases would entertain cross-objection against the co-respondent. It has been further held that the appellate court can exercise such power under order 41 rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure. The only constraint on the power is that the parties before the lower court should be there before the appellate court. The question raised mast properly arise out of the judgment of the lower court. If these two requirements are there, the appellate Court could consider any objection against any part of the judgment or decree of the lower Court. It may be urged by any party to the appeal. Thus, I find no force in the preliminary objection raised against the filing of cross objections by the plaintiffs. 15. I shall now deal with the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties issuewise.ISSUES No. 1 and 5 - 16. The burden of these issues lies on the plaintiffs. The plaintiff Girdhari Lal PW 1 has stated that an agreement to sell the disputed shop was made by defendants No. 1 to 3 on July 8, 1980 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/ -. He bad paid Rs. 8,500/- on the same day to the defendants in the presence of Padam Chand PW 2. Stamps worth Rs. The plaintiff Girdhari Lal PW 1 has stated that an agreement to sell the disputed shop was made by defendants No. 1 to 3 on July 8, 1980 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/ -. He bad paid Rs. 8,500/- on the same day to the defendants in the presence of Padam Chand PW 2. Stamps worth Rs. 661/- were also purchased on the same day. Nemi Chand deed writer told that the total stamps necessary for the registration would be Rs. 1,114/- as such stamps worth Rs. 450/- were purchased on July 9, 1980. The defendants had asked Nemi Chand deed-writer to prepare the sale-deed. The plaintiff further stated that he could not withdraw an amount of Rs. 6,500/- from the Bank and the balance amount of Rs. 6,500/- was to be paid by July 10, 1980. Thereafter, the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 went to attend a marriage at Mandsaur on July 10, 1980 and returned back on July 15, 1980 and as such the plaintiff along with Padam Chand went to the house of the defendants on July 16, 1980 and asked them to get the sale-deed registered. The defendants told the plaintiff to bring balance amount of Rs. 6,500/-. On this plaintiff went to the Bank and withdrew Rs. 6,500/- and thereafter paid the said amount of Rs. 6,500/- in the presence of Padam Chand and Damodar PW 3. Pradeep Kumar defendant was not present at that time and defendants Mst. Dakha Bai and Mst. Moti Devi asked the plaintiff to go Tehsil and assured him that as soon as Pradeep Kumar would come to the Tehsil and get the sale-deed registered. The plaintiff further stated that when the defendants did not come to Tehsil then he sent Padam Chand to the house of the defendants and Padam Chand saw the defendants Nos. 4 to 6 sitting at the house of defendants No. 1 to 3 and they were talking about the sale of the shop in question along with two other shops. Padam Chaad after returning back from the house of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 informed the plaintiff that the defendants Nos. 4 to 6 sitting at the house of defendants No. 1 to 3 and they were talking about the sale of the shop in question along with two other shops. Padam Chaad after returning back from the house of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 informed the plaintiff that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had told him that the transaction of sale of the shop in question in favour of the plaintiffs has been cancelled and the defendants No. 1 to 3 had sold all the three shops to defendants No. 4 to 6. The plaintiff further stated that the sale-deed Ex. 4 was written by Nemi Chand deed-writer. In support of the payment of Rs. 8,500/- and Rs. 664/- on July 8, 1980, the plaintiff also produced Exs. 4 and 5, the entries of his Rokar Bahi. The plaintiff has also produced Ex. 6, the entry of Rokar Babi with regard to payment of Rs. 450/- for purchasing stamps on July 9, 1980 and Exs. 8 and 9 the entries of Rokar Babi for the payment of Rs. 6,5CJ0/- on July 16, 1980 and also Ex. 7 the entry withdrawal of Rs. 6 500/- in a passbook of the Bank of Rajasthan. 17. The plaintiff in support of the above case also examined PW 2 Padam Chand, PW 3 Damodar Prasad, PW 4 Ram Lal, who prepared the site plan to be attached with the sale-deed So far as payment of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1,114/- for purchase of stamps is concerned, the statement of the plaintiff is fully corroborated by the statement of Padam Chand PW 2 It also remains undisputed that a sale deed has been written by Nemi Chand deed-writer on Ex. 1 which are stamps worth Rs. 1,114/-. Nemi Chand deed-writer has been produced as PW 3 on behalf of the defendants and he has also stated that he has written the sale- deed Ex-1. However, Nemi Chand DW-3 has stated that he had written the sale-deed on the instructions of Girdhari and Padam Chand and he further stated that the defendants No. 1 to 3 had not given him any instructions for writing the sale-deed. Nemi Chand has further stated that he had filled the challan for purchase of stamps on the instructions of Girdhari and Padam Chand. 18. Nemi Chand has further stated that he had filled the challan for purchase of stamps on the instructions of Girdhari and Padam Chand. 18. The stand taken by the defendants No. 1 to 3 is that no talk or agreement took place bet keen them and Girdhari for the sale of the shop in question. Their case is that there was an there shown situated outside the office of Tehsil Newai Some talks for selling that shop for Rs. 15,000/- had taken place between them and Padim Chand. Padam Chand then brought a challan for purchasing the stamps and got the signatures of Dakha Bai and Moti Devi Padam Chand brought the stamps of Rs. 664/- and got the signatures of Dakha Bai and Moti Devi on the stamps. Their further case is that on July 9, 1980. also Padam Chand came to their house in the morning and asked them to get the registration of the shop outside Tehsil in his favour. Padam to hand told them to get the registration done for Rs. 10,000/- only and not to waste the expenses for Rs. 5000/- but the defendants refused to do so and this annoyed Padam Chand. Thereafter Padam Chand further got the signatures of the defendants on stamps worth Rs. 450/- and took away the entire stamps of Rs. 1,114/-. Their further case is that they had made an agreement to sell three shops including the shop in question in favour of defendants No. 4 to 6 on July 15, 1980 for Rs. 41,000/-. When the plaintiffs came to know about the sale of the three shops then the plaintiff Girdhari Lal came to the defendants and made a request to sell the shop in question to him as one portion of the same was in his tenancy but the defendants declined to do so. The plaintiff Girdhari Lal on this gave a threatening that if the defendants would not given the shop by consent then he would take it by other means. Thereafter, the plaintiff in collusion with Padam Chand got a sale deed written in favour of the plaintiff on the stamps of Rs. 1,114/- which were with Padam Chand. In order to support the above case the defendants have examined DW-1 Moti Devi, DW-2 Pradeep Kumar. Thereafter, the plaintiff in collusion with Padam Chand got a sale deed written in favour of the plaintiff on the stamps of Rs. 1,114/- which were with Padam Chand. In order to support the above case the defendants have examined DW-1 Moti Devi, DW-2 Pradeep Kumar. DW-3 Nemi Chand Deed-writer and DW-4 Bhag Chand DW-1 Moti Devi and DW-2 Pradeep Kumar ate the mother and son and defendants themselves. So far as DW-3 Nemi Chand is concerned, he is not a witnesses for the payment of Rs. 8,500/-. DW-4 Bhag Chand has no doubt tried to state that a talk had taken place between Padam Chand and the defendants No. 1 to 3 for the sale of a shop near Tehsil for Rs. 10,000/-. Padam Chand was telling to get the shop registered for Rs. 10,000/- but Dakha Bai and Moti Devi were telling for getting the same registered for Rs. 1,060/- Further, his statement is not supported by DW-2 Moti Devi herself. According to Moti Devi when such talk took place with Padam Chand nobody else were present Apart from that Moti Devi in the cross-examination admitted that no transaction for Rs. 15,000/- was settled between them Padam Chand for the shop outside Tehsil. Thus, the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 base failed to prove that any transaction of selling their shop outside Tehsil office had taken place between them and Padam Chani. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants was unable to satisfy as to why Padam Chand would not have got the sale-deed written in his favour with regard to shop outside Tehsil when according to the defendant he had already spent an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing the stamps. Even according to the defendants Padam Chand wanted to get the sale-deed registered for Rs. 10,000/- and defendants were insisting for Rs. 15,000/-, but in fact stamps worth Rs. 1,114/-, which were required for the transaction of Rs. 15,000/- had already been purchased, then no reason or circumstance had been shown as to why Padam Chand may have resiled from such transaction. That apart, it has been admitted by Nemi Chand DW-3 also that Girdhari Lal had conic along with Padam Chand on July 8 and 9 1980 and they had also brought the site plan and on their instructions he had written the sale deed Ex. 1 of the shop in question on July 16, 1980. That apart, it has been admitted by Nemi Chand DW-3 also that Girdhari Lal had conic along with Padam Chand on July 8 and 9 1980 and they had also brought the site plan and on their instructions he had written the sale deed Ex. 1 of the shop in question on July 16, 1980. Admittedly, site plan attached with Ex. 1 is of the shop in question and not of the shop outside Tehsil. Learned District Judge has also discussed all the above circumstances as well as the statements of all the witnesses of both the parties and has not placed reliance on the statements of Moti Devi and Pradeep Kumar and Bhag Chand and placed reliance on the statements of Girdhari Lal PW-1 and Padarn (Chand PW 2 along with entries of Rokar Bahi and I see no reason to take a different view, so far as the Ending of issues No. 1 & 5 is concerned.ISSUE No. 4: 19. This issue relates to the payment of Rs. 6,500/- to defendants No. 1 and 2 vis. Dakha Rai and Moti Devi on July 16, 1980. The case of the plaintiff in pare 5 of the plaint is that on July 16, 1980 Girdhari Lai plaintiff went along with Padam (hand to the house of defendants No. 1 to 3 and gave Rs. 6,500/- to defendants No. 1 and 2 viz., Dakha Bai and Moti Devi. It was further agreed at that time that a sale-deed would he got registered on July 16, 1980 itself and both the above defendants told that defendant No. 3 Pradeep Kumar would came within a short time and thereafter all the three defendants would reach in the office of the Registrar. Thereafter plaintiff Girdhari Lal, Padam Chand and Damodar Prasad of ltawa came to the office of the Registrar (Tehsil Newai) and gave information to Nemi (hand deed writer that the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 would he reaching in the office of the Registrar for the purpose of registration within half an hour. Thereafter plaintiff Girdhari Lal, Padam Chand and Damodar Prasad of ltawa came to the office of the Registrar (Tehsil Newai) and gave information to Nemi (hand deed writer that the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 would he reaching in the office of the Registrar for the purpose of registration within half an hour. Deed-writer Nemi Chand then prepared the sale-deed so that it may not not take long time in getting the sale-deed registered and the ladies may not have to stay for a long time in the office of the Registrar statement of Girdhari Lal with regard to incident of July 16, 1980 is that initially he went to the house of the defendants in the morning alongwith Padam Chand. He asked the defendants to get the sale-deed registered and the defendants told him to bring the balance' amount Thereafter he went to the bank and withdrew Rs. 6,500/- from Bank of Rajasthan. Thereafter, at 11.30 a. m. be alongwith Padam Chand went to the house of defendants for making the payment and they saw Damodar s/o Ghasi Lal already sitting there. Thereafter, he gave Rs. 6,500/- to Moti Bai, Pradeep Kumar and Dakha Bai and then Pradeep Kumar went outside for some work and told them to go to the office where the defendants would get the registration done and the defendants also called Netai Chand deed-writer. Thereafter, he went to Tehsil along with Padam Chand. The defendants did not come there and as such he sent back Padam Chand to the house of the defendants and came to know that Banshi Lal. Ram Jiwan and Nand Lal were talking there Padam Chand came back and informed Girduarn Lal about that's and thereafter again Girdhari Lal and Padam Chand went to the house of the defendants Girdhari Lal then asked the defendants to get the sale-deed registered but the defendants told that their transaction bad been cancelled and they had already sold the three shops to the above mentioned persons sitting there. Girdhari Lal further stated that all the three shops had been sold for Rs. 36,000/- as told by Moti Bai. In the cross-examination he stated that when he had gone with the money on July 16, 1980 then Damodar Lal was showing clothes to Moti Bai. He further stated that Nemi Chand had written the sale-deed on July 9, 1980. Girdhari Lal further stated that all the three shops had been sold for Rs. 36,000/- as told by Moti Bai. In the cross-examination he stated that when he had gone with the money on July 16, 1980 then Damodar Lal was showing clothes to Moti Bai. He further stated that Nemi Chand had written the sale-deed on July 9, 1980. He also stated that be had come back to Tehsil after paying the money on July 16, 1980 and at that time no talk had taker place regarding the sale of the shop in question to the other defendants. He came to know about the sale in favour of the other defendants after two or three hours of returning back to Tehsil. He further admitted in the cross-examination that he had been told by Padam Chand that defendants No. 4 to 6 were sitting in the house of the defendants he had brought this fact in his knowledge at the time of filing the suit. He admitted that he did not mention this fact in the plaint and he was unable to give any reason for this omission. He further stated that Padam Chand had returned back after 5 or 7 minutes. He was unable to tell the time. Nemi Chand was also sitting there When Padam Chand told this fact then Damodar Prasad was also there. Whether Nemi Chand heard this fact or not, he could not tell. Thereafter, he did not have any talk with defendants Nos. 4 to 6. He further stated that he did not give any telegram or notice to defendants No. 4 to 6 and file a the present suit on the next day i.e July 17, 1980. He further stated that be had told this fact of contract of sale in favour of the plaintiffs in the night after going at the residence of defendants No. 4 to 6. At that time all the three defendants No 4 to 6, who are brothers were sitting there. He did not mention this fact in the plaint. 20. In the plaint in para 5 as already mentioned above it has been alleged that Rs. 6,500/- were given to Dakha Bai and Moti Devi only and this means that Pradeep Kumar was not there. He did not mention this fact in the plaint. 20. In the plaint in para 5 as already mentioned above it has been alleged that Rs. 6,500/- were given to Dakha Bai and Moti Devi only and this means that Pradeep Kumar was not there. It has been further alleged that defendants No. 1 and 2 told that defendant No. 3 would come after a short time and there-after all the three would come to Tehsil. On the contrary, Girdhari Lal PW 1 stated that Rs. 6,500/- were given to all the three defendants, viz., Dakha Bai. Moti Devi and Pradeep Kumar. According to his statement first he along with Padam Chand went in the morning. Thereafter, he came back and withdrew Rs. 6,500/- from the Bank and again went at 11.30 a.m. with Padam Chand and at that time Damodar Prasad was already sitting there. Then he gave Rs. 6,500/- to all the three defendants and then Pradeep Kumar went outside for some work. 21. Now, so far as PW 2 Padam Chand is concerned, he states that the trap, action with Girdhari Lal had been settled in Rs. 15,000/-. It was settled in the presence of Dakha Bai Moti Devi and Pradeep Kumar. This talk had taken place on 6 or 7th July 1980. Girdhari Lal had given Rs. 8,500/- in his presence to the defendants Nos. 1 to 3. Some amount more than Rs. 600/- was given by Cirdhari Lal to Moti Devi for stamps. Moti Devi had then told for calling Nemi Chand for writing sale-deed on the stamps. Stamps were purchased in the name of Moti Devi. Dakha Bai and Pradeep Kumar on July 9, 1980. Nemi Chand had told that somemore stamps would be needed. Thereafter Moti Devi, Dakha Bai and Pradeep Kumar had purchased the stamps for which the money was paid by Girdhari Lal. On account of some reason registration could not be done on July 9, 1980. Thereafter the defendants went outside to some village. Pradeep Kumar returned back on July 14, 1980. After the return of Pradeep Kumar he (Padam Chand) had gone to meet him on July 15, 1980 and Pradeep Kumar bad told them to go to Tehsil and the defendants would follows Girdhari Lal had gone to Tehsil already and had told Padam Chand to have called the defendants. Pradeep Kumar returned back on July 14, 1980. After the return of Pradeep Kumar he (Padam Chand) had gone to meet him on July 15, 1980 and Pradeep Kumar bad told them to go to Tehsil and the defendants would follows Girdhari Lal had gone to Tehsil already and had told Padam Chand to have called the defendants. This had happened on July 16, 1980 at 11 a. m. Padam Chand then stated that he came to Tehsil and waited for about on hour or two. Then he asked Girdhari Lal whether he had made the payment of balance amount or not then Girdhari Lal told that he had brought the made the payment then they went to the Bank. They brought Rs. 6,500/- and then he went for calling Moti Devi. This money was then paid to Moti Devi on July 16, 1980. At that time, Damodar Prasad was there, who was showing clothes After getting the money defendants did not call any person and Padam Chand asked them to proceed to Tehsil but they d d not come Thereafter, he went to Tehsil at 12 0'clock. Girdhari Lal was also with him. He waited there for half-an-hour but Moti Devi did not come. Ram Jiwan and his elder brother were also there. Then he told for getting the registration done but they refused as they had informed that transaction of all the three shops had been made. The transaction was alleged to have been mate with Ram Jiwan and his elder brother for Rs. 35,000/-. Padam Chand further stated that he told Ram Jiwan that he was doing a wrong thing as the transaction tad been made with Girdhari Lal and money had also been paid to the (jetenuants and stamps bad been written, but Ram Jiwan told that such things usually happen Ram Jiwan further told that the land and the wife belongs to the powerful. Then he came back to Tehsil and narrated the entire incident to Girdhari Lal In the cross-examination he stated that the talk relating to the deal with Girdhari Lal had started on July 1-2-1980. On July 8, 1986 when money was given then no talk had taken place for writing the sale-deed. Damodar Prasad plaintiff had read with him. He denied to have intimate relation with Damodar Prasad. In the ordinary course they visit each other. On July 8, 1986 when money was given then no talk had taken place for writing the sale-deed. Damodar Prasad plaintiff had read with him. He denied to have intimate relation with Damodar Prasad. In the ordinary course they visit each other. He further admitted in the cross-examination that he bad reached the house of the defendants No. 1 to 3 on July 16, 1980 at 12.30 p.m. At that time there were no other persent of neighbourhood. When he had gone again to call the defendants then the time was 12.30 p m. At that time he had gone from Tehsil. At that time he held left Girdhari Lal with Nemi Chand. Then said that when he had gone to the house of the defendants No. 1 to 3 then Nemi Chand, and Damodar Prasad Itwala were also there. His talks with defendants No. 4 to 6 had taken place in the presence of Nemi Chand. This talk had taken place in the courtyard of the defendants' house. Then he returned back to Tehsil at about 1.15 p m. Then he had narrated the entire incident to Girdhari Lal. 22. A perusal of the above statement of Padam Chand shows that it is not only confused, self contradictory and inconsistent but also totally contradictory to the statement of PW I Girdhari Lal. According to Girdhari Lal he had gone to defendants alorgwith Padam Chand in the morning of July 16, 1980 and then the defendants asked him to bring the balance amount, then he withdrew the money from the bank and again went along with Padam Chand at 1.30 a.m. and paid the amount to all the three defendants viz., Dakha Bai, Moti Devi and Pradeep Kumar. At that time Damodar Prasad was already sitting and showing clothes to Moti Devi According to Girdhari Lal he came back to Tehsil with Padam Chand and thereafter when defendants did not come then he again sent Padam Chand to the house of the defendants where he saw the defendants No. 4 to 6 taking there. Padam Chand then came back and informed Girdhari Lal and thereafter Girdhari Lal again went with Padam Chand to the house of the defendants and then the defendants told that the transaction with Girdhari Lal had been cancelled. Padam Chand then came back and informed Girdhari Lal and thereafter Girdhari Lal again went with Padam Chand to the house of the defendants and then the defendants told that the transaction with Girdhari Lal had been cancelled. Thus, according to Girdhari Lal Padam Chand had gone to the house of defendants No. 1 to 3 at least for four times on July 16, 1980. Girdhari Lal does not state the presence of Nemi Chand deed-writer on July 16, 1980 at the house of the defendants. The statement of Padam Chand PW-2 in this regard is totally different and inconsistent with the statement of Girdhari Lal. Padam Chand, on the other hand, states that after the return of Pradeep Kumar he went to the defendants on July 15, 1980 and the defendants told him to go to Tehsil as they were following him. Girdhari Lal had already gone to Tehsil and he asked Padam Chand to call the defendants ant he went to call them. This happened on July 16, 1980 at 11 a.m. Thus, Padam Chand dots not state that he had gone alongwith Girdhari Lal at the house of the defendants in the morning of July, 16, 1980. According to Padam Chand the money was given to Moti Devi alone on July 16, 1980, on the contrary in para 1 of the plaint it has been mentioned that the amount of Rs. 6,500/- was given to defendants Nos. 1 and 4 i.e. Dakha Hai and Moti Devi and Girdbari Lal in his statement has deposed that the money was given to all the three defendants Moti Devi, Dakha Bat & Pradeep Kumar. Padam Chand states the presence of Nemi Chand and Damodar Prasad at that time but Girdbari Lal does not state the presence of Nemi Chand, Damodar Prasad PW 3 has stated that be bad gone to the house of Pradeep Kumar. Dakha Hai and Moti Devi on July 16, 1980. At that time Girdhari Lal and Padam Chand were already sitting in the drawing-room Rs. 65/- were paid by Girdhari Lal in his presence to Moti Devi and Dakha Bai and Moti Devi told that Pradeep Kumar was just coming and further asked Damodar to come to Tehsil and put his signatures as a witness on the sale-deed. At that time Girdhari Lal and Padam Chand were already sitting in the drawing-room Rs. 65/- were paid by Girdhari Lal in his presence to Moti Devi and Dakha Bai and Moti Devi told that Pradeep Kumar was just coming and further asked Damodar to come to Tehsil and put his signatures as a witness on the sale-deed. He further stated that be went to Tehsil where Girdhari Lal was sitting but Moti Devi and Dakha Bai did not come. Nemi Chand read over the sale-deed to him and thereafter Nemi Chand got his signatures from G to H on the sale-deed. In the evening be went to Nemi Chand and he told that the transaction had been cancelled and the same had keen made in favour of Ram Jiwan Sunar Thereafter, he enquired from Padam Chand and he told that the transaction was made with him and when he asked Moti Devi then she told that the transaction was still pending. In the cross-examination he stated that he did not remember the date of birth of his son. Pradeep Kumar had taken cloth from him for approval at about 9.30 a.m. He had gone to the house of the defendants for taking back the cloth given by him and he brought the same back. Moti Devi gave the cloth back to him. He clearly stated that when Rs. 6,500/- were given then Pradeep Kumar was not there. He had not put any signatures as a witness on any sale-deed prior to this. He had put his signatures even before the signatures put by Moti Devi and Dakha Bai. When he had put signatures then Moti Devi and Dakha Bai were not present in the' Tehsil. He had put his signatures at the asking of Nemi Chand. Nemi hated had told him that he would be called second time in the present of the defendants. Nobody came to call him and he did not go second time to Tehsil. The earlier statement given by him that the transaction was pending wrongly stated by him. He had put his signatures at the asking of Nemi Chand. Nemi hated had told him that he would be called second time in the present of the defendants. Nobody came to call him and he did not go second time to Tehsil. The earlier statement given by him that the transaction was pending wrongly stated by him. According to the statement of Damodar Prasad he was merely a chance witness and the reason for going to the house of the defendants as stated by Damodar Prasad is that Pradeep Kumar had taken some cloth for approval at 9.30 a. m. and he had gone for taking the above cloth back at 11.15 p m. at the house of the defendants. According to him, when be reached at the house of the defendants, Girdhari Lal and Padam Chand were already sitting in the drawing room. On the other hand, both Girdhan Lal and Padam Chand have clearly stated that when they reached the house of the defendants, Damodar was already sitting there and he was showing cloth to Moti Devi. The certeridants Mori Devi and Pradeep Kumar in their statements have totally denied the receipt of Rs. 6,500/- by them. It is not understandable that if cloth was taken by Pradeep Kumar for approval at 9.30 a m. why Damodar Prasad would go to the house of defendants at 11.15 a.m for taking the same back. Damodar Prasad does not state that he was showing any cloth to Moti Devi and for that purpose he had gone to the house of the defendants. Admittedly, the sale-deed Ex. 1 does not contain the signatures of any of the defendants Dakha Hai, Moti Devi or Pradeep Kumar but it contains the signatures of Padam Chand and Damodar Prasad as witnesses in the sale-deed. This clearly shows that Damodar Prasad was highly interested and put his signatures as a witness even without the signatures of any one of the defendant-vendors. It cannot be believed that the plaintiff would pay the entire balance amount of consideration of Rs. 6,500/- to the defendants without obtaining any receipt and specially when tie sale-deed was going to be registered immediately in the Tehsil. In the normal course of human conduct the plaintiffs should have asked the defendants to receive the balance amount at the time of registration before the Sub-Registrar. 6,500/- to the defendants without obtaining any receipt and specially when tie sale-deed was going to be registered immediately in the Tehsil. In the normal course of human conduct the plaintiffs should have asked the defendants to receive the balance amount at the time of registration before the Sub-Registrar. The entry with regard to payment of Rs. 6,500/-in Rokar Ex. 8 has been made in the following manner:- " 6]500@& Jh nqdku;kkr uke eksy yhuh dslj 6500@& yky Jh iVokjh gkyh pkSgnh cktkj dks fcdk pqdrh :i;k nhuk cSad eq[;k;ksa ?kjk tkj inepUn fxnksMh o nkeksnj izlkn bVkok okyk dk gkFk lwa nklk nsoh eksfr;k nsoh u N% gtkj ikap lkS :i;k fn;k 6500@& " In the normal course the above kind of details are not written in the entries of Rokar and the name of Padam Chand and Damodar Prasad mentioned in it clearly goes to show that it was done for the purpose of creating false evidence. The learned District Judge has himself noted while dealing with Issue No. 4 that there was some contradictions in the statements of Girdhari Lal PW-1 and Padam Chand PW-2 for going to the house of defendants No. 1 to 5 on July 16, 1980. However, the learned District Judge observed that these contradictions were not material as both the above witnesses were in agreement on the point of making the payment of Rs. 6,500/- to the defendants. I have already pointed out the serious contradictions and infirmities in the statements of Girdhari Lal PW 1, Padam Chand PW 2 and Damodar Prasad PW 3 and from their statements it is not proved that the amount of Rs. 6,500/- was paid to the defendants on July 16, 1980. So far as the withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 6,500/- from the Bank and entry in Ex. 8 is concerned the same are merely corroborative piece of evidence and cannot improve the case of the plaintiffs when the very fact of making the payment of Rs. 6,500/- to the defendants is not held established. Apart from the above circumstances the learned District Judge himself has given the finding on issue No. 2 against the plaintiffs and has not placed reliance on the statements of Giidhari Lal, Padam Chand and Damodar Prasad. 6,500/- to the defendants is not held established. Apart from the above circumstances the learned District Judge himself has given the finding on issue No. 2 against the plaintiffs and has not placed reliance on the statements of Giidhari Lal, Padam Chand and Damodar Prasad. This shows that the story of the plaintiffs that Ram Jiwan, Banshi and Nand Lal were sitting in the house of the defendants on July 16, 1980 is even not believed by the District Judge. Thus I am clearly of the view that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of issue No. 4 placed on them and this issue is decided against the plaintiffs. ISSUE No. 2 23. So far as this issue is concerned, learned District Judge has dealt with the statements of Girdhari Lal. Padam Chand and Damodar Prasad in detail and have recorded a finding against the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs was unable to assail the above finding and I agree with the view taken by the learned District Judge.ISSUE No. 6 : 24. Under this issue learned District Judge has taken the view that it was incumbent on the part of the plaintiffs to plead in the plaint and to prove that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract as contemplated under Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs vehemently contended that they had clearly mentioned in the plaint that they had paid the entire amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the defendants and had gone to Tehsil for registration, but the defendants did not turn up and in the face of these averments it was not necessary to further plead that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract It was submitted that when nothing remained to be performed on the on the part of plaintiffs then it was not necessary to plead that they were ready and willing t perform their part of he contract. In support of the above contention reliance has been placed on (6) Kamdev Nath Choudhary v. Devendra Kumar Nath, AIR 1979 Gauhati 65 and (7) Vadu v. U.K. Chand, 1982 RLW 256 . 25. In support of the above contention reliance has been placed on (6) Kamdev Nath Choudhary v. Devendra Kumar Nath, AIR 1979 Gauhati 65 and (7) Vadu v. U.K. Chand, 1982 RLW 256 . 25. S.K Mal Lodha J. in Vadu's case (supra) (2) has observed as under : "in my opinion there is substantial and due compliance of the provision of Section 16 (c) of the Act, and the plaintiffs cannot be non-suited in the absence of specific objection being raised in the written statement by the defendants on the ground that they have failed to over and prove that they had performed or have always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by them. At the risk of repetition, it may be stated that from the averments made in the plaint. so far as plaintiffs are concerned, there remained nothing to be performed. for, even after the execution of the sale-deed (Ex. 1), they presented it for registration before the Sub-Registrar when Smt. Kanu failed to get it registered. In view of this, it is not necessary to examine the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the parties." 26. In Kamdev Nath Choudhary's case (supra) (1) it has been held that if the plaintiff express that he was not responsible for non-compliance of contract and was dispossessed and able to complete it he should not be non-suited merely because specific words required in the forms 'of Civil Procedure Code are not reflected in pleadings. I am in agreement with the view taken by S.K. Mal Lodha, I, that if from the averments made in the plaintiff there remains nothing to be performed on behalf of the plaintiffs then it is a substantial and due compliance of the provisions of Section 16 (c) of the Act and the plaintiffs cannot be non-suited in the absence of specific objection being raised in the written statement by the defendants on the ground that they have failed to aver and prove that they have performed or have been always ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract. Thus, in my view learned District Judge has wrongly decided the legal preposition contemplated under Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act in the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, in my view learned District Judge has wrongly decided the legal preposition contemplated under Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act in the facts and circumstances of this case. However, in view of the fact that the finding of Issue No. 4 regarding payment of Rs. 6,500/- has been decided against the plaintiffs and under Issue No. 2 it has been decided that defendants No. 4 to 6 were bona fide purchasers with consideration and having no knowledge of any contract of sale between the plaintiffs and the defendants No. 1 to 13, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any decree for specific performance. The defendants No. 4 to 6 have clearly proved the execution of sale-deed Ex A/1 in favour of Ram Jiwan and the amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been paid in the presence of Sub-Registrar. That apart, according to the plaintiffs they had come to know about the transaction of sale of the shop in question in favour of Ram Jiwan on July 16, 1980 itself but they failed to give any notice or telegram to defendants No 4 to 6 before the registration of the sale-deed Ex. A/1 on July 17, 1980. 27. The net result of the above discussion is that there is no force in the cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs and the appeal filed by the defendants No. 1 to 3 is allowed in part. The suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance stands dismissed and a decree for Rs. 8,500/- only is passed against the defendant; Nos. 1 to 3 viz., Dakha Bai, Moti Devi and Pradeep Kumar. The plaintiffs would be further entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,500/- at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of payment i.e July 8, 1980 till realisation. The plaintiffs are not entitled to any decree for the stamps worth Rs. 1,114/- purchased by them as their suit for specific performance is not held established. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs.Appeal Partly allowed : Cross Objections Rejected. *******