Judgment 1. This is defendants-Baldev Singh, Bahadur Singh, Kulwant Singh and Gurcharan Singhs appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29-4-1998 of Additional District Judge, Sangrur whereby he decreed the suit of respondent-plaintiff (Chhota Singh) for possession through specific performance of agreement to sell Ex. P-1 dated 23-6-1990 in reversal of the judgment and decree of Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Malerkotla dated 16-12-1994 whereby he had dismissed his suit for specific performance and had given him only money decree. 2. Facts : Plaintiff-Chhota Singh filed suit for possession of land jea measuring 10 bighas out of land measuring 18 bighas 3 biswas as detailed in the hearing of the plaint situated in the revenue estate of village Baurhai Kalan by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23-6-1990, in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 60,800.00 (Rs. 30,000/- as earnest money and Rs.30,000.00 as liquidated damages and Rs.800.00 as interest) at the rate of 1% per month accrued on the sum of Rs. 30,000.00 paid as earnest money with effect from 23-6-1990 to the date of filing of the suit i.e. 22-9-1990. It was alleged in the plaint that vide agreement to sell dated 23-6-1990 Nachhatar Singh (respondent-defendant) agreed to sell land measuring 10 bighas Kham, out of land measuring 18 bighas 3, biswas as described in jamabandi for the year, 1986-1987 situated in village Baurhai Kalan, Tehsil Malerkotla with other rights with him (plaintiff-Chhota Singh) at the rate of Rs. 9000.00 per bighas Kham and received Rs. 30,000.00 as earnest money and promised to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee by 21-8-1990. Possession was to be delivered to him at the time of execution/registration of the sale deed, Remaining sale consideration was to be paid to Nachhattar Singh by 21-8-1990. Expenses of stamp and registration were to be borne by him (Chhota Singh). It was stipulated in the agreement to sell that if Nachhatar Singh prevaricated and did not agree to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee by 21-8-1990 in terms of the agreement, he (Chhota Singh) could compel him to execute sale deed through Court. It was also stipulated in the agreement that if he (Chhota Singh) did not want land, he could recover Rs. 60,000/- i.e. Rs. 30,000.00 paid as earnest money and another Rs. 30,000.00 by way of liquidated damages. It was also stipulated in the agreement that if he (Chhota Singh) did not want land, he could recover Rs. 60,000/- i.e. Rs. 30,000.00 paid as earnest money and another Rs. 30,000.00 by way of liquidated damages. It was stipulated in the agreement that if he (Chhota Singh) prevaricated and did not perform his part of the agreement, earnest money paid by him would be liable to be forfeited to Nachhattar Singh. Nachhattar Singh failed to execute sale deed in his favour per that agreement despite requests. On 21-8-1990, he went to the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Ahmadgarh with the balance sale consideration and the amount required for meeting expense of stamp and registration with a view to obtaining sale deed in his favour from Nachhattar Singh. He waited for him the whole day long but he did not turn up. At last he made an application to the Joint Sub-Registrar, for getting his presence marked. Nachhattar Singh was called several times till the Joint Sub-Registrar rose for the day. He made endorsement on the application and returned it to him. He has always been ready and willing to obtain sale deed in his favour per agreement dated 23-6-1990. He was always ready with the remaining amount of consideration and the amount required for meeting the expense of stamp and registration but it was Nachhattar Singh who defaulted and ran away from performing his part of contract. Vide different sale deeds dated 17-7-1990 and 19-7-1990 Nachhattar Singh sold the land to Baldev Singh etc. defendants. Land could not be sold to Baldev Singh etc. on 17-7-1990 and 19-7-1990 when he (Nachhattar Singh) was under an agreement to sell land to him vide agreement dated 23-6-1990. Sale of the land by Nachhattar Singh during the subsistence of agreement to sell in their favour was not binding on him (Chhota Singh), when Baldev Singh etc. were aware of the agreement dated 23-6-1990 between Nachhattar Singh and Chhota Singh. Sale of land in favour of Baldev Singh etc. in breach of agreement to sell dated 23-6-1990 in his (Chhota Singh) favour, necessitated the filing of this suit by Chhota Singh against Nachhattar Singh, Baldev Singh etc. defendants. 3. Baldev Singh etc. defendants Nos. were aware of the agreement dated 23-6-1990 between Nachhattar Singh and Chhota Singh. Sale of land in favour of Baldev Singh etc. in breach of agreement to sell dated 23-6-1990 in his (Chhota Singh) favour, necessitated the filing of this suit by Chhota Singh against Nachhattar Singh, Baldev Singh etc. defendants. 3. Baldev Singh etc. defendants Nos. 2 to 5 contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that they are purchaser of the land in suit from Nachhattar Singh in pursuance of a prior agreement to sell in favour of Baldev Singh dated 23-5-1990 executed by Nachhattar Singh. It was further urged that agreement dated 23-6-1990 was false and forged prepared by the plaintiff and Nachhattar Singh in connivance with each other. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court : 1. Whether on 23-6-1990, defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement of sale of the suit land with the plaintiff and received Rs. 30,000.00 as earnest money? OPP, 2. Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? OPP , 3. Whether defendant No. 1 has committed breach of the contract? if so, its effect? OPP, 4. Whether the agreement in question is forged and fictitious? OPD, 5. Whether on 23-5-1990, defendant No. 1 executed an agreement of sale of the suit land with defendant No. 2 and received a sum of Rs. 46,500.00 as earnest money? If so, its effect? OPD (2), 6. Whether defendant No. 2 is bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of the suit land? OPD (2), 7. Whether defendant No. 3 is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of the suit land? OPD (3), 8. Whether defendant No. 4 is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of the suit land? OPD (4), 9. Whether defendant No. 5 is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice of the suit land? OPD (5), 10. Whether defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice of the suit land? OPD (2 to 5), 11. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD, 12. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD, 13. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct? OPD, 14. OPD (2 to 5), 11. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD, 12. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD, 13. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct? OPD, 14. Relief. 5. Vide order dated 16-12-1994, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Malerkotla dismissed the plaintiffs suit for possession through specific performance but decreed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 30,900.00 as damages with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till payment, in view of his finding, that Baldev Singh etc.-defendants are purchasers in pursuance of agreement dated 23-5-1990 which is prior in point of time than agreement dated 23-6-1990, which Nachhattar Singh had executed in favour of Chhota Singh. Agreement dated 23-6-1990 Ex. P-1 must give way before agreement dated 23-5-1990 Ex. D-6. It was found that agreement dated 23-6-1990 Ex. P-1 was non est in the face of agreement Ex. D-6 and as such the plaintiff could ask only for refund of the earnest money. 6. Chhota Singh not satisfied with the decree of Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Malerkotla dated 16-12-1994 went in appeal, which was allowed by Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide order dated 29-4-1998 who decreed his suit for possession through specific performance of land measuring 10 bighas kham out of land measuring 18 bighas, 3 biswas as detailed in the heading of the plaint on the basis of agreement to sell dated 23-6-1990 Ex. P-1. 7. Not satisfied with the decree of Additional District Judge, Sangrur, Baldev Singh etc. vendees-defendants have come up in appeal to this Court. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 9. Baldev Singh and others, appellants defendants-vendees were purchasers of land measuring 10 Bighas from Nachhatar Singh through sale deeds Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-5. Their case was that vide agreement to sell dated 23-5-1990, Nachhatar Singh agreed to sell land measuring 11 Bighas Kham to Baldev Singh, appellant/defendant and it was upto Baldev Singh whether he got sale deed in his own name or in the name of somebody else whom he wanted that he should be the recipient of the sale. Case of Baldev Singh etc. was that as they were purchasers of land pursuant to agreement dated 23-5-1990, Ex. Case of Baldev Singh etc. was that as they were purchasers of land pursuant to agreement dated 23-5-1990, Ex. D-6, Chhota Singh could not claim specific performance of agreement dated 23-6-1990 Ex. P1. Their case was that agreement Ex. D-6 dated 23-5-1990 must have precedence over agreement Ex. P-1 dated 23-6-1990 and agreement Ex. P-1 must give way to agreement Ex. D-6 dated 23-5-1990. 10. Case of Chhota Singh respondent, on the other hand, was that his claim to specific performance was rightly decreed by the lower Appellate Court on the basis of agreement dated 23-6-1990, executed by Nachhatar Singh in his favour with regard to land measuring 10 Bighas. His case was that agreement dated 23-5-1990 was false, forged and anti-dated. 11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for Baldev Singh etc. - appellants (defendants-vendees) that agreement Ex. D-6 dated 23-5-1990 was a genuine agreement. Vide this agreement Nachhtar Singh had agreed to sell land measuring 11 Bighas Kham to him at the rate of Rs. 6500.00 per Bigha Kham. Nachhatar Singh received Rs. 46,500.00 as earnest money. He was to receive the remaining sale consideration at the time of execution/registration of the sale deed, which was to take place till 9-9-1990. It was submitted that agreement Ex. D-6 was a genuine agreement as they (Baldev Singh etc.) are in possession and if agreement Ex. D-6 had not been a genuine agreement, they would not have been put in possession of the land sold. In agreement Ex. D-6 the recital is that possession would be delivered at the time of execution/registration of the sale deed. In the sale deeds, which are dated 17-7-1990 - 19-7-1990, the recital is that possession was delivered to the vendees, the day the sale deed was executed. It was submitted that they are in possession which means that agreement in their favour was genuine. It was submitted that if they were not in possession, Chhota Singh would not have asked for possession. 12. Learned counsel for respondent Chhota Singh, on the other hand, submitted that agreement Ex. D-6 was false, forged and anti-dated. It was submitted that agreement Ex. D-6 was anti-dated, after agreement Ex. P-1 dated 23-6-1990 had come into existence, on 23-5-1990. It was submitted that agreement Ex. D-6 does not fit in so far as sale deeds Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-5 are concerned. Vide agreement Ex. D-6 was false, forged and anti-dated. It was submitted that agreement Ex. D-6 was anti-dated, after agreement Ex. P-1 dated 23-6-1990 had come into existence, on 23-5-1990. It was submitted that agreement Ex. D-6 does not fit in so far as sale deeds Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-5 are concerned. Vide agreement Ex. D-6 land measuring 11 Bighas had been agreed to be sold at Rs. 6500.00 per Bigha i.e. land measuring 11 Bighas was to be sold for Rs. 71500.00 vide agreement Ex. D-6, Rs. 46,500.00 is recited to have been paid to Nachhatar Singh as earnest money. Vide sale deed Ex. D-1 land measuring 1 Bigha was sold for Rs. 6500.00. Entire payment is recited to have been paid to Nachhatar Singh earlier. In the presence of the Sub-Registrar, no payment was made to him. Vide sale deed Ex. D-2, land measuring 1 Bigha was sold for Rs. 6500.00. Entire payment is recited to have been made to the vendor earlier. Nothing was paid before the Sub-Registrar. Vide sale deed Ex. D-3, land measuring 1 Bigha Kham was sold for Rs. 6500.00. Entire payment is recited to have been made earlier. Nothing was paid before the Sub Registrar. Vide sale deed Ex. D-4, land measuring 1 Bigha was sold for Rs. 6500.00. Entire payment is recited to have been made earlier. Nothing was paid before the Sub-Registrar. Vide sale deed Ex. D-5 land measuring 6 Bighas was sold for Rs. 39,000.00. Entire payment is recited to have been made earlier. Nothing was paid before the Sub-Registrar. In these sale deeds there is no mention of agreement Ex. D-6 at all. There is no mention about the adjustment of Rs. 46,500.00 alleged to have been paid through agreement Ex. D-6 to Nachhatar Singh in these sale deeds. On these sales, there was no spread over of the amount of Rs. 46,500.00. Vide these sale deeds land measuring 10 Bighas in all was sold, while the agreement was for the sale of 11 Bighas. If agreement Ex. D-6 had been before the scribe of these sale deeds on 17-7-1990/19-7-1990, the scribe of these sale deeds would have adjusted at the amount paid through that agreement in each of these sale deeds. There is no reference at all of agreement Ex. D-6 dated 23-5-1990 in these sale deeds. If agreement Ex. D-6 had been before the scribe of these sale deeds on 17-7-1990/19-7-1990, the scribe of these sale deeds would have adjusted at the amount paid through that agreement in each of these sale deeds. There is no reference at all of agreement Ex. D-6 dated 23-5-1990 in these sale deeds. When recital in each of these sale deeds is about the delivery of possession to the vendees on 17-7-1990/19-7-1990, there could have been this recital also that an amount of Rs. 46,500.00 had been paid per agreement dated 23-5-1990 to Nachhatar Singh and so much amount is being accounted for in these sale deeds out of the amount of Rs. 46,500.00. Stamp of agreement Ex. D-6 was purchased from one Tara Singh, stamp vendor, Ahmedgarh. He made entry about the sale of the stamp against serial No. 3757 in his stamp vendors register. The question is whether entry No. 3757 was interpolated and inserted afterwards or this entry is genuine and entered on 23-5-1990 in the stamp vendors register of Tara Singh. This entry appears at the end of the entries made in date 23-5-1990. Agreement Ex. D-6 is not genuine. 13. It is false, forged and anti-dated. Had it not been false, forged and anti-dated, it would have been mentioned in each of the sale deeds Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-5 and further the amount of Rs. 46,500.00 alleged to have been paid as earnest money per agreement Ex. D-6 would have been spread over and adjusted accordingly in these sale deeds. In these sale deeds, there is no reference to any agreement at all. 14. Agreement Ex. P-1 is quite genuine. It is attested by Lal Chand and Bachhitar Singh, P.Ws. thumb marked by Nachhatar Singh and signed by Chhota Singh. Vide this agreement a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 was paid to Nachhatar Singh as earnest money. Agreement was for sale of 10 Bighas of land at the rate of Rs. 9000.00 per Bigha. Sale deed was to be executed and registered till 21-8-1990. On 21-8-1990, Chhota Singh appeared before the Sub-Registrar with a view to paying the remaining sale consideration to Nachhatar Singh and obtaining sale deed from him. He waited for Nachhatar Singh in the office of the Sub Registrar, but he did not turn up. Chhota Singh got his presence marked before the Sub-Registrar on application Ex. P-2. On 21-8-1990, Chhota Singh appeared before the Sub-Registrar with a view to paying the remaining sale consideration to Nachhatar Singh and obtaining sale deed from him. He waited for Nachhatar Singh in the office of the Sub Registrar, but he did not turn up. Chhota Singh got his presence marked before the Sub-Registrar on application Ex. P-2. Sub-Registrar gave a note Ex. P-3 that Chhota Singh was present with the amount. Nachhatar Singh was called many times till the Sub-Registrar rose for the day, but he did not turn up. How could Nachhatar Singh be present before the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedgarh on 21-8-1990, when prior to 21-8-1990 he had sold land to Baldev Singh etc. vide sale deeds Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-5 dated 17-7-1990/19-7-1990, sale deeds Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-5 could be allowed to hold good, if they had owed their origin really to agreement dated 23-5-1990. Agreement dated 23-5-1990 has, however, been found to be false, forged and anti- dated in the earlier part of this judgment. 15. Appellants/defendants cannot be said to have been bona fide purchasers pursuant to sale deeds Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-5, dated 17-7-1990/19-7-1990, as they do not owe their origin to any genuine agreement viz. Ex. D-6. Agreement Ex. D-6 does not find mention in any of these sale deeds. Earnest money alleged to have been paid through agreement Ex. D-6 was not adjusted in any of these sale deeds. 16. Defendants/vendees set up false, forged and anti-dated agreement to defend sales in their favour. That shows that on 17-7-1990/19-7-1990, they were aware that Nachhatar Singh was already under an agreement to sell this land to somebody else. If Baldev Singh etc. had not set up agreement dated 23-5-1990, Ex. D-6 and pleaded straightway sale deeds, Baldev Singh etc. could have been held to be bona fide purchasers of the land for consideration without knowledge of any prior agreement and their title to the land protected. In this case, their title to the land could not be protected when they putforth agreement Ex. D-6 dated 23-5-1990 to defend their title to the land which is false, forged and anti-dated. 17. Faced with this position, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Chhota Singh respondent-plaintiff has failed to show readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement. D-6 dated 23-5-1990 to defend their title to the land which is false, forged and anti-dated. 17. Faced with this position, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Chhota Singh respondent-plaintiff has failed to show readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement. It was submitted that it was incumbent on his part to prove his readiness and willingness. Sec. 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act requires that the plaintiff must aver that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part. In this case, Chhota Singh plaintiff (P.W. 3) has stated that he was always ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration to Nachhatar Singh and obtain sale deed from him. He had already paid him Rs. 30,000.00 as earnest money on 23-6-1990 per agreement Ex. P-1. On 21-8-1990 he went to the office of the Sub-Registrar with Rs. 75,000.00. He remained there upto 5.00 p.m. but defendant Nachhatar Singh did not turn up. At last he made application to the Sub Registrar on which the Sub-Registrar marked his presence. On application Ex. P-2 the Sub-Registrar recorded a note Ex. P-3 that he was before him with the necessary amount till 5-00 p.m. and Nachhatar Singh did not turn up. It was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Motilal Jain V/s. Ramdasi Devi, 2000 (3) RCR (Civil) 545 that the language of S. 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act does not require any specific phraseology but only that plaintiff must aver that he has performed or has always been willing to perform his part. The compliance of readiness and willingness has to be in spirit and substance and not in letter and form in a mathematical form. Drafting of pleadings in India should be read as a whole to find out necessary averments and ingredients. In this case there is averment in the plaint that Chhota Singh had always been ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in his favour per agreement dated 23-3-1990 and was still ready and willing, and the balance sale consideration and the other amount required for meeting the expenses of stamp and registration had always been with him since beginning. 18. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the plaintiffs suit should have been dismissed as the plaint filed by him was not in conformity with Forms 47 and 48 of the First Schedule Appendix-A to the Code of Civil Procedure. Forms 47 and 48 in the First Schedule to the CIPC, indicate the broad outline for a suit for specific performance. However, it is not necessary that the Forms have to be literally reproduced. The verbatim repetition is not a mandate of law. The Forms do not contain a mathematical formula which may have to be repeated word for word. The Court has to take into consideration the totality of circumstances. If on examination of the evidence, it is established that the party was ready and willing to perform its part of the contract, the suit cannot be dismissed merely because the statement of facts in the plaint is not a word for word reproduction of Forms 47 and 48 of the CPC. The facts and circumstances of the case have to be examined. If the plaintiff has averred that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the facts and circumstances as brought out on the record during the course of evidence, lead to that inference, the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaint does not conform to Forms 47 and 48. It was held in Gurjit Singh V/s. Bant Singh, 1996 (1) Civil Court Cases 315 that the verbatim reproduction of Forms 47 and 48 in the plaint is not necessary. Plaintiff is only to aver and prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. In this case the plaintiff stated in the plaint that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract i.e. to pay the remaining sale consideration to Nachhatar Singh and obtaine sale deed from him and that he went to the office of Sub-Registrar on 21-8-1990 with the necessary amount to pay to Nachhatar Singh and obtain sale deed from him. He waited for Nachhatar Singh the whole day long, but Nachhatar Singh did not turn up. We have to look to the totality of the circumstances to see whether the plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements necessary for a successful claim to specific performance. He waited for Nachhatar Singh the whole day long, but Nachhatar Singh did not turn up. We have to look to the totality of the circumstances to see whether the plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements necessary for a successful claim to specific performance. In this case defendant Nachhatar Singh parted with the land on 17-7-1990/19-7-1990. After 17-7-1990/19-7-1990, he was not in a position to convey this land to Chhota Singh and thus fulfil his part of the agreement dated 23-6-1990. In Smt. Balbir Kaur V/s. Joginder Singh 1996 (2) Civil Court Cases 330, it was held that S. 16 of the Specific Relief Act does not require that the plaintiff must plead that he tendered the amount to the defendant and called upon him to perform his part of the contract. Plaintiff is only required to plead and prove that he had been and was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and to purchase the land. From the evidence on record, it is found that the plaintiff had pleaded the requisite ingredients of S. 16 of the Act, he cannot be non-suited on the ground that he has not reproduced Forms 47 and 48 of the First Schedule, Appendex-A to the Code of Civil Procedure. 19. We have to look to the essence of the pleadings. In this case the plaintiff has clearly said that he has always been ready and willing to obtain the sale deed per agreement dated 23-6-1990 and was still ready and willing and that he went to the office of Joint Sub-Registrar, Ahmedgarh, on 21-8-1990 with the balance sale consideration and other expenses. He waited for Nachhatar Singh, but Nachhatar Singh did not turn up. At last he made an application, in which the Joint Sub-Registrar marked his presence and also mentioned the fact that the necessary amount was also with him. Nachhatar Singh, defendant should have been produced by Baldev Singh etc. If he had been produced, he could have said whether he went to the office of Joint Sub-Registrar, Ahmedgarh, on 21-8-1990 and if he did not go, why he did not go because he had already parted with the land to Baldev Singh etc. vide sale deeds dated 17-7-1990/19-7-1990. If Nachhatar Singh had been produced, he would have explained how the sale money, which finds mention in sale deeds Ex. D1 to Ex. D5, was paid. vide sale deeds dated 17-7-1990/19-7-1990. If Nachhatar Singh had been produced, he would have explained how the sale money, which finds mention in sale deeds Ex. D1 to Ex. D5, was paid. It appears that Nachhatar Singh was not produced, so that he could not be cross-examined by the plaintiff. 20. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that plaintiff should have filed suit for permanent injunction against Nachhatar Singh restratining him from selling land before 21-8-1990. Suffice it to say he would have done so, if he had got the scent that Nachhatar Singh was hobnobbing with somebody and was selling the land to somebody else. It was only after 21-8-1990 that plaintiff came to know about the sales effected by Nachhatar Siingh in favour of Baldev Singh etc., on 17-7-1990/19-7-1990. If he had filed any suit for injunction, that would have been of no meaning, because he would have got cause of action for suit for specific performance only after 21-8-1990. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants are in possession since the year 1990 and now they should not be dispossessed. Plaintiff-respondent can be given money-decree particularly when he has asked for money-decree in the alternative. Suffice it to say merely because the plaintiff has asked for alternative relief, he cannot be refused the principal relief of specific performance. It was held in Motilal Jain V/s. Ramdasi Devi, 2000 (3) Recent Civil Reports (Civil) 545 that merely because plaintiff claims damages in a suit for specific performance of contract as alternative relief, it cannot be said that he is not entitled to main relief of specific performance. It was held in Ram Dass V/s. Ram Lubhaya, 1998-2 (119) Pun LR 326 : 1998 (2) RCR (Civil) 684 that an alternative prayer by a plaintiff in a suit cannot be construed as a waiver or abandonment of the main relief in the suit. An alternative prayer is a relief which is claimed by the party if the party is found to be not entitled to the main relief claimed in the suit. The jurisdiction vested in the Court to decline specific performance and grant alternative relief is a jurisdiction of equity and good conscience and must be exercised in consonance with the settled principles of law. The jurisdiction vested in the Court to decline specific performance and grant alternative relief is a jurisdiction of equity and good conscience and must be exercised in consonance with the settled principles of law. A lawful agreement being proved and judicial conscience of the Court being satisfied, the equity would demand enforcement of an agreement rather than granting an alternative relief of damages to the plaintiff. It need not be reiterated that equity must give relief where equity demands. The time taken by the Courts in deciding suits or appeals would normally be not permitted to work to the disadvantage of the party to the lis. Acts of the Courts shall cause prejudice to none was so stated by the Hon ble Apex Court in Atma Ram Mittal V/s. Ishwar Singh Punia, AIR 1988 SC 2031. In this case there is no equity in favour of Baldev Singh etc. so that sales in their favour could be upheld and relief of specific performance denied to respondent Chhota Singh. Respondent Chhota Singh holds an agreement in his favour dated 23-6-1990, whereunder he paid Rs. 30,000.00 as earnest money to Nachhatar Singh, who undertook to execute sale deed in his favour on or before 21-8-1990. If relief of specific performance is refused to Chhota Singh that would be putting premium on the inequitable conduct of Nachhatar Singh, who sold land to Baldev Singh etc. on 17-7-1990/19-7-1990, which was in flagrant breach of the agreement dated 23-6-1990. 22. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that respondent-plaintiff Chhota Singh was not ready and willing to purchase the land could be available only to Nachhatar Singh. This plea could not be available to Baldev Singh etc. as they are subsequent vendees. This view finds support in Jugraj Singh V/s. Labh Singh, AIR 1995 SC 945. 23. For the reasons given above, the conclusion reached is that Nachhatar Singh had entered into an agreement to sell land with Chhota Singh vide agreement dated 23-6-1990 and had received Rs. 30,000.00 as earnest money. Chhota Singh was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the breach was committed by Nachhatar Singh. Agreement dated 23-5-1990 set up by Baldev Singh etc. was false, forged and anti-dated. Baldev Singh etc. 30,000.00 as earnest money. Chhota Singh was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the breach was committed by Nachhatar Singh. Agreement dated 23-5-1990 set up by Baldev Singh etc. was false, forged and anti-dated. Baldev Singh etc. are not bona fide purchasers of the land, as when they purchased the land, they were aware of agreement in favour of Chhota Singh dated 23-6-1990, as it is a small village and all of them belong to this village. In small villagers if any transaction takes place, it spreads like wild fire. 24. In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs, so far as this Court is concerned. Appeal dismissed.