JUDGMENT 1. - This civil first appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated April 11, 1991 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dholpur, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit, with costs. 2. Plaintiffs Harbachan Singh and Ram Bharose filed a suit for specific performance against defendants Narain Singh, Smt. 'uman and Bedaria, with the averments that defendant Naraian Singh executed an agreement, Ex.1 on 22.7.1981 in favour of plaintiff respondents Harbachan Singh and Ram Bharose, thereby he agreed to sell his land bearing Khasra No. 14,measuring 7 bighas 4 biswas at the rate of Rs. 2500/- to plaintiff Harbachan Singh and Ram Bharose. At the time of execution of agreement, defendant Narain Singh received a sum of Rs. 4000/- as an advance amount. It was agreed by defendant Narain Singh that, in any case, he will get the agreement registered till 30.8.1981. The plaintiffs took over possession of the disputed land on 22.7.1981. As per the terms of the agreement, the remaining amount of Rs. 14,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed. It was averred that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to make payment of the remaining amount, but defendant Narain Singh was unnecessarily delaying the execution of sale deed. On 12.10.1981 Harbachan Singh requested defendant Narain Singh to execute the sale deed, but Narain Singh declined to get the sale deed executed. As per the averments in the plaint, defendant Narain Singh stated that he is going to sell the land described in para 1 of the plaint to one Beni S/O Dhanri Ram and threatened to disposes Harbachan Singh and Ram Bharose from the disputed land. With these averments, the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance against defendant Narain Singh. 3. It may be stated that during pendency of suit, plaintiff Ram Bharose died and her legal representatives were brought on record and accordingly amended suit was filed, adding widow, son and a minor daughter as plaintiffs No. 2/1 to 2/3, and Smt. Suman Devi and Bedaria as defendants No. 2 and 3. 4. In para 8-A of the plaint, it was averred that during pendency of the suit, on 15.10.1981 defendant Narain Singh executed a sale deed in respect of khatedari rights of Araji Khasra No. 13 and 13/210 and Araji Khasra No. 14 and 14/211 in favour of defendant Suman Devi and Bedaria, respectively. 5. 4. In para 8-A of the plaint, it was averred that during pendency of the suit, on 15.10.1981 defendant Narain Singh executed a sale deed in respect of khatedari rights of Araji Khasra No. 13 and 13/210 and Araji Khasra No. 14 and 14/211 in favour of defendant Suman Devi and Bedaria, respectively. 5. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement. While admitting the execution of an agreement Ex.1, the defendant respondent has denied the rest of the averments made in the plaint. Defendants appellants Mst. Suman and Bedaria also filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge framed 7 issues. The plaintiffs, in support of their case, examined himself as PW1 and Bhagwati Prasad Sharma as PW2, Murari Lai as PW3, Devi Lal as PW4, Brijlal as PW 5 and Balveer Singh as PW6, while defendants Narain Singh and Bedaria examined themselves as DW 1 and DW 2 and one Netram as DW3. The plaintiffs got exhibited the agreement as Ex.1, while the defendants got exhibited mutations Ex. A/1 and A/2 and Jamabandi Ex. A/3. 7. On consideration of evidence, both oral and documentary and after hearing counsel for the parties, the learned trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance, with costs, vide judgment and decree impugned in this appeal. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendant appellants Bedaria and Smt. Suman Devi have filed the present appeal. 9. Mr. Anil Mehta, learned counsel for the defendant appellants has contended that impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is against law and facts and hence the judgment and decree are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel argued that the agreement dated 22nd July, 1981 (Ex.1) was not required as required by law. He contended that defendant appellants had no knowledge of the agreement dated 22nd July, 1981 and hence they were bona fide purchasers of the land in dispute. The evidence led, on behalf of the plaintiffs is highly unreliable and could not have been believed by the learned court below. He further contended that the plaintiff respondents have not come with clean hands and have made false assertions. The evidence led, on behalf of the plaintiffs is highly unreliable and could not have been believed by the learned court below. He further contended that the plaintiff respondents have not come with clean hands and have made false assertions. On the other hand the defendant appellants have fully established their possession over the land in dispute since 5.10.1981 by adducing evidence, both oral and documentary. The trial court has seriously erred in not appreciating the evidence in true perspective, in particular the evidence of DW 1 and DW 2 has not at all been considered properly. The findings arrived at by the learned trial court are contrary to the evidence on record and, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be reversed and the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of a contract may be dismissed. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Parag Rastogi, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondents has contended that the learned court below has rightly decreed the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance and in doing so the Court below has appreciated the evidence both ocular and documentary, in true perspective and hence the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal call for no interference. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence brought on record. 12. Defendant Narain Singh executed an agreement dated 22.7.1981 in favour of the plaintiffs by which he agreed to sell his land described in para No. 1 of the plaint for a consideration of Rs. 2500/- per bigha. At the time of execution of agreement, he received a sum of Rs. 4000/- as an advance. Rest of the amount was agreed to be paid at the time of registry. As per the agreement Ex:1, the defendant Narain Singh had to get the sale deed registered till 30.8.1981. PW1 Harbachan Singh has stated that an agreement to sell the land measuring 7 bighas 4 biswas was entered into between him, his brother Ram Bharose and defendant Narain Singh for a consideration of Rs. 18,000/- and Narain Singh received a sum of Rs. 4000/- at the time of execution of agreement. This agreement Ex. 1 was written by Bhagwat Master. Narain Singh had handed over possession of the land to them. PW 2 Bhagwat, scribe of the document Ex. 18,000/- and Narain Singh received a sum of Rs. 4000/- at the time of execution of agreement. This agreement Ex. 1 was written by Bhagwat Master. Narain Singh had handed over possession of the land to them. PW 2 Bhagwat, scribe of the document Ex. 1 has categorically stated that this agreement between Narain Singh, Harbachan and Ram Bharose in respect of land was written by him. Defendant Narain Singh had put his signatures in his presence. The witness stated that Harbachan Singh, Ram Bharose and Narain Singh had come to him and he had written the agreement Ex.1 as stated by them. PW3 Murarilal admits his signature on Ex.1. According to him, when he asked Narain Singh whether he has received amount as against the agreement to sell the land, Narain Singh replied that he has received a sum of Rs. 4000/-. He had put his signatures on the agreement on 24.7.1981. These statements of these 3 witnesses have been corroborated by DW1 Narain Singh, who has admitted his signatures from C to D on the agreement Ex.1 and has stated that he had agreed to sell his land to plaintiffs Harbachan Singh and Rambharose at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per bigha. He stated that he had agreed to sell the land for a consideration of Rs. 18000/- and had received a sum of Rs. 4000/-. Evidently, defendant Narain Singh has admitted to have executed the agreement Ex.1 in favour of plaintiffs. He has also admitted that possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiffs. 13. From the evidence discussed above, it stands proved that defendant Narain Singh agreed to sell his land bearing Khasra No. 14, 14/211, 13 and 13/210 situated in village Nrasinghpura Based to plaintiffs Harbachan Singh and Ram Bharose for a consideration of Rs. 18,000/- and accordingly executed an agreement Ex.1 dated 22.7.1981 and received a sum of Rs. 4000/- as an advance. The plaintiffs have also been able to prove that possession of the land was also handed over to the plaintiff. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that sale deed was required to be executed by 30.8.1981 but the plaintiffs failed to get the sale deed executed by 30.8.1981. According to him, the plaintiffs did not make any efforts to get the sale deed executed in their favour by the aforesaid date. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that sale deed was required to be executed by 30.8.1981 but the plaintiffs failed to get the sale deed executed by 30.8.1981. According to him, the plaintiffs did not make any efforts to get the sale deed executed in their favour by the aforesaid date. Neither the plaintiff respondents served any notice on defendant Narain Singh for getting the sale deed executed by 30.8.1981 nor they sought for extension of time. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial court on issue No. 3 is contrary to the evidence on record and is liable to be reversed. Learned counsel further submitted that time is the essence of contract in an agreement to sell. The plaintiff respondents failed to take any steps by 30.8.81 for getting the sale deed executed in their favour and, therefore, agreement to sell came to an end. He further submitted that the appellants are bona fide purchasers for value without any notice of the prior agreement to sell. On these premises, learned counsel argued that the trial court has erred in deciding issues No. 6 and 7 in favour of the plaintiffs and the suit is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel further argued that plaintiffs have not been able to prove that they were ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement in respect of the disputed property and, therefore, the trial court has erred in deciding issue No. 5 also in favour of the plaintiff. 15. I have considered the above arguments. Defendant Narain Singh (DW1) has stated that for want of money, plaintiff Harbachan Singh could not get the sale deed executed. He has also stated that a meeting of Panchayat was also convened and, therefore, he executed another sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. According to the agreement (Ex.1), the sale deed was to be executed by 30.8.1981. However, in cross examination, Narain could not state as to when the Panchayat meeting was convened. He also could not state whether the plaintiffs had filed suit prior to the execution of sale deed in favour of defendant appellants. Defendant Narain Singh (DW 1) has admitted in his cross examination that all including Beni Ram and appellant Bedaria have seen the plaintiffs cultivating the land in dispute. He also could not state whether the plaintiffs had filed suit prior to the execution of sale deed in favour of defendant appellants. Defendant Narain Singh (DW 1) has admitted in his cross examination that all including Beni Ram and appellant Bedaria have seen the plaintiffs cultivating the land in dispute. Appellant Bedaria (DW 2) has stated that summon of the suit filed by the plaintiff respondents were received by him after the execution of sale deed. Neither the plaintiffs had filed the suit till the sale deed was executed nor crop of the plaintiffs was standing at the field. However, he has admitted that mustard crop was there in the field. According to him, defendant Narain Singh did not convene any meeting in the Panchayat and that he was not aware of the agreement prior to execution of sale deed. DW 3 Net Ram has stated that both the appellants had purchased the disputed land for a consideration of Rs. 5000/- each and Narain Singh got the sale deed registered and at the time of registry, none of the peon of the court came to Narain Singh for service of summon. In cross examination, DW3 Net Ram has admitted that Narain Singh did not convene any meeting in their village. He has further admitted that at the relevant time the rate of the land in the village was Rs. 1600/- to 1800/- per bigha. 16. As already discussed above, Narain Singh had entered into an agreement Ex.1 with the plaintiffs, by which he had agreed to sell the land in dispute for a consideration of Rs. 18000/- and had received a sum of Rs. 4000/- as an advance amount and had assured the plaintiffs to get done the registry in their favour. PW1 Harbachan Singh, plaintiff respondent has specifically stated in his cross examination that Narain Singh did not convene any meeting in the village and had given the notice in respect of execution of sale deed 8-10 days prior to the date fixed. He never refused for registry. So far as notice is concerned, PW5 Brijlal, process server has stated he had received the notice Ex. 2 on 15.10.81 for getting the same served. When he tried to get the notice served, Narain Singh refused to accept the notice in village Baseri. He never refused for registry. So far as notice is concerned, PW5 Brijlal, process server has stated he had received the notice Ex. 2 on 15.10.81 for getting the same served. When he tried to get the notice served, Narain Singh refused to accept the notice in village Baseri. He then went to the village of Narain Singh, but he was not found there and ultimately he affixed the notice at Narain Singh's house. PW6 Balveer Singh has stated that on 15.10.1981 a peon had gone to village Baseri for getting the notice and order served on Narain Singh, but Narain Singh was refusing acceptance of notice and said that he will take notice at his home. At that time, appellant Bedaria, Nek Ram and Narain Singh were sitting in the Tehsil. 17. DW1 Narain Singh has not stated anything specific as to on which date and place the meeting of Panchayat was convened, who participated in the meeting and what transpired in the meeting. As already stated above, DW2 Bedaria, appellant herein and DW3 Net Ram have denied that any meeting was convened. The plaintiff (PW1 Harbachan Singh) has categorically denied to have told defendant Narain Singh that he could not arrange the money. On the contrary plaintiff Harbachan Singh has specifically stated that he asked defendant Narain Singh for execution of sale deed but, Narain Singh neither executed the sale deed nor got the registry. 18. It appears from the evidence on record that defendant Narain Singh had sold the land in dispute to defendants No. 2 and 3. Undisputedly, there is a specific mention in the agreement Ex. 1 that sale deed was to be executed by 30.8.1981. However, the defendant has sold the land in dispute to defendants No. 2 and 3 on 15.10.1981. PW 1 Harbachan Singh has stated in his statement that he repeatedly reminded Narain Singh for registry of the land, but of no avail and ultimately, he threatened to sell the land to some other person. PW6 Balveer Singh in his statement has stated that when Narain Singh and other defendants were talking about the registry of the disputed land, in Tehsil Baseri, a Peon of the Court had gone to the Tehsil for getting the summon Ex. 2 served on Narain Singh, but Narain singh refused to accept the same. However, Narain Singh has denied to have knowledge about it. 2 served on Narain Singh, but Narain singh refused to accept the same. However, Narain Singh has denied to have knowledge about it. As stated above, PW 5 Brijlal, Process-server has been declared hostile. However, the statement of PW 6 and the report on the summon Ex.P2 make it evident that Process server had gone to Narain Singh. for getting the summon Ex. 2 served on him, but Narain Singh refused to accept the notice and asked for service at his house. In my view, the learned trial court, on appreciation of evidence has rightly come to a finding that defendant Narain Singh has failed to prove that the plaintiffs could not comply with the terms contained in the agreement Ex. 1 and the defendant has a'so not been able to prove that he had got any meeting of the Panclayat convened in the village. On the other hand, the plaintiffs having come to knew about the ill intention of defendant Narain Singh, filed a suit for specific performance of the contract on 13.10.1981 i.e. two days prior to the execution of sale deed in favour of defendant appellants. Not only this, the plaintiffs had tried to get the summon Ex. 2 served on Narain Singh in Tehsil Baseri )n 15.10.1981. Thus, in the light of evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and tr a statement of defendant Narain Singh, the trial court has rightly concluded that it cannot be believed that since the period of contract came to an end on 30.8.81, right to terminate the contract accrued to defendant Narain Singh. 19. From the evidence brought on record it has been proved beyond doubt that defendant appellant Bedaria and Net Ram husband of appellant No. 2 were fully aware of filing of the suit by the plaintiffs in respect of the land in dispute, prior to the registry and the appellants cannot be said to be the bona fide purchasers. The issues No. 4 to 7, in my view, have rightly been decided in favour of the plaintiff respondents. 20. Now the question which now requires to be decided is whether the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract by making payment of Rs. 14000/- to defendant Narain Singh ? 21. The issues No. 4 to 7, in my view, have rightly been decided in favour of the plaintiff respondents. 20. Now the question which now requires to be decided is whether the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract by making payment of Rs. 14000/- to defendant Narain Singh ? 21. The learned trial court, on consideration of entire evidence has come to a finding that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. I find from the evidence that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. They filed a suit for specific performance on 13.10.1981 and tried to inform the defendant appellants about the filing of suit prior to registry of the land in dispute. The trial court after considering the evidence and the law cited by the respective parties has rightly held that the plaintiffs were always ready to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement Ex. 1 and hence they are entitled to get the sale deed registered in their favour. 22. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The stay order passed by this court on 29.4.1991 stands vacated.'Appeal dismissed. *******