Judgment : 1. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 18.2.1997 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati whereby Special Civil Suit No. 183 of 1995 was decreed directing the defendant execute sale deed of the agricultural land in favour of plaintiff after depositing sum of Rs. 3,98,800/- with the Court as balance consideration payable in respect of the suit land. The trial Court directed the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed through the Court at the cost of defendant if the defendant failed to execute the sale deed and deliver possession of suit property. 2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell are as under: On or about 13.1.1995 by a written agreement to sell (Isar Paoti) executed by late Vishnu Atmaram Deshpande, he agreed to sell to plaintiff the land survey number 15, area admeasuring about 7 acres and some gunthas bounded : on east by Haturna Road; on West by land in the name of Shri Arunkumar Devidaspant Deshpande; on North side agricultural land belonging to Smt Asha and Shri Yashwant Bhalchandra Deshpande; and on South land belonging to Charudatta Wamanrao Deshpande. Consideration agreed was Rs. 52,000/- per acre. Out of total agricultural land, four acres land was agreed to be sold before 20th May 1995. Before 20.5.1995 remaining agricultural land was agreed to be sold by acceptance of earnest money of Rs. 50,000/-and sale deed for remaining land was to be executed on or before 15.4.1996. Vendor also agreed to convey ownership right in respect of share of common well with water pump fitted on it. The earnest money cash in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- was acknowledged as consideration for agreement to sell. As defendant did not execute sale deed as agreed, the plaintiff instituted Special Civil Suit No. 183 of 1995 for specific performance in the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati. In the said suit defendant denied the averments made in the plaint. The trial Court decreed the suit as referred above. 3. During the pendency of appeal, defendant Vishnu died whose legal representatives (appellants) were brought on record. 4. I have heard submissions at the bar. The points that arise for consideration are – (a) Whether the agreement to sell (Isar Pavati) is valid for entire suit land? The trial Court decreed the suit as referred above. 3. During the pendency of appeal, defendant Vishnu died whose legal representatives (appellants) were brought on record. 4. I have heard submissions at the bar. The points that arise for consideration are – (a) Whether the agreement to sell (Isar Pavati) is valid for entire suit land? (b) Whether plaintiff had by satisfactory evidence established his case for specific performance of agreement to sell? Both the points will have to be answered in the affirmative for the following reasons. 5. My attention has been invited to recitals of “Isar Pavati” (agreement to sell) at exhibit 21 which is subject-matter of dispute with submission that it has to be read in it’s entirety to ascertain real intention of the parties. After description of the suit land S.No. 15, its area about 7 acres and some gunthas along with it’s boundaries, it is mentioned that the said field was agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs. 52,000/- per acre. Out of the total agricultural land, sale-deed of four acres was agreed to be completed by 20th May 1995. By that time rest of the land was also agreed to be sold for earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- and sale deed of that (rest of the land) was agreed to be completed before 15th April 1996. The vendor also agreed to transfer his full ownership right of 1/3rd ancestral right over common well along with old water pump in working condition with liability of vendee to pay balance of electric bill, if any. Thus, acknowledging cash sum of Rs. 25,000/- as earnest money (Isar), an agreement has been reduced in writing in presence of attesting witnesses. 6. The plaintiff while deposing gave history of the transaction that the defendant had given an advertisement in Kedar Talkies (fact proved by evidence of P.W. 3 Shende) at Warud to sell his land S.No. 15/4 (Gat No. 12) with total area of 8 acres and 3 gunthas out of which 27 ares land had been acquired by the Government for Haturna Road; and also deposed about the transaction of agreement to sell which was reduced into writing as per exhibit 21. After payment of earnest money under exhibit 21, the plaintiff spent Rs. 500/- to prepare the field for cultivation and to get it’s measurement through DILR Office by depositing sum of Rs. After payment of earnest money under exhibit 21, the plaintiff spent Rs. 500/- to prepare the field for cultivation and to get it’s measurement through DILR Office by depositing sum of Rs. 300/- on 16.2.1995 by challan (exhibit 22) and also lands in order to complete sale deed for suit land and also expressed his readiness and willingness to execute sale deed, but defendant avoided. Therefore, registered written notice was issued (exhibit 23) which was acknowledged by defendant (exhibit 24). The deposition by plaintiff indicating how he was looking forward to get the sale deed executed by purchase of stamp paper and calling upon defendant to execute sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, but defendant avoided to turn up. The defendant gave reply (exhibit 26) to notice from the plaintiff on pretext that he would execute sale deed after obtaining consent of his sons and wife. This was notwithstanding the fact that defendant and his sons, daughters and wife had already partitioned their shares evident in revenue records (exhibits 27 to 32). In paragraph 13 of his cross-examination the plaintiff stated in answer to questions by Advocate for defendant as under: “Since two three days before the execution of earnest note we had negotiation of sale and purchase of the suit land. The negotiations were held between I and the deft. That time I did not ask the plff, for partition deed. For the first time I had been to the deft. for this transaction. Wasudeorao Deshpande had given me an idea of proposed sale of suit land. The deft told the price of land Rs. 55,000/- per acre including the price of well and motor pump. I offered consideration at the rate of Rs. 52,000/- per acre. First time the deft did not agree on this price. Again I met the deft on 13th January. On 13th the consideration of the suit land at the rate of Rs. 52,000/- per acre was fixed between I and the deft. That was a morning time of 10.00 or 10.30 a.m. That time I had 7/12 extract of the suit land. I do not recollect whether there is mention about acquisition of some portion of land for the purpose of road in the Isar chitti. It was mentioned in Isar Chitti that the suit field has been measured. That was a morning time of 10.00 or 10.30 a.m. That time I had 7/12 extract of the suit land. I do not recollect whether there is mention about acquisition of some portion of land for the purpose of road in the Isar chitti. It was mentioned in Isar Chitti that the suit field has been measured. It is not true that the earnest note of remaining field was to be executed on the day of execution of sale deed of four acres land. It is not true that on the same day out of consideration of remaining land the sum of Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid to deft. by way of earnest money. Except Exh. 21 there is no Isar Chitti between I and the deft. I admit whole contents of earnest note at exh. 21.” In order to establish his readiness and willingness, the plaintiff relied upon evidence of Ramchandra Khadse (PW 2), a Junior Clerk from Sub-Treasury Office, Warud about challan for purchase of general stamp of Rs. 8320/- by plaintiff Kisan on 15.5.1995. 7. The evidence of defendant’s witness Vivekanand Deshpande indicates his knowledge about suit transaction and his conduct of not issuing any notice to the plaintiff apart from the fact that his father is retired Tahsildar and entries about partition in revenue records amongst members of family indicate that defendant Vishnu pursuant to partition in family had exclusive title in the suit land and right to sell the suit land in compliance to the suit agreement. The evidence of defendant Vishnu indicated that he had 1/4th share in whole estate. The land given in share of his sons Ulhas and Vivekanand was sold by them respectively. 8. Thus, the evidence led before the trial Court appears crystal clear that an agreement to sell the suit land was executed on 13.1.1995 as per exhibit 21 in consideration of earnest cash amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The defendant had exclusive title to the suit land as share allotted to him pursuant to the partition amongst family members prior to the suit agreement (Isar Pavati) and hence, it was transferable by the defendant. 9. 25,000/-. The defendant had exclusive title to the suit land as share allotted to him pursuant to the partition amongst family members prior to the suit agreement (Isar Pavati) and hence, it was transferable by the defendant. 9. About the agreement to sell (Isar Pavati), learned Advocate for appellant submitted that there was an agreement to sell four acres of land only but for remaining of the suit land there was an agreement to enter into an agreement to sell, therefore, on the ground that entire transaction is vague it is not on agreement capable of being specifically enforced. The trial Court ought to have read the entire document in all its parts to arrive at conclusions. In this regard learned Advocate for respondent have placed reliance upon P.S. Ranakrishna Reddy v. M.K. Bhagyalakshmi and anr reported in (2007) 10 SCC 231 wherein it is held thus – .“A document, as is well known, must be read in its entirety. The intention of the parties, it is equally well settled, must be gathered from the document itself. All parts of the deed must be read in their entirety so as to ascertain the nature thereof.” 10. Learned Advocate for respondent further contended that defendant had agreed to sell suit land which had already been allotted to his share pursuant to the partition in the family and had exclusive right to alienate it. He relied upon ruling in Smt Jaywantabai Hansraj Gajbhiye v. Raghunath Kisan Lanjewar reported 2006 (2) All MR 671 to argue that karta of the family has right to alienate the property. Whether legal necessity existed or not, is a question which would arise after the alienation is challenged (vide paragraph 16). Learned counsel for respondent lastly relied upon ruling in Prabhakar v. Shantaram reported in 2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 71 . It is observed by this Court in paragraph 11 thus – .“..... To my mind, there is no concept in Hindu law of a coparcener becoming a limited owner on getting his share in partition. Such a concept is in existence only in respect of a female who receives the property not against her pre-existing right. The Shastrik Hindu Law does not recognize the right of one coparcener putting a restraint or constraint on the right of the other coparcener in respect of the property allotted in partition in respect to its disposition. Such a concept is in existence only in respect of a female who receives the property not against her pre-existing right. The Shastrik Hindu Law does not recognize the right of one coparcener putting a restraint or constraint on the right of the other coparcener in respect of the property allotted in partition in respect to its disposition. Such a condition would be, therefore, totally void. He becomes a full owner irrespective of condition that may have been incorporated in the partition deed....” 11. Learned Advocate for appellant placed reliance upon following rulings in support of his submission that the trial Court ought to have dismissed the suit in this case – (1) Shrikant and ors v. Krishna Balu Naukudkar reported in 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 276. (2) M.T.W. Tenzing Namgyal and ors v. Motilal Lakhotta and ors reported in AIR 2003 SC 1448 . (3) Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh and ors reported in AIR 1994 SC 1653 . (4) Prabhakar Balasa Saoji v. Subhash Baburao Malode and ors reported 2005 (2) All MR 127. (5) Mrs Adelia Dos and ors v. Anand Giri Keni reported in 2006 (1) All MR 530. (6) Bhaurao Shamrao Bhalme and ors v. Mahadeo Yelekar reported in AIR 1979 Bombay 208. (7) Prem Raj v. The DLF Housing and Construction and anr reported in AIR 1968 SC 1355 . (8) Dharmaji Krishnaji Sonavane v. K.A. Parmar reported in 1987 (1) Civil L.J. 394. (9) Mrs Kasvita Trehan and anr v. Balsara Hygiene reported in AIR 1995 SC 441 . (10) Binayak Swain v. Ramesh Chandra and anr reported in AIR 1966 SC 948 . (11) Gurjojinder Singh v. Smt Jaswant Kaur and anr reported in 1994 (2) Civil LJ 1. (12) Chinnamal and ors v. P. Arumugham and anr reported in AIR 1990 SC 1828 . (13) Manikchand Sarupchand and anr v. Gangadhar and anr reported in AIR 1961 Bombay 288. (14) Samarendra Nath and anr v. Krishna Nag reported in AIR 1967 SC 1440 . (15) Kedarnath Lal and anr v. Sheonarain and ors reported in AIR 1970 SC 1717 . 12. I have perused the rulings cited above. There is no doubt that entries in the revenue records are basically for revenue purposes and do not by themselves constitute title to the property in favour of any person. (15) Kedarnath Lal and anr v. Sheonarain and ors reported in AIR 1970 SC 1717 . 12. I have perused the rulings cited above. There is no doubt that entries in the revenue records are basically for revenue purposes and do not by themselves constitute title to the property in favour of any person. It is also a settled position that entries made by patwari in official record are only for fiscal purposes. Readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract could be gathered from legal notice served by him on defendat prior to filing of suit. Over all reading of averments in the plaint reveal that plaintiff was all the while ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Not only this, but the act of plaintiff in investing amount for development of land shows nothing but his inclination to purchase the suit land in pursuance to the agreement. In Prabhakar Balasa Saoji; Mrs Adelia Dos Remedios and Bhaurao Shamrao Bhalme’s case (cited supra) this Court has held that in a suit for specific performance of contract, absence of averment in plaint about willingness to perform his part of contract, will entail dismissal of suit. However, in the present suit, plaintiff has specifically and categorically pleaded that he was and is ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Paragraph 3 of the plaint reads as under:- “That, the plaintiff was and is willing to perform his part of contract. That, the plaintiff was eager to get the transaction completed. Hence, with the permission of the defendant the plaintiff spent Rs. 500/- to keep the field ready for sowing. So also in order to ascertain the correct land under the Haturna Road application for measurement of the Gat No. 12 of Wadegaon suit field was made and the plaintiff deposited Rs. 300/-as measurement fee in Treasury as per directions of the defendant.” Hence, the rulings relied upon by learned counsel for appellant are not applicable in the present case. 13. The contention that agreement (exhibit 21) is vague, cannot be accepted. 300/-as measurement fee in Treasury as per directions of the defendant.” Hence, the rulings relied upon by learned counsel for appellant are not applicable in the present case. 13. The contention that agreement (exhibit 21) is vague, cannot be accepted. The suit was maintainable to enforce the agreement in it’s entirety with valid cause of action after defendant Vishnu Deshpande refused to execute sale deed despite notice served upon by the plaintiff and despite continuous readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed in terms of suit agreement (exhibit 21). The amendment in the plaint was allowed to decide real controversy finally between the parties and has the effect from the date of suit. Hence, it could not have been overlooked. 14. Interpretation of agreement to sell depends upon words used and not upon what parties have to say afterwards. The Court has to give effect to clear and unambiguous words, by ascertaining intention of the parties; surrounding circumstances and object of contract. To find support to this proposition, one may refer to ruling in Bank of India v. K. Mohandas reported in (2009) 5 SCC 313 . Thus, when words used in the agreement or contract are clear, unambiguous, true effect thereof cannot be changed merely because of course of conduct adopted by defendant subsequent to the agreement. True construction of agreement depends upon the import of words used and not what the parties may say afterwards. Words harmoniously interpreted without violence to any naturally susceptible meaning in exhibit 21 do give rise to inescapable inference that defendant had agreed to sell the suit land in favour of plaintiff by stages, as stated in the suit agreement. Heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant are, therefore, bound to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land as ordered by the trial Court by it’s well-reasoned judgment and decree. The respondent appears to have taken lot of steps to develop and improve the suit land after the appellant withdrew remaining amount of consideration deposited by the plaintiff-respondent pursuant to order dated 18.2.1997 during the pendency of this appeal. The respondent have shown his bonafides by depositing balance of consideration in the sum of Rs. 3,98,800/-pursuant to order during the pendency of appeal and appellants withdrew the amount. The respondent have shown his bonafides by depositing balance of consideration in the sum of Rs. 3,98,800/-pursuant to order during the pendency of appeal and appellants withdrew the amount. Thus, they are under legal obligation to execute sale deed as heirs and legal representatives of the defendant late Vishnu Atmaramji Deshpande who had agreed to sell the suit land as per exhibit 21. 15. No compelling ground is made out to refuse specific performance pursuant to the suit transaction. No ground is made out to entertain plea for restitution on behalf of appellants as is permissible in view of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is without merit and has to be dismissed with costs.