JUDGMENT RAKESH SHARMA, J.--Heard Shri P.C. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Sankata Rai learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri P.K. Rai representing Smt. Shanti Devi, the sole respondent. 2. This second appeal has been preferred under section 100, C.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 10.4.2001 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Agra in Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1993 arising out of Suit No. 190 of 1977 between (Shanti Devi and Ram Singh and others) represented as alleged legal heirs and representatives. 3. From the perusal of the record, it appears that Gangadhar, Ram Singh, Than Singh, all residents of village Jaupura, Tehsil and District Agra having Bhumidhari/Sirdari agricultural land contracted and agreed, to sell the plots to Smt. Shanti Devi, sole respondent for a consideration of Rs. 35,000/- on 28.5.1974 and an agreement to sale was prepared and executed on 28.5.1974. As an agreement to sell was prepared and executed on 28.5.1974, Smt. Shanti Devi paid Rs. 6000/- as earnest inoney and part of consideration to the above said three persons on the date of agreement. This agreement is available on record of the second appeal. Specific terms and conditions were spelt out that balance of amount i.e., Rs. 29,000/- would be paid on the date of registration of the sale deed. The sale deed was to be executed within three years as the said agriculturists were to obtain bhumidhari sanad by depositing the required sum with the Government. It was stipulated that in case the vendors failed to execute the sale deed it would be open for Smt. Shanti Devi to get it done through the Court. 4. According to learned Counsel for the respondent, Smt. Shanti Devi was already prepared and willing to perform her part of agreement by complying the terms and get the sale deed executed. The above named vendors were delaying the execution of sale deed and in the meantime, Gangadhar had died leaving behind his legal heirs and representatives who are parties to this appeal. The vendors were requested to execute the sale'deed by 25.5.1977, that is, the date when the vendors agreed to come, to the Registrar's office to execute the sale deed. Smt. Shanti Devi remained present in the office, but the vendors (appellants herein) did not come. The notices and telegrams etc., were also sent to the vendors to execute the sale deed. Smt. Shanti Devi remained present in the office, but the vendors (appellants herein) did not come. The notices and telegrams etc., were also sent to the vendors to execute the sale deed. In between the period when these efforts were being made by Smt. Shanti Devl, consolidation operations started in the village and new Khasra Nos. 231, 813, 232, 227, 213, 229 and 259 were allocated to the land in dispute. These new Khasra numbers were recorded in place of old khasra numbers in the revenue and consolidation records. 5. A civil suit was filed on failure to execute the sale deed. Smt. Shanti Devi has filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Agra seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 28.5.1974. The defendants were required to execute the sale deed of the plots detained in the plaint and till then the possession of the land was also sought. The Trial Court had dismissed the plaintiff Shanti Devi's suit on 16.2.1993. Being aggrieved, the Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1993 was preferred by the plaintiff, Smt. Shanti Devi. This civil appeal was allowed by the Second Additional District Judge, Agra on 10.4.2001. The present second appeal has been filed by the three sons of late Ram Singh viz. Thakuria, Man Singh, and Tika, Than Singh S/o Jwali, Smt. Kalawati, W/o late Gangadhar and Girraj, S/o late Gangadhar to challenge the judgment and decree referred by the Lower Appellate Court. This Court while admitting the appeal on 18.7.2001 had stayed the operation of toe judgment and decree of 10.4.2001, the appeal was admitted on the ground Nos. A and B : "(A) Whether the impugned judgment is vitiated for not considering any of the factors present on record as stated in ground No. (g) of this appeal, specially when the Court below was exercising equitable jurisdiction under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. (B) Whether the agreement in question dated 28.5.1974 has been rendered infructuous and un-enforceable when substantial portion of the land undisputedly has been allotted to a third person Sri Bedaria in the form of new Plots No. 227, 229 and 259." 6. Shri P.C. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the following issues were raised before the Court below which are quoted below: (1) "Kya Vaad ka Mulkayankan kam kiya gaya hai aur diya gaya nyayshulk aparyapt hai? Shri P.C. Jain, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the following issues were raised before the Court below which are quoted below: (1) "Kya Vaad ka Mulkayankan kam kiya gaya hai aur diya gaya nyayshulk aparyapt hai? (2) Kya vaad chalne yogya nahin hai? (3) Kya tathkathit anubandh U.P. Zamindari Vinash Adhiniyam se badhya hai, atah sunya hai? (4) Kya prativadigarh ne vivadit vikray anubandh raji se nispadit kiya? (5) Kya vadi ne tathkathit vikray anubandh dhoko se nispadit kara liya jaisa ki prativadpatra ki dhara 15 lagayat 17 mein kaha gaya hai? (6) Kya vadi nuksaan, yadi koi ho, ko paane ka adhikari hai aur chaha gaya nuksan adhik hai? (7) Vaadi kis anutosh ko prapt karne ka adhikari hai?" 7. The Appellate Court has dealt with the submissions put forth by Smt. Shanti Devi, taken note of original agreement to sell, registry receipt, notices, affidavits, testimony of Smt. Shanti Devi and the other witnesses Shan Singh was recorded. The respondents (appellants) herein had not produced any documentary evidence of the three witnesses i.e., Than Singh, Hukum Singh and Karan Singh for examination. The First Appellate Court had appreciated that after death of Ram Singh, his sons and in addition to these Than Singh, Smt. Kalawati, W/o Gangadhar, Girraj Hukum Singh were impleaded as parties. Thus the legal heirs and legal representatives were impleaded as parties to the litigation. All the defendants, respondents before the First Appellate Court had contested the suit and the first appeal. The Court had taken note that no first appeal was filed by the other defendants, thus, it may be presumed that they were not aggdeved by the verdict of the Trial Court. Thus the findings of the Trial Court were reversed by the First Appellate Court as far as impleadment of proper parties is concerned. 8. The Court had also taken note that consolidation proceedings were initiated and the names of the persons, who had executed agreement, continued to be recorded. In view of these, the defendants ought to have respected and discharged the terms and conditions spelt out in the registered agreement to sell the land. The First Appellate Court had recorded a detailed finding in respect of the identity of the plots, and the status of the land in dispute after the consolidation operations. In view of these, the defendants ought to have respected and discharged the terms and conditions spelt out in the registered agreement to sell the land. The First Appellate Court had recorded a detailed finding in respect of the identity of the plots, and the status of the land in dispute after the consolidation operations. The plaint was amended by bringing para 9-A to demonstrate that the new numbers i.e., 231, 813, 227, 229 and 259 were allocated in place of old plots. The amendment was allowed to be carried out by the Trial Court. The appellants had accepted the status of the plots in dispute, as no first appeal was filed by them, but now at the stage of second appeal, no such consideration can be made. The court had relied upon a case in Baikunthi Devi and ethers v. Mahendra Nath and another1, to record a finding that the defendants were duty bound to execute the sale deed in order to discharge their obligation spelt out in the agreement to sell. 1. AIR 1977 SC 1514 . 9. The evidence led before the Court below persuaded the First Appellate Court that Smt. Shanti Devi was always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed, the sale consideration was available with her, she has sent notice to the vendors and his legal heirs and legal representatives to execute the sale deed. In the plaint, she had also indicated that she was always willing and prepared to get the sale deed executed, which was obligation was flowing from the agreement to sell and earnest money of Rs. 6000/- was already paid to the land owners. The agreement to sale dated 28.5.1974 was executed with healthy and sound mind, there was no element of duress or cocrcion in execution of the sale agreement. The First Appellate Court rendered the judgment taking note of the relevant provisions contained in Specific Relief Act. 10. Shri P.C. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has given details of the new plots by placing Consolidation C.H. Form No. 41. According to him that through the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, the said Court had reversed the decree of the Trial court on erroneous grounds excluding from consolidation that the minor had become major and they had no knowledge of the suit. 11. According to him that through the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, the said Court had reversed the decree of the Trial court on erroneous grounds excluding from consolidation that the minor had become major and they had no knowledge of the suit. 11. It is noteworthy that the First Appellate Court has taken note of the fact that all the legal heirs and representatives of the land owners (vendors) had been impleaded before the Court and they had contested the appeal which was in continuance of the suit. 12. As per learned Counsel for the appellants, the parties to the agreement to sell were illiterate villagers belonging to scheduled castes. They were in the need of money for marriage of their daughter at the time of executing the agreement of sale. The price settled for the plots was not adequate price. The First Appellate Court had not exercised its jurisdiction under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. In fact the agreement to sell in question had been rendered infructuous. 13. Shri Sankata Rai has opposed the appeal and made submissions in support of the judgment rendered by the First Appellate Court. 14. According to him the suit seeking specific performance and contract was filed in the year 1977 and now about 28 years have expired and said amount of Rs. 6000/- earnest money if it would have been deposited in the fixed deposit would have become Rs. 1,60,000/- by now. 15. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 16. It emerges from the record that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were bhumidhar and Sirdhar of plots detailed in the plaint and the C.H. Form 41. The three land owners had contracted and agreed to sell their plots to the plaintiff Smt. Shanti Devi for a sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/-. An agreement to sale was registered on 28.5.1974 and a substantial amount of Rs. 6000/ - as earnest money and part consideration was paid to the said three persons. A total sale consideration was Rs. 35,000/- as per the terms and conditions spelt out in the registered agreement to sale agreed to be paid to the land owners. The sale deed was to be executed within three years, on failure to do so, indulgence of the Court could be sought. A total sale consideration was Rs. 35,000/- as per the terms and conditions spelt out in the registered agreement to sale agreed to be paid to the land owners. The sale deed was to be executed within three years, on failure to do so, indulgence of the Court could be sought. After the death of all the vendors, their legal heirs and legal representatives were impleaded in the case. The First Appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff was aiways ready and willing to perform her part of the obligations, she was ready to pay the balance amount and get the sale deed executed. A written notice and telegram etc. were sent by Smt. Shanti Devi to the vendors, but to no avail. The Trial Court had declined to interfere and dismissed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court has dealt with the matter, appreciating the facts and evidence properly. It has taken note of the terms and conditions spelt out in the registered agreement for sale dated 28.5.1974, the correct copy of the C.H. Form No. 41 and C.H. Form No. 45 to note the status of the plots. The whole land is still in the possession of the vendors. It is noteworthy that the Trial Court had decided most of the issues in favour of the plaintiff, Smt. Shanti Devi. On considering the case in the light of Order XXXII, Rule 12, C.P.C. It has wrongly dismissed the plaintiff's suit on 16.2.1993. The wrong committed by the Trial Court has been undone by the First Appellate Court by recording detailed findings and reasons to conclude that the parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement, proper notice was given to the vendors, the purchaser was willing and ready to get the sale deed executed and Smt. Sbanti Oevi had even gone to the office of Sub-Registrar for the purposes of discharging her burden as vendee. The finding recorded by the First Appellate Court are not erroneous and in fact these are based on relevant materials, including, documentary and oral evidence. The judgment rendered by the First Appellate Court is a reasoned, well considered and legally sound document which requires no interference by this Court. 17. The judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants are not applicable in the present case. The judgment rendered by the First Appellate Court is a reasoned, well considered and legally sound document which requires no interference by this Court. 17. The judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants are not applicable in the present case. However, before parting with the case it may be noted that now-a-days it has become a regular tendency that first enter into an agreement or a contract in respect of an immovable property or some other contractual affairs or business with an ulterior motive receive part consideration use the same and thereafter resile from the promise made through the agreement or contract by entering into litigation. It is a new deviee invented just in order to get the execution or implementation of a contract frustrated. The terms and conditions contained in an agreement or contract become meaningless. The person, who has paid substantial amount of money or consideration on execution of an agreement or contract feels cheated. He gets involved in an unexpected and unsavoury situation of unwanted prolonged litigation so initiated by a dishonest person. The litigation goes on for years, thus, the primary duty of a Court of law is to enforce a promise, which the parties have made and to uphold the sanctity of a contract of an agreement entered into between the parties, which forms the basis of a civilized society, though there may be some exceptions. The Court must exercise extreme restraint in holding a contract or a duly registered agreement to be void as it would encourage dishonestly and cheating. 18. My views find support from the judgment in Gherulal Parakh v. Mahadeodas Maiya,1 and Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi.2 1. AIR 1959 SC 781 . 2. AIR 2009 SCW 1030. 19. In view of the discussions made above, no substantial question arises to be considered in the present second appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.