JUDGMENT 1. By filing first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant/plaintiff has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment & decree of dismissal of suit for specific performance of contract of sale, dated 24-8-99 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.17A/96. 2. As per case of the plaintiff/appellant, respondent No.1 - owner of agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos.93/10, 93/5, 93/15 & 93/16 total area 3.14 acres situate at Village Pandhi, Patwari Halka No.27, entered into agreement of sale with the appellant herein on 2-5-96 for a consideration of Rs. 1,26,000/- and after receiving Rs.5,000/- as advance he executed agreement EX.P-1 before two witnesses and possession was also handed over by respondent No.1 to the appellant/plaintiff. However, on 15-5-96 respondent No.2 succeeded in getting execution of sale deed in his favour by respondent No.1. Respondents No.1 & 2 have also prepared agreement dated 11-4-96 Le. Ex.D-1 in deceitful manner. During the subsistence of agreement of sale between respondent No.1 & the appellant, respondent No.1 was not competent to sell the property to respondent No.2 and no title has been passed in favour of respondent No.2. On 23-9-96 respondents No.1 & 2 have been served with notice Ex.P-3 which has been returned vide Exs.P-7 to P-9 being refused by the respondents. On the basis of agreement of sale Ex.P-1, suit for specific performance of contract was filed on behalf of the appellant with a prayer for execution of sale deed in favour of the appellant by both the respondents. 3. By filing separate written statement, respondent No.1 has admitted signature on Ex.P-1 but has denied execution of any agreement i.e. agreement of sale relating to any of his lands. He has pleaded that the appellant is money lender, he has taken loan of Rs.3,000/- from the appellant and signed on one blank paper on revenue ticket. On 11-4-96 he entered into agreement of sale of his land to respondent No.2 and received Rs. 10,000/-, thereafter, he contacted the appellant and tried to return Rs.3,000/- but the appellant refused to receive the same and requested for possession of land. On 11-4-96 he entered into agreement of sale of his land to respondent No.2 and received Rs. 10,000/-, thereafter, he contacted the appellant and tried to return Rs.3,000/- but the appellant refused to receive the same and requested for possession of land. He has specifically denied execution of any agreement of sale in favour of the appellant and has admitted that he has executed agreement of sale in favour of respondent No.2 vide Ex.D-1 and has also sold the land to respondent No.2 on 15-5-96 by executing sale deed. 4. By filing separate written statement, respondent No.2 has specifically pleaded that respondent No.1 has not entered into agreement with the appellant to sell any immovable property and it was a pure loan transaction. He• has entered into agreement to purchase the suit property from respondent No.1 on 11-4-96, thereafter, respondent No.1 has executed sale deed in his favour and has delivered possession of the suit property. 5. On the basis of averments, issues have been framed and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional District Judge dismissed the suit vide the judgment & decree impugned. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment & decree and record of the trial Court. 7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently argued that finding relating to document Ex.P-1 that virtually the sale deed is not agreement of sale and, therefore, same is not admissible in evidence and finding that same was virtually a loan transaction are contrary to the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. Therefore, aforesaid findings are not sustainable under the law. Ex.P-1 did not reveal the fact that respondent No.1 has delivered possession. Even otherwise, as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of S. Kaladevi Vs. V.R. Somasundaram & Drs. 1, unregistered sale deed is admissible in evidence as evidence of contract in suit for specific performance of contract and is also admissible as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. Learned Senior Advocate further argued that although khasra numbers of the suit property have not been mentioned in Ex.P-1 , but same will not effect execution of agreement or rights of the parties. Learned Senior Advocate placed reliance in the matter of Mithu Khan Chotey Khan Vs. Learned Senior Advocate further argued that although khasra numbers of the suit property have not been mentioned in Ex.P-1 , but same will not effect execution of agreement or rights of the parties. Learned Senior Advocate placed reliance in the matter of Mithu Khan Chotey Khan Vs. Pipariyawali wd/o Somat Singh and others2 in which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that agreement referring to the land contracted to be sold by name by which the land was known without mentioning survey number and area, such agreement is not void. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 submits that both the respondents have not admitted execution of agreement of sale in favour of the appellant, respondent No.1 has admitted signature on plain paper upon revenue ticket and Ex.P-1 also reveals that the appellant has succeeded in obtaining signature of respondent No.1 upon plain paper on revenue ticket. Learned counsel further submits that Ex.P-1 relates to agreement of sale of 3.14 acres of land on a consideration of Rs.1,26,000/-, but same has not been written on any stamp paper, and one plain paper i.e. a page of some lining copy has been used for the same. Back part of Ex. P-1 reveals that a condition, has been mentioned therein that if sale deed is not executed within three months, the amount of advance shall be forfeited, however, this does not bear the signature of respondent No.1 or even that of the appellant and it was signed by Bharatpuri Goswami, the alleged person who has drafted/prepared the document. The document itself appears to be a tampered document. Learned counsel also submits that respondent No.1 has executed agreement of sale vide Ex.D-1 in favour of respondent No.2 on 11-4-96. As per pleadings and agreement of the appellant i.e. the tampered document, no evidence relating to such tampering or forgery has been adduced on behalf of the appellant. The appellant has placed reliance on Ex.P-15 relating to copy of entry in the register of Stamp Vendor Mr. Narendra Pandey dated 9-4-97 which reveals that stamp No.251 of Rs.20/- was sold to Ramnihore, S/o Mahavir on 9-4-97, but the appellant has not examined any witness or has not filed any document to show that stamp No.251 has not been sold by Stamp Vendor Mr. Narendra Pandey on 11-496 i.e. on the date of execution of Ex.D-1. Narendra Pandey dated 9-4-97 which reveals that stamp No.251 of Rs.20/- was sold to Ramnihore, S/o Mahavir on 9-4-97, but the appellant has not examined any witness or has not filed any document to show that stamp No.251 has not been sold by Stamp Vendor Mr. Narendra Pandey on 11-496 i.e. on the date of execution of Ex.D-1. In order to prove the execution of document Ex.D-1 in deceitful manner or tempering of document, the appellant was under obligation to examine Stamp Vendor Mr. Narendra Pandey, but for the reasons best known to the appellant, the appellant has not examined Mr. Narendra Pandey. Learned counsel contends that respondent No.2 is not subsequent purchaser and he is not required to plead and prove that he is bona fide purchaser. If, even, Ex.P-1 is relied upon as agreement of sale, same would be subsequent agreement. Evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties reveal that Ex.P-1 was not an agreement and transaction between the appellant & respondent No.1 was loan transaction. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit filed on behalf of the appellant. 9. Learned State counsel opposed the appeal. 10. As per the arguments advanced on behalf of learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, nothing has been mentioned in Ex.P-1 relating to delivery of possession or the fact that Ex.P-1 is an outright sale deed. Although Ex.P1 reveals that respondent No.1 has sold the disputed property, it has not been mentioned in Ex.P-1 that respondent No.1 has entered into agreement to sell the property. It has also not been specifically mentioned in Ex.P-1 relating to delivery of possession, but the appellant himself has pleaded in para 2 of the plaint that respondent No.1 has handed over the possession of the plot along with motor pump. Relevant portion of para 2 of the plaint reads thus, ^^------------------------ mlds ckn fy[kki<+h rgjhj dh xbZ rFkk tehu vkSj eksVj iai rkj?ksjk lfgr dk dCtk esjs vklkeh dks izfroknh dzekad 1 us lkSai fn;kA** Para 5 of the plaint further reveals that possession has also been handed over to the appellant/plaintiff. Relevant portion of para 5 of the plaint reads thus, ^^------------------------ vuqca/k i= fy[kk tkdj dCtk Hkh oknh dks fn;k tk pqdk gSA** In notice Ex.P-3, the appellant has specifically mentioned that respondent No.1 has handed over possession to him. Relevant portion of para 5 of the plaint reads thus, ^^------------------------ vuqca/k i= fy[kk tkdj dCtk Hkh oknh dks fn;k tk pqdk gSA** In notice Ex.P-3, the appellant has specifically mentioned that respondent No.1 has handed over possession to him. Relevant potion of para 1 of the notice Ex.P-3 reads thus, ^^------------------------ mlds ckn tc fy[kki<+h rgjhj dh xbZ rFkk vki jkefugksjs mDr lkSns dh tehu rFkk eksVjiai tks fd rkj ?ksjs esa gS dk dCtk esjs i{kdkj dks lkSai fd;kA-----------** 11. These facts are sufficient for drawing inference that as per the claim of the plaintiff, after receiving Rs.5,000/- and executing Ex.P-1 respondent No.1 has handed over the possession of the land to the appellant. Even the appellant has filed suit only for specific performance of contract i.e. execution of sale deed and not for possession. On the basis of aforesaid pleading and allegation of the appellant/plaintiff, finding of the trial Court that Ex.P-1 is a complete sale, is not contrary to the claim and pleading of the appellant. The plaintiff himself has deposed in para 3 of his evidence that after execution of sale deed possession was handed over to him. Execution of agreement has been specifically denied by respondent No.1 and respondent No. I has pleaded & deposed that he has taken loan of Rs.3,000/- from the appellant and for security of that loan, the appellant has obtained signature on one blank paper. The appellant was under obligation to prove the fact that Ex.P-1 was agreement of sale or any agreement relating to immovable property. Ex.P-1 reveals that same is a receipt. First page of the agreement (Ex.P-1) bears the signature of respondent No.1 and two witnesses. One condition has been written on back of Ex.P-1 which is signed by one Bharatpuri Goswami who has prepared his document. The aforesaid condition did not appear to be part of agreement, without any signature of respondent No.1. As per EX.P-2 - one report dated 9-6-96, respondent No.1 has executed sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 and that was well within the knowledge of the appellant within one month seven days. The aforesaid condition did not appear to be part of agreement, without any signature of respondent No.1. As per EX.P-2 - one report dated 9-6-96, respondent No.1 has executed sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 and that was well within the knowledge of the appellant within one month seven days. But even thereafter, the appellant has not taken immediate step after knowing the fact of execution of sale deed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 and for the first time, he has issued notice to respondents No.1 & 2 on 23-9-96 after three months of the alleged agreement Ex.P-1. Agreement of sale requires description of parties to the agreement and description of the property. In Ex.P-1 only area of land has been mentioned as 3 acres 13 decimals along with fencing wire and motor, but no khasra number or specific identification has been mentioned in Ex.P-1. 12. As held by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Mithu Khan s ease2 (supra), identification of property is required to be mentioned in agreement of sale and in case of land identified by name, non-mentioning of plot number or khasra number will not effect its legality. In the present case, in Ex.P-1 khasra number or name of the plot or land or any other specification has not been mentioned, even the place where the land is situated has not been mentioned in Ex.P-1. As held by the Supreme Court in S. Kaladevi s easel (supra), Ex.P-11 can be treated as unregistered sale deed and same may be used as agreement of sale in suit for specific performance of contract. 13. Another document Ex.D-1 has been produced and proved by the respondents which reveals that respondent No.1 has executed agreement of sale in favour of respondent No.2 on 11-4-96. As per claim of the appellant, Ex.D-1 is a tampered document and respondent No.1 has not purchased the stamp of Ex.D-1 on 11-4-96, but he has purchased the same on 9-4-97. The appellant has filed certified copy of the stamp sale register of Stamp Vendor Mr. Narendra Pandey dated 9-4-97 and 11-4-96. Ex.P-14 - copy of register of the Stamp Vendor, is related to 11-4-96, but number of the stamp i.e. 251 finds place in Ex.P-15 - copy of the stamp sale register dated 9-4-97. The appellant has filed certified copy of the stamp sale register of Stamp Vendor Mr. Narendra Pandey dated 9-4-97 and 11-4-96. Ex.P-14 - copy of register of the Stamp Vendor, is related to 11-4-96, but number of the stamp i.e. 251 finds place in Ex.P-15 - copy of the stamp sale register dated 9-4-97. Aforesaid two documents are not sufficient to prove the fact that Ex.D-1 has not been sold by the alleged Stamp Vendor Mr. Narendra Pandey on 11-4-96. The appellant was under obligation to examine Mr. Narendra Pandey to unfold the story that whether he has sold the stamp Ex.D-1 on 11-4-96 or not, but the appellant has not examined Mr. Narendra Pandey. It was the allegation of the appellant and he was under obligation to prove such fact. In absence of such proof, Ex.D-1 cannot be termed as tampered document. It reveals that respondent No.1 has entered into agreement to sell his specified property i.e. the suit property to respondent No.2 on 11-4-96. Pleadings and evidence of the parties further reveal that respondent No.1 has sold the aforesaid property to respondent No.2 on 15-5-96. These evidences are sufficient to establish the fact that Ex.D-1 was the first agreement of sale in favour of respondent No.2 by respondent No.1. 14. Considering evidence of both the parties, contents of Ex.P-1, contrary pleadings and claim relating to possession of the appellant, and absence of description of the property, even the place where it situates, in Ex.P-1, it is difficult to hold that respondent No.1 has executed agreement of sale of any specific property in favour of the appellant. In case of specific performance of contract, the plaintiff is required to plead and prove readiness and willingness on his part. As per pleadings of the appellant, respondent No.1 has entered into agreement to sell the property to the appellant for a consideration of Rs.1,26,000/- and he has received Rs.5,000/- and h-as handed over possession to the appellant. In these circumstances, the appellant was under obligation to plead and prove the fact that he is ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,21,000/-, but the appellant has not pleaded and proved his readiness and willingness relating to payment of such consideration. 15. Present suit is for specific performance of contract filed on behalf of the appellant herein. 15. Present suit is for specific performance of contract filed on behalf of the appellant herein. The appellant has not proved execution of agreement of sale by respondent No.1 in his favour that too first agreement of sale, he has also not proved the fact that Ex.D-1 is not the first agreement of sale or is a tampered document. The appellant has also not pleaded and proved readiness and willingness to perform his part. Pleadings of the appellant, evidence of the appellant and Ex.P-1 are contradictory to each other. The appellant has not claimed for return of money in his plaint. In these circumstances, by dismissing the suit for specific performance of contract, the trial Court has not committed any illegality. The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. 16. Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merit, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. 17. The appellant shall bear his own costs of the suit as well of the appeal and also that of the defendants. 18. Advocate fees as per schedule. 19. Decree be drawn accordingly. Appeal Dismissed.