Manoj Misra, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This is defendant's appeal. It has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.16, Aligarh in Civil Appeal No.84 of 2000 arising out of Original Suit No.8 of 1980. 3. The Original Suit No.8 of 1980 was instituted against the defendant, who is now represented by her heirs, to execute sale-deed of two shops in Bazar Raliya, District Aligarh in favour of the plaintiff in terms of agreement dated 12.04.1976. The plaint case was that the plaintiff was owner of the two shops. In one shop Raghubar Dayal was tenant at the rate of Rs.60/- per month. On 13.04.1971, the plaintiff had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the defendant. For security of the loan, the plaintiff executed a sale-deed on 13.04.1871 in favour of the defendant. On the same date a separate agreement for sale was also entered into between the defendant and the plaintiff, whereby the defendant agreed to transfer the property back to the plaintiff on payment of Rs.10,000/- within 5 years. It was agreed between the parties that the defendant would realize rent from Raghubar Dayal and hence forth the plaintiff would pay Rs.40/- per month as rent to the defendant for the shop in their occupation. It was contended that the plaintiff offered Rs.10,000/- to the defendant and requested her to execute the sale-deed in terms of the agreement dated 13.04.1971 but the defendant avoided to execute the sale-deed. At last, on 12.04.1976, the defendant accepted Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to sell the property back to the plaintiff, at anytime the plaintiff would desire, after seeking necessary permission from the competent authority under the provisions of U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 4. It was further contended that the plaintiff kept asking the defendant to seek permission from the competent authority and to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff but the defendant furnished incorrect information to the Ceiling Authorities, as a result, the application of defendant for permission was rejected for want of correct information. Thereafter a fresh application for permission was made to the Ceiling Authorities, which was pending. Thereafter a fresh application for permission was made to the Ceiling Authorities, which was pending. It was contended that the plaintiff has all throughout been ready and willing to perform their part under the contract and were still ready and willing, but the defendant failed on her part, hence, the necessity to institute the suit arose. 5. Defendant, who is now represented by her legal representatives, admitted that the plaintiff had executed a sale-deed in favour of the defendant and on the same date the defendant too had executed a separate agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff thereby agreeing to transfer the property back to the plaintiff on return of loan of Rs.10,000/- by the plaintiff to the defendant within 5 years. It was also admitted that the plaintiff had returned Rs.10,000/- to the defendant and that on 12.04.1976 an agreement for sale was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The suit, however, was contested claiming that the plaintiff was required to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.10,000/-, which could not be adjusted against the rent of Rs.100/- per month from the two shops. It was claimed that though the plaintiff had paid Rs.10,000/- but he could not pay the balance amount of interest due by that date i.e. 12.04.1976. It was contended that the plaintiff furnished incorrect information to the Ceiling authorities, therefore, the permission was rejected, thereafter fresh permission was applied for, which has not yet been granted, therefore, the suit cannot be decreed. 6. The defendant further claimed that the plaintiff cannot be said to be ready and willing to perform his part under the contract and, as such, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 7. The Trial Court framed as many as six issues. Issue No.1 was as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to get sale-deed executed in terms of agreement dated 12.04.1976. Issue No.2 was with respect to readiness and willingness of the plaintiff. Whereas Issue No.3 was as to whether the plaintiff committed breach of any of the terms of the agreement. Issue No.4 was as to whether there was any agreement between the parties to pay interest and Issue No.5 was with regards to the maintainability of the suit on account of lack of permission from Ceiling Authorities. Whereas Issue No.3 was as to whether the plaintiff committed breach of any of the terms of the agreement. Issue No.4 was as to whether there was any agreement between the parties to pay interest and Issue No.5 was with regards to the maintainability of the suit on account of lack of permission from Ceiling Authorities. The Trial Court after examining the evidence on record held that the agreement for sale was duly executed and that the plaintiff had paid the entire consideration to the defendants as agreed under the agreement for sale dated 12.04.1976. On the question of readiness and willingness the Court was of the opinion that since the plaintiff had admittedly paid entire sale consideration, there was no question to doubt that they were not ready and willing to perform their part under the contract, accordingly, it held that the plaintiff had not committed any breach of the agreement. On the question of payment of interest, the court held that the agreement dated 12.04.1976 was silent on payment of any interest. While deciding Issue No.5, the court held the suit to be maintainable, accordingly, the suit was decreed. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendant preferred appeal, which too was dismissed. The Appellate Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and observed that the agreement dated 12.04.1976 was clear and specific and since the plaintiff had already paid the consideration, and that the Ceiling Act being already repealed, there was no impediment in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. It also found that the application, for grant of permission by the Ceiling Authorities, was pending. Therefore, relying on decision of this Court in the case of Raghubir Singh Bhatty Vs. Ram Chandra Waman Subedar, reported in A.I.R. 2002 All. 13, it held the suit to be maintainable 9. Before the Appellate Court, another argument was raised on behalf of the defendant, which was to the effect that the sale-deed dated 13.04.1971, as per the pleading of the plaintiff, was mortgage by conditional sale, therefore, it was necessary for the plaintiff to seek for redemption of mortgage or to seek for cancellation of the sale-deed. It was contended that in the circumstances of the case the agreement for sale was not enforceable. 10. It was contended that in the circumstances of the case the agreement for sale was not enforceable. 10. The Appellate Court after noticing the provisions of Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act came to the conclusion that since there was no stipulation in the sale deed dated 13.04.1971 that on payment of Rs.10,000/- the buyer shall transfer the property to the seller, the sale-deed dated 13.04.1971 could not be interpreted to be mortgage by conditional sale. The Appellate Court thus dismissed the appeal of the defendant. 11. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the courts below, the present second appeal has been filed. The only point pressed by the counsel for the appellant is that as per the plaint case, the sale-deed dated 13.04.1971 was mortgage by conditional sale, therefore, the suit for specific performance was not maintainable and that the plaintiff should have filed a suit for redemption of mortgage or for cancellation of the sale deed dated 13.04.1971. 12. Submission of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. In this case, the sale-deed dated 13.04.1971 did not provide any right to the plaintiff to obtain a reconveyance or any right to redeem the alleged mortgage. The agreement dated 13.04.1971 was an independent contract. Thus, by virtue of the proviso to clause (c) of Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, the sale-deed dated 13.04.1971 could not be treated to be a mortgage by conditional sale. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has sought for enforcement of agreement dated 12.04.1976, which clearly stipulate that the defendant shall execute sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff after obtaining permission from the Ceiling Authorities. It also indicates that full consideration was already paid to the defendant by the plaintiff. In the given circumstances the rights of the parties are governed by agreement dated 12.04.1976, the execution of which, is admitted to both the parties. As the Ceiling Act has been repealed there is no impediment in decreeing the suit for specific performance. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment and decree of the courts below cannot be faulted. 13. The appeal, therefore, lacks merit and is dismissed summarily under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. _