JUDGMENT PARAMJEET SINGH, J. 1. This regular second appeal of defendant no. 2 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1984 passed by learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Patiala whereby suit for specific performance filed by respondent no. 1 plaintiff has been decreed and against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.1987 passed by learned District Judge, Patiala whereby appeal preferred by appellant has been dismissed. 2. For convenience sake, hereinafter, reference to parties is being made as they are arrayed in civil suit. 3. The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. In brief, the facts relevant as pleaded in plaint for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that defendant no. 1 Chhotta Ram agreed to sell the land measures 56 kanals 5 marlas vide agreement dated 20.08.1969 (Ex.PA) for a total consideration of Rs. 7,000/- in favour of plaintiff and on that day, plaintiff- Balwant Singh allegedly paid Rs. 2,500/- as earnest money to defendant no. 1. It was also mentioned in the agreement that possession of the allegedly sold land had been given to the vendee in part performance of the agreement (Ex.PA). It was also pleaded that defendant no. 1 had to pay instalments regarding the land in dispute, therefore, he had agreed to execute the sale deed after payment of all instalments and on getting the proprietary rights in the suit land, but defendant no. 1 kept on replying in negative. Defendant no. 1 and Kapur Singh, father of defendant no. 2 Sukha Singh wanted to take forcible possession of the suit land, therefore, plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against defendant no. 1 Chhotta Ram. During the pendency of that suit, the plaintiff came to know on 13.09.1977 that defendant no.1 had sold the suit land to defendant no. 2 Sukha Singh for alleged sale consideration of Rs. 8,000/-. The plaintiff was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants on 15.10.1979. Defendant no. 2 was having full knowledge of the agreement (Ex.PA) because the land had been sold by defendant no. 1 through attorney Kapoor Singh, who is none else but father of defendant no. 2. Hence, suit was filed. 4. Upon notice, defendant no. 2 resisted the suit and filed written statement with the averments that he had purchased the land in dispute from defendant no. 1 through attorney Kapoor Singh, who is none else but father of defendant no. 2. Hence, suit was filed. 4. Upon notice, defendant no. 2 resisted the suit and filed written statement with the averments that he had purchased the land in dispute from defendant no. 1 for consideration of Rs. 8,000/-. He got the possession of the land from defendant no. 1 on 18.08.1977 at the time of execution of sale deed. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land. It was also pleaded that defendant no. 2 had no knowledge with regard to agreement (Ex.PA) allegedly executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant no. 2 is a bona fide purchaser for consideration and without notice. It was also pleaded that suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 5. Defendant no. 1 filed his separate written statement and admitted that he had executed the agreement (Ex.PA). It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but he could not do so due to fear of father of defendant no. 2. 6. Replication was filed in which allegations contained in plaint were reiterated and those contained in written statement were denied. 7. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Court of first instance framed following issues: 1. Whether defendant no. 1 had sold the suit land to defendant no. 2 through sale deed dated 18.08.1977? OPD No. 1 2. Whether defendant no. 2 had knowledge of the agreement of sale dated 30.08.1969 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff? OPD 2 2A. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land? OPP 4. Whether defendant no. 2 is a bona fide purchaser for consideration and without notice? OPD 2 5. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 6. Relief. An additional issue was also framed which reads as under: "Whether Chotta Ram defendant agreed to sell the land in dispute to Balwant Singh plaintiff? OPP 8. After appreciating the evidence, the Court of first instance decreed the suit on the condition that execution of sale deed in favour (sic. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 6. Relief. An additional issue was also framed which reads as under: "Whether Chotta Ram defendant agreed to sell the land in dispute to Balwant Singh plaintiff? OPP 8. After appreciating the evidence, the Court of first instance decreed the suit on the condition that execution of sale deed in favour (sic. respect) of suit land would be deemed as full performance of the contract and remaining part of the land would be deemed relinquished by the plaintiff and the full payment would be given for the suit land only. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.2 preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal. 9. When the appeal was admitted, no substantial question of law was framed. However, during the pendency of appeal, following substantial questions of law were placed on record and the same were pressed at the time of arguments: (i) Whether the judgments of the courts below are against the evidence and facts of the case? (ii) Whether the part performance can be sought under law? (iii) Whether the readiness and willingness of the respondent-plaintiff has been legally proved? (iv) Whether by not paying the instalments as per agreement, plaintiff-respondent amounts to breach of contract? (v) Whether the appellant is bona-fide purchaser? (vi) Whether issue no. 2 has been proved? 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for appellant-defendant no. 2 contended that there is a clear-cut misreading of agreement (Ex.PA). Perusal of agreement (Ex.PA) reveals that the plaintiff had to make payment of remaining instalments with regard to compensation of the land in question and the actual possession would be given only on payment of entire amount at the time of registration of the sale deed. Admittedly, the agreement was dated 20.08.1969 whereas suit was filed on 26.11.1977. Learned counsel further contended that defendant no. 1 had allegedly connived with the plaintiff and filed written statement in his favour which is not acceptable. Learned counsel further contended that defendant no. 2 is a bona fide purchaser for consideration and without notice. The plaintiff himself committed breach of contract and there is an admission of defendant no. 1, who has been subsequently won over by the plaintiff. Learned counsel further contended that defendant no. 2 is a bona fide purchaser for consideration and without notice. The plaintiff himself committed breach of contract and there is an admission of defendant no. 1, who has been subsequently won over by the plaintiff. It was one of the terms of the agreement that instalments of the land in dispute which was purchased by defendant no. 1 in auction had to be paid by the plaintiff, but he did not pay any single penny and remained silent for eight years. The instalments were paid by father of defendant no. 2 namely Kapoor Singh on getting power of attorney of the plaintiff. The averments made by the plaintiff with regard to possession of land are not supported from the revenue records as well as the agreement (Ex.PA) and are clearly wrong and not sustainable. The impugned judgments and decrees suffer from non-application of mind by the courts below and there are grave errors of procedure of law. There is complete misreading of agreement (Ex.PA). The earnest money paid as per plaint is Rs. 2,500/- and as per agreement is Rs. 3,000/-. 12. Per contra, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1 vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant and contended that there is a pure finding of fact recorded by both the courts below. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the same in regular second appeal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Both the courts below have correctly read the agreement (Ex.PA). 13. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. 14. On consideration of arguments raised by learned counsel the parties, I find that following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal: (i) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are against law and facts on record, agreement (Ex.PA) has been misconstrued and misread by the courts below? (ii) Whether delay in filing the suit defeats the rights of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of amount with interest which was allegedly paid by him to defendant no. 1? Answer to question no. (i) and (ii): 15. Both the questions are inter-connected, therefore, taken up together for discussion. 16. It is an admitted fact that defendant no.1 sold the land to defendant no. (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of amount with interest which was allegedly paid by him to defendant no. 1? Answer to question no. (i) and (ii): 15. Both the questions are inter-connected, therefore, taken up together for discussion. 16. It is an admitted fact that defendant no.1 sold the land to defendant no. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/- and thereafter joined hands with the plaintiff and admitted the claim of the plaintiff. His deposed self-condemning statement to the effect that he had sold the land to defendant no. 2, though he was bound to comply with the terms of the agreement executed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. No reliance can be placed upon the statement of such a person who projects himself a cheat and becomes root cause of litigation between two innocent persons. The agreement (Ex.PA) pertains to land measuring 56 kanals 05 marlas whereas area sold to defendant no. 2 was 46 kanals 04 marlas and suit for specific performance has also been filed only with regard to 46 kanals 04 marlas. It is apparent that the plaintiff, if at all, was interested for specific performance of the agreement, he should have filed the suit with regard to entire land i.e. 56 kanals 05 marlas, detailed in the agreement (Ex.PA). The performance of the agreement with respect of part of land mentioned in it is not permissible under law and pleadings are self-speaking. The plaintiff in connivance with defendant no.1 filed the suit with regard to land measuring 46 kanals 04 marlas which was allegedly sold to defendant no.2 by defendant no.1, instead of entire land involved in the agreement (Ex.PA). Even the payment of earnest money as per plaint and agreement is at variance which creates doubt about the agreement in question. 17. The possession was delivered to defendant no. 2 by defendant no. 1 in pursuance to the sale deed dated 18.08.1977 and revenue records i.e. latest jamabandis and khasra girdawaris clearly indicate that possession never came in the hands of the plaintiff. It always remained with defendant no. 2. This Court has also perused the agreement (Ex.PA) minutely with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. Perusal of the same reveals that it was with regard to 56 kanals 05 marlas. It always remained with defendant no. 2. This Court has also perused the agreement (Ex.PA) minutely with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. Perusal of the same reveals that it was with regard to 56 kanals 05 marlas. It is mentioned in the agreement that Rs. 3,000/- were paid as earnest money and remaining sale consideration i.e. Rs. 4,000/- was to be received by way of deposit of instalments of compensation which would be adjusted at the time of registration of the sale deed. It is also mentioned in the agreement, itself that actual possession would be delivered after the attestation/registration of the sale deed. It is also mentioned that if the vendee fails to deposit the instalments, his earnest money of Rs. 3,000/- shall stand forfeited. Admittedly, in the present case, the plaintiff never deposited the instalments but have been deposited by Kapoor Singh, father of defendant no.2 as attorney of defendant no. 1. There is a clear RSA No. 1540 of 1987 cut breach of the terms expressed in the agreement to sell specifically with regard to the fact that the plaintiff was required to pay the balance instalments of compensation as the land was purchased by defendant no.1 by way of auction. The plaintiff did not comply with the terms of the agreement (Ex.PA), rather the same has been paid by Kapoor Singh, father of defendant no. 2 on various dates. Thereafter, sale deed was executed in favour of defendant no. 2. 18. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 clearly stipulates that jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary and the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so, but the discretion of the Court cannot be arbitrary it is to be guided by sound and reasonable judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal. In Laxman Tatyaba Kankate vs. Taramati Harishchandra Dhatrak, AIR 2010 SC 3025 , it was observed that Section 20(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 specifies circumstances in which the Court may properly exercise discretion, not to decree specific performance. The circumstances specified are only illustrative and not exhaustive. The Court would take into consideration the circumstances of each case and the conduct of the parties and their respective interest under the contract. The circumstances specified are only illustrative and not exhaustive. The Court would take into consideration the circumstances of each case and the conduct of the parties and their respective interest under the contract. Reference can also be made to Sardar Singh vs. Krishna Devi, (1994) 4 SCC 18 . 19. A Division Bench of Lahore High Court in Lachhman Das vs. Kharak Singh and Others, AIR 1919 Lahore 393 held as under: "The point then in the present case is whether the delay on the part of the plaintiff in bringing the present suit justifies an inference of acquiescence or consent to the sale already effected in favour of Lachhman Das. Mr. Sheo Narain on behalf of the respondents says that they have satisfactorily explained the delay in suing. Their explanation is that they did not know that they could legally enforce an oral contract to sell and that it was only when advised by a pleader that they could enforce it that they brought the present suit. In our opinion their explanation is not a satisfactory one. The plaintiffs may indeed having thought that they could not enforce the agreement to sell to them, in view of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner had subsequently sanctioned the proposed sale in favour of Lachhman Das, but whatever they actually did think they must be presumed to have known the law. At any rate they could easily have found it out by taking legal advice. The facts that they accepted payment of their debt four months after the sale to Lachhman Das, that they previously financed two other suits against Lachhman Das with the object of getting the land from him or of causing him trouble, and that it was only after this and nearly three years after the original sale that they brought the present suit, warrant in our opinion the inference that they waived their claim to sue for specific performance. If they did not and merely delayed to bring the present suit from some other motives, then we are of opinion that such an inordinate delay is sufficient to disentitle them to the relief claimed. If they did not and merely delayed to bring the present suit from some other motives, then we are of opinion that such an inordinate delay is sufficient to disentitle them to the relief claimed. After all the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is under S. 22, Specific Relief Act, discretionary, and we do not think that this is a case in which the discretion of the Court should be exercised in favour of the plaintiffs." The conduct of the plaintiff in filing the suit in question after a period of eight years of execution of agreement (Ex.PA) and nonpayment of instalments of compensation clearly indicate that he was not interested in specific performance of the agreement to sell. The circumstances of the instant case, as have been discussed above, also clearly indicate that delay to bring the present suit for some other ulterior motive is sufficient to disentitle the plaintiff to the relief of specific performance. After all, jurisdiction to decree specific performance under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary and I do not think that this is a case in which the discretion of the Court should have been exercised in favour of the plaintiff. 20. In view of the discussion above, I am of the considered view that both the courts below have misread the agreement (Ex.PA) and misconstrued and misinterpreted its contents. The findings recorded by both the courts below are based on surmises and conjectures and contrary to the documentary evidence on record. As such, findings of both the courts below are unwarranted, unjustified and inference has wrongly been drawn from the facts on record. The delay in filing the suit and conduct of plaintiff has defeated the rights of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract. As such, both the aforesaid substantial questions are answered in affirmative. Answer to Question No. (iii) 21. Admittedly, earnest money worth Rs. 3,000/- was paid to defendant no. 1. As such, in the circumstances of the case, to keep balance and in the interest of equity and justice, this Court deems it fit to hold that alleged earnest money should be refunded by defendant no.1 to the plaintiff with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of execution of agreement (Ex.PA) till realization. This substantial question is answered accordingly. 22. This substantial question is answered accordingly. 22. In view of above, appeal is allowed, judgments and decrees of both the courts below are set aside being perverse, illegal, based on complete misreading and misconstruing of agreement (Ex.P-1) on record and based on surmises and conjectures. However, defendant no. 1 is directed to make the payment of earnest money received at the time of execution of agreement (Ex.PA), to the plaintiff along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of receipt till payment. If defendant no.1 fails to make the payment, the plaintiff will be entitled for recovery from him by way of execution. No other point has been urged. In the circumstances of case, costs made easy.