JUDGMENT 1. The instant civil regular first appeal as well as civil cross objection have been preferred against the common judgment & decree dated 01/11/2001 passed by the court of District Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur whereby, in lieu of specific performance, compensation has been awarded to the plaintiff-respondent. Since the appeal and cross-objection arise out of the same judgment & decree dated 01/11/2001 hence, both are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal and the cross objection in brief are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit on 16/08/1989 initially against defendant-respondent No.2 for specific performance of agreement dated 30/01/1989. Lateron, the present appellants have been impleaded as party with the contention that respondent No.2 was owner of the suit property bearing old Khasra No.462/1225 (new Khasra No.1323/1324) measuring 20 bigha situated in village Govindpura @Ropara, Tehsil Sanganer. On 30/01/1989, he executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Total sale consideration was decided to be Rs. 80,000/-. Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in advance. Agreement to sell has been executed in presence of the witnesses. Possession of the property has also been handed over to the plaintiff-respondent and after getting possession of the property, plaintiff-respondent invested Rs. 10,000/- for leveling of the suit property and patol has also been erected on the land. Plaintiff-respondent has also deposited lagaan for the samwat year 2042-2046. Further contention of the plaintiff-SBCFA No.312/2001 respondent was that he was ready and willing to perform the part of his contract but defendant was not intending to sell the suit property hence, a notice dated 19/04/1989 has been served on the defendant and, thereafter, on 08/05/1989, news article has been published in the paper and lastly notice dated 30/06/1989 along with draft sale-deed was served on the defendant but defendant has not executed the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent hence, suit for specific performance of agreement has been filed. Lateron, suit property has been acquired hence, amendment has been made to modify the relief and instead of specific performance, plaintiff prayed for compensation to be awarded to him. Defendants No.1 to 5 jointly filed a written-statement stating therein that defendant-respondent/cross-objector-Sudarshan Kumar never executed sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff and property has been sold to the present appellants vide sale-deed dated 17/10/1989 in pursuance of agreement dated 14/12/1988. Defendants No.1 to 5 jointly filed a written-statement stating therein that defendant-respondent/cross-objector-Sudarshan Kumar never executed sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff and property has been sold to the present appellants vide sale-deed dated 17/10/1989 in pursuance of agreement dated 14/12/1988. It has also been pleaded that signatures of the cross-objector have been obtained on blank papers with coercive method by Bhoma Ram, who is close relative of the plaintiff-respondent and they want to grab the property and for the alleged incident, FIR No.130/1989 has been lodged and further it has been pleaded that property has been acquired by the Rajasthan Housing Board and now, specific performance of the contract is not possible. The trial court has framed the following twelve issues:- "(1) Whether defendant No.1 executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff regarding the land bearing Khasra numbers mentioned in para 1 of the plaint and plaintiff paid Rs. 10,000/- in lieu thereof and got the ownership of the property? (2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract as mentioned in para 2 of the plaint? (3) Whether Surendra Kumar Power of Attorney Holder of defendant No.1 executed an agreement to sell in favour of defendants No.2 to 5 on 14/12/1988 and handed over possession of the suit property to the purchasers after obtaining sale consideration of Rs. 20,000/- from them, and what is its effect on the suit? (3A) Whether the said agreement to sell dated 14/12/1988 is not genuine and has been forged with the connivance of the defendants being executed subsequent to agreement to sell dated 30/01/1989, which was executed with the plaintiff? (3B) Whether defendant No.1 illegally executed agreement to sell in favour of defendants No.2 to 5 in connivance with them only to get money only with a view to cause harm to the plaintiff? (4) Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of deficit court fee according to the actual value of the suit property worth Rs. 1,60,000/-? (5) Whether the khatedari rights of the suit property have been transferred in favour of defendants No.2 to 5 w.e.f. 17/10/1989 in pursuance of agreement to sell dated 14/12/1988? (6) Whether defendant No.1 drawn the Registered Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Surendra Kumar on 02/11/1988? 1,60,000/-? (5) Whether the khatedari rights of the suit property have been transferred in favour of defendants No.2 to 5 w.e.f. 17/10/1989 in pursuance of agreement to sell dated 14/12/1988? (6) Whether defendant No.1 drawn the Registered Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Surendra Kumar on 02/11/1988? (7) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the fact that agreement to sell is regarding the property, which is situated in Village Khori Ropara? (8) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder of parties? (9) Whether defendants are entitled to receive special costs provided under Section 35A of the Civil Procedure Code? (10) Whether the court is not having jurisdiction to hear the plaint in view of the fact that the alleged property for which agreement to sell was executed on 30/01/1989, is situated in Village Bhichuda, Tehsil Sagwada, District Dungarpur? (11) Whether alleged agreement to sell is not genuine and has been forged with an oblique motive at the instance of Bhoma Ram? (11A) Whether the plaintiff is essentially required to get declare the registered sale-deeds executed in favour of defendants No.2 to 5 to be null and void? (11B) Whether in the changed scenario that the State Government has acquired the land during the pendency of the suit and now the specific performance of contract is not possible, plaintiff is entitled to get compensation? (12) Relief? 3. To substantiate his case, plaintiff has examined PW1 to PW13 and also relied on the documents from Ex.1 to Ex.38 and per contra, the defendant-appellants have examined DW1 to DW9 and relied on the documents from Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties, the court below has decreed the suit for compensation. Hence, this appeal. 5. Defendant No.1- Sudarshan Kumar has also filed cross-objection against the impugned judgment & decree and the grounds raised by both the two, are similar to each other. 6. Contention of the appellants is that decree passed by the court below is patently illegal and perverse to the facts on record. The court below has seriously erred in deciding Issue No.1 against the defendants and material contradiction in the evidence of the plaintiff-respondent has not been considered. There is material contradiction as regards to the purchase of the stamp for the alleged sale-agreement No.312/2001 agreement. The court below has seriously erred in deciding Issue No.1 against the defendants and material contradiction in the evidence of the plaintiff-respondent has not been considered. There is material contradiction as regards to the purchase of the stamp for the alleged sale-agreement No.312/2001 agreement. The whole agreement has been manipulated by Bhoma Ram, the close relative of the plaintiff to grab property but the trial court has overlooked this aspect of the evidence. Serious contradictions have been stated as regards to possession over the disputed property. Execution and attestation of the document is not proved. One of the attesting witnesses Gomti Prasad has been examined by the defence. Plaintiff-respondent himself has stated that he never met Sudarshan Kumar, crossobjector. This aspect of the matter alone is sufficient to demolish the whole case of the plaintiff. Agreement has been executed on 30/01/1989, whereas it has been attested by the Notary on 31/01/1989. Admittedly, Ex.1 has been executed at Sagwada, Dungarpur, whereas the disputed property is situated in Village Govindpura @Ropara, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur hence, contention of handing over of possession of the suit property, is per-se false. In 1983, khatedari rights have been acquired by the defendants. Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform the part of his contract. After expiry of the time, the notice dated 19/04/1989 was served. Agreement (Ex.1) is a forged document. Its stamp has been purchased by the plaintiff-respondent himself. Possession of the property never remained with the plaintiff-respondent. Mutation has been opened in favour of the appellants. One notary public has attested both the agreements. Contention of the plaintiff-respondent is that during the proceedings of the suit, possession has been taken by the appellant but no such amendment has been sought in the plaint. Identification of the property is also not established whether it is situated in Village Khori Ropara or in village Govindpura @Ropara, Tehsil Sanganer. Three months time was granted to complete the contract but during that period, nothing has been done by the plaintiff-respondent. Much stress has been given by the plaintiff-respondent that patol has been constructed by the plaintiff but no such narration has been made in the draft sale-deed and even from defendant No.1-Sudarshan Kumar, it has not been asked in his cross-examination. It has also not been contended that amendment for compensation was rejected vide order dated 17/11/1997, which order has been confirmed by the High Court. It has also not been contended that amendment for compensation was rejected vide order dated 17/11/1997, which order has been confirmed by the High Court. Thereafter, same amendment has been allowed vide order dated 03/12/1999, which attracts the principles of res judicata and thus, the suit for specific performance cannot be converted into the suit for compensation. Court below has wrongly relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Jagdish Singh v. Nathu Singh : (1992) 1 SCC 647 , where there was a specific agreement for re-purchase. It has also been contended that agreement dated 14/12/1988 is a genuine agreement. It has been entered in the notary register as per Notary Act, whereas the agreement (Ex.1) in favour of the plaintiff-respondent is forged one and without prayer of setting-aside the sale-deed, the suit for specific performance is not maintainable. Appellants are the bonafide purchasers but no such plea has been taken by the plaintiff and only Rs. 10,000/- has been given as advance money and in lieu of this, court below has awarded compensation of lacs of rupees, which is contrary to equity. Hence, suit be dismissed. 7. Contention of the plaintiff-respondent is that court below has discussed the entire pleadings and evidence submitted by the parties. During pendency of the suit, property has been purchased by the appellants hence, defence of Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act is not available to them. Collusion of the cross-objector and the defendants is clear as common written-statement has been filed by the two. Defendants had lodged FIR, which is clear admission of the fact that the agreement dated 30/01/1989 has been executed between the parties. By any stretch of imagination, it could not be admitted that defendant/cross-objector, who is Sarpanch has signed the agreement on coercion or without reading it. Agreement dated 14/12/1988 is ante-dated. There is no narration in the sale-deed about the said agreement and even sale-deed dated 17/10/1989 has been executed without reference of the earlier agreement to sell and without statement of giving the possession earlier. This one fact is enough to demolish the whole case of the defendants. In the sale-deed, there is no narration as about possession of the property. Court below has rightly allowed compensation as specific performance of the contract was not possible without any fault of the plaintiff. Under Order 7, Rule 7 CPC, the court can suitably mould the relief. This one fact is enough to demolish the whole case of the defendants. In the sale-deed, there is no narration as about possession of the property. Court below has rightly allowed compensation as specific performance of the contract was not possible without any fault of the plaintiff. Under Order 7, Rule 7 CPC, the court can suitably mould the relief. Earlier, application was filed on different footing hence, res judicata would not operate. Hence, no interference is needed and appeal be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment & decree as well as original record of the case. 9. Issue No.1 has been framed as regards to agreement dated 30/01/1989. PW1-Jagdish Narain-plaintiff got examined himself to prove the fact of agreement to sell and his contention has been further strengthened by the statement of PW2-Bhomaram Meena. PW3-Bhagwan Lal Meena is attesting witness of Ex.1 and PW4-Ramesh Chand Gupta, Tehsildar has stated that he has also attested the agreement to sell and on the strength of the above, court below has held that agreement to sell (Ex.1) has been executed between the parties. Contention of the appellants is that Ex.1 is not a genuine document as Stamp of Ex.1 has been purchased by the plaintiff himself. It has been stated to be written on 30/01/1989, whereas it has been attested through notary public on 31/01/1989. Property is situated at Sanganaer, Jaipur, whereas Tehsildar attested it at Sagwada, District Dungarpur and admittedly, it has been written there. Possession of the property could not handed over to the plaintiff-respondent as property was not situated at Sagwada. Ex.2, receipt of the amount is forged one as it does not contain attestation of the Tehsildar or the Notary Public and defendant has examined DW3-Gomti Prasad, who is also the attesting witness of Ex.1, who has not supported the case of the plaintiff. Hence, to just grab the property, this forged agreement has been prepared. It is true that there are some inconsistencies in execution of agreement to sell dated 30/01/1989 (Ex.1) but in the written-statement, defendants themselves have pleaded that Bhoma Ram along with some notorious persons came to village Bhichuda and with coercion signed on blank papers being taken by them for which, FIR No.130/1989 has been lodged at Police Station Sagwada, Dungarpur. It is true that there are some inconsistencies in execution of agreement to sell dated 30/01/1989 (Ex.1) but in the written-statement, defendants themselves have pleaded that Bhoma Ram along with some notorious persons came to village Bhichuda and with coercion signed on blank papers being taken by them for which, FIR No.130/1989 has been lodged at Police Station Sagwada, Dungarpur. FIR (Ex.10) has been relied upon by the plaintiff, which has been lodged by Sudarshan Kumar, original seller on 11/05/1989 and incident is said to be of 30/01/1989 and contents of the FIR clearly speaks that signatures on the alleged agreement to sell are of Sudarshan Kumar and attestation by Tehsildar has also been stated in the first information report and after investigation, opinion of the investigating officer was that no such incident has taken place and negative final report (Ex.11) has been submitted. Contention raised in the written-statement along with Exh.10 & Ex.11 establishes case of the plaintiff-respondent that agreement to sell dated 30/01/1989 (Ex.1) has been executed between the parties. There is no evidence to show that it has been executed with coercion as after investigation, incident has been found to be false and apart from it, for the incident of 30/01/1989, FIR has been lodged after more than three months on 11/05/1989. Had there been such incident, defendant No.1 should have lodged the FIR immediately and by any stretch of imagination, it could not be taken to be correct that defendant No.1, who is Sarpanch has acted in coercion or any fraud has been played on him and counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Limited and another v. Agarwal Steel : (2010) 1 SCC 83 , where it has been held that when a person signs a document, presumption is that he had read the document properly and understood it and only then affixed his signatures thereon and such presumption is much stronger in the case of business. Here in the present case, defendant-respondent Sudarshan Kumar Sarpanch, is a person with better understanding and there is no proof of falseness or fraud and in view of above, court below has rightly held that execution of Ex.1 is proved by evidence of the plaintiff-respondent. 10. Here in the present case, defendant-respondent Sudarshan Kumar Sarpanch, is a person with better understanding and there is no proof of falseness or fraud and in view of above, court below has rightly held that execution of Ex.1 is proved by evidence of the plaintiff-respondent. 10. It has also been objected to by the learned counsel for the cross-objector that identity of the property has not been established as contentions have been raised as regards to the fact that property is situated at Village Khori Ropara/Govindpura @Ropara. 11. It has not been contended by any of the party before the court that there are two properties owned by the cross-objector and admittedly, Ex.1 and Ex.37 are in relation to only one & same property hence, objection as regards to identity is not sustainable. 12. Contentions of the appellants were that they are bonafide purchasers and agreement in their favour has been entered on 14/12/1988 (Ex.37) and executed as per Notary Act and should have been relied and reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Hari Singh & Others v. Lalu Ram : 1997(3) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 486 , where the court has discussed provisions, which should have been complied with by the notaries but as the document has been notarized, it could not be held as true when attending circumstances clearly speaks that it is not a genuine document and has been prepared just to frustrate the claim. Court below has rightly decided Issues No.3, 3A, 3B, 5 & 11 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It is not in dispute that khatedari rights have been acquired and mutation has been opened in favour of the appellants but only on this ground, suit for specific performance of the contract by the plaintiff-respondent could not be thrown out. Contention of the respondent is that on the strength of agreement to sell dated 14/12/1988 (Ex.37), sale-deed (Ex.A1) has been executed in their favour. A bare reading of Ex.A1 goes to show that there is no narration of earlier agreement in the sale deed and Ex.A1 has been prepared in the manner that the property is being sold only on that day as Sudarshan Kumar is in need of the money. A bare reading of Ex.A1 goes to show that there is no narration of earlier agreement in the sale deed and Ex.A1 has been prepared in the manner that the property is being sold only on that day as Sudarshan Kumar is in need of the money. It has also been narrated in Ex.A1 that possession of the property has been handed over to the purchasers only today, whereas contention of the defendants was that they were already in possession of the disputed property, whereas DW8-Surendra Kumar, power of attorney of DW2-Sudarshan Kumar has stated that on the day of agreement, possession of the property has been handed over to the purchasers hence, contention of the witnesses of the appellants is against agreement to sell (Ex.37) and sale-deed (Ex.A1) and court below has rightly held that Ex.37 agreement to sell dated 14/12/1988 is ante-dated document prepared just to frustrate agreement to sell, which has been executed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 13. The other contention of the appellants is that they are bonafide purchasers and their claim should be protected and contention of the appellants is that the first appellate court has power to interfere with the findings of fact reached by the trial court and reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Tarak Nath Sha v. Bhutoria Bros. Pvt.Ltd. and others : (2002) 5 SCC 15 . There is no doubt about the competence of the appellate court but counsel for the respondent has submitted that findings arrived at by the court below should not be interfered lightly and placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Chinthamani Ammal v. Nandagopal Gounder and another : (2007) 4 SCC 163 , where it has been held that first appellate court should not have reversed finding of the trial court without assigning sufficient and cogent reasons, therefore, there is no doubt about this legal proposition. Here in the present case, plea of bonafide purchaser is not available to the appellants as admittedly, sale-deed has been executed on 17/10/1989, whereas suit has been filed on 16/08/1989 and during the pendency of the suit, sale-deed has been executed. Here in the present case, plea of bonafide purchaser is not available to the appellants as admittedly, sale-deed has been executed on 17/10/1989, whereas suit has been filed on 16/08/1989 and during the pendency of the suit, sale-deed has been executed. Appellants have further placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Hansa V.Gandhi v. Deep Shankar Roy and others : (2013) 12 SCC 776 , where on the facts of the case, subsequent buyers are held to be bonafide purchasers for consideration as no plea has been taken by the plaintiff that subsequent buyers were not bonafide purchasers but here in the present case, facts are different. Appellants could not be said to be the bonafide buyers as agreement to sell (Ex.37) is not a genuine document on the strength of which, sale-deed (Ex.A1) has been executed during the pendency of the suit and reliance has been placed by the respondent on the judgment of Supreme Court in Guruswamy Nadar v. P.Lakshmi Ammal (Dead) through LRs. and others : (2008) 5 SCC 796 and Sanjay Verma v. Manik Roy and others : (2006) 13 SCC 608 , where it has been held that in view of the doctrine of lis pendens, appellants are not entitled to benefit of exception and did not get any title and it has been held that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is a principle of public policy and plea of bonafide purchaser would not be available as Section 52 is exception to Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act hence, when the suit property has been purchased during pendency of the suit and attending circumstances also speaks that it was only a sham transaction, the plea of bonafide purchaser has rightly been rejected by the court below. 14. 14. The main contention of the cross-objector is that in lieu of decree of specific performance, compensation should not be granted to the plaintiff and court below was not justified in allowing the amendment application and reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Satyadhyan Glosal and others v. Smt.Deorajin Debi and another : AIR 1960 SC 941 , where it has been held that principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation and contention of the appellants is that earlier application for amendment has been rejected vide order dated 17/11/1997, which has been confirmed in Revision Petition No.130/1998 vide order dated 03/08/1998 and, thereafter, again same amendment application has been allowed vide order dated 03/12/1999, whereas contention of the plaintiff is that there is no question of res judicata and amendment allowed vide order dated 03/12/1999 was not prayed earlier. His contention is that under Section 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act, court can allow amendment at any stage of the proceedings and reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Jagdish Singh supra. A bare reading of the orders dated 17/11/1997 and 03/12/1999 goes to show that earlier, amendment has been prayed for by the plaintiff-respondent to implead Officer on Special Duty of the Town Planning Department (Rajasthan Housing Board) etc. to be party and prayer has been made that amount of compensation should not be allowed to anyone else and right to hearing should also be allowed to him, which was rejected but vide order dated 03/12/1999, amendment has been allowed as regards to provisions of Section 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act and as per the law laid down in Jagdish Singh supra, the court should allow the amendment under the provisions of Section 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act at any stage of the proceedings. Hence, contention of res judicata is not acceptable. 15. Hence, contention of res judicata is not acceptable. 15. The other contention of the cross-objector is that only decree for specific performance does not allow right, title or interest in the property hence, no relief should be granted to the plaintiff-respondent and placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Hakim Enayat Ullah v. Khalil Ullah Khan and another : AIR 1938 Allahabad 432 , judgment of the Patna High Court in Sri Sri Janardan Kishore Lal Singh Deo and another v. Girdhari Lal Sunda : AIR 1957 Patna 701 and judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in . There is no dispute about this legal proposition but here in the present case, suit has been filed for specific performance of the contract and now specific performance of the contract is not possible as property has been acquired by the Housing Board and respondent has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and another v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and others : (1996) 3 SCC 124 , where it has been held that subsequent purchaser can claim compensation and he is entitled to step into the shoes of the owner. Further reliance has been placed on another judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh D.Darbar and others v. Narasingrao Krishanji Kulkarni and others : (2003) 7 SCC 219 , where the Supreme Court has held that where relief claimed become obsolete due to subsequent development, court can mould or re-shape the relief and placed reliance upon provisions of Order 7, Rule 7 CPC. Here in the present case, as the property has been acquired by the Housing Board, court below has rightly held that in lieu of property, compensation should have been allowed to the plaintiff-respondent and reliance has rightly been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Jagdish Singh supra, where contract has become incapable of specific performance without any fault of the plaintiff and court below has rightly reshaped the relief in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Learned counsel for the cross-objector has also placed reliance upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Pushparani S.Sundaram and others v. Pauline Manomani James (deceased) and others : (2002) 9 SCC 582 and Sita Ram and others v. Radhey Shyam : (2007) 14 SCC 415 . 16. Learned counsel for the cross-objector has also placed reliance upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Pushparani S.Sundaram and others v. Pauline Manomani James (deceased) and others : (2002) 9 SCC 582 and Sita Ram and others v. Radhey Shyam : (2007) 14 SCC 415 . 16. The contention of the cross-objector is that order of the court below is against equity as in lieu of Rs. 10,000/-, compensation of lacs of rupees has been awarded to the plaintiff-respondent. As already considered that Ex.37 is only a sham agreement executed to frustrate the agreement to sell executed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, the cross-objector cannot objected on the ground of equity and his conduct disentitles him for any consideration on equity. Apart from it, a genuine agreement to sell has been entered between the parties in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, which has been rightly decreed by the court below hence, the plaintiff-respondent is entitled for the compensation as ordered by the court below. 17. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that possession has been handed over to him on the day of agreement to sell. After agreement to sell, they again came to Jaipur and possession had been handed over to them, whereas contention of the appellants is that possession was handed over to the appellants. The evidence has been submitted by the plaintiff-respondent to show their possession and the fact that patol has been constructed over the property. PW7-Sher Singh and PW11-Shri Kishan Nayab Tehsildar have stated that plaintiff-respondent was in possession of the property. PW8-Suvalal and PW9-Ramkishore have also testified the fact that they brought the stones for erection of patol and patol has been prepared there and in Jamabandi also, narration of patol is there, whereas contention of Surendra Kumar is that patol has been erected by him and Ex.A7 receipt has been submitted. Power of Attorney has been executed in favour of Surendra Kumar on 02/11/1988 and he has stated that 11/2 years prior to execution of Power of Attorney, patol has been constructed but Ex.A7 is of 07/11/1988 and could not relate with construction of the patol. Power of Attorney has been executed in favour of Surendra Kumar on 02/11/1988 and he has stated that 11/2 years prior to execution of Power of Attorney, patol has been constructed but Ex.A7 is of 07/11/1988 and could not relate with construction of the patol. Contention of the respondent is that from Sudarshan Kumar, nothing has been asked in cross-examination as regards to construction of patol and reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Satyendra Kumar Sharma v. Jitender Kudsia, 2006(1) Rent Control Reporter 206 & judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Traders Syndicate v. Union of India, AIR 1983 Calcutta 337 , where it has been held that when no cross-examination has been preferred on the point, it can be held that the defendant accepts case on the point. Here in the present case, Sudarshan Kumar has not stated a word as regards to construction of patol hence, no occasion arose for the plaintiff-respondent to cross-examine the witnesses on the point. Court below after considering the evidence and facts of the case, has rightly held that document i.e. agreement to sell dated 14/12/1988 (Ex.37) is ante-dated and has been prepared just to frustrate the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. It is also pertinent to note that defendant has lodged a first information report as regards to trespass on the land and after investigation, charge- sheet has been filed in the matter. It is true that in the draft sale-deed, there is no reference of patol but it was not necessary to refer the construction of patol as draft sale-deed has been prepared as per agreement to sell (Ex.1) hence, the court below has rightly considered Issues No.3, 3A, 3B, 5 & 11 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 18. Further contention of the respondent is that there is no evidence to show that plaintiff-respondent was ready and willing to perform part of his contract. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that he many times contacted Sudarshan Kumar to get the sale deed executed and Bhoma Ram was mediator and Bhoma Ram has been intimated by Sudarshan Kumar on 30/03/1989 that he will to come to Jaipur and again 15th April, the date has been intimated but the defendant did not turn up then, notice has been submitted and draft sale-deed has been sent to the defendant for approval. No specific reply has been given to these notices by the respondent and the respondent has rightly contended that when there is no specific denial of facts, it must be taken to be admitted and placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Gulam Mohammed v. Mst.Mariyam, 1984 RLW 321 , where this Court has held, as under:- "The defendants reply in the written statement denying the very existence of the agreement Ex.2 and its execution by them further makes the position quite clear that the plaintiffs were insisting upon the performance of the agreement and the defendants were trying to wriggle out. The defendants have dared not say that the averment of the plaintiffs readiness and willingness was wrong and all they could say was that when there was no agreement to resell, there was no question of the plaintiffs readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. Such a plea would mean that if the agreement is not proved, then the question of plaintiffs readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract would not arise but if the agreement is proved then there is no denial of the fact that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract". 19. Here in the present case, the facts are similar one. Defendant has denied even execution of agreement to sell hence, question of readiness and willingness to perform part of the contract by the plaintiff would not arise as the defendants have not specifically denied the fact that plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform part of his contract and all the circumstances taken care by the trial court clearly reveals that agreement to sell dated 14/12/1988 has been prepared fraudulently and with dishonest plan. Hence, contention of the appellants that plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform the part of his contract, is not sustainable. 20. It has also been contended on behalf of the appellants that plaintiff-respondent has not asked for cancellation of sale-deed executed in their favour hence, in absence of the same, decree for specific performance could not be allowed and reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Ramnivas Vyas & Ors. v. H.Srinivasa Bhati & Ors., 2013(14) Scale 1 . v. H.Srinivasa Bhati & Ors., 2013(14) Scale 1 . Here in the present case, specif issue i.e. Issue No.11A has been framed as regards to this controversy and the court below has answered this issue in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It has also been considered that during pendency of the suit, sale-agreement dated 17/10/1989 has been entered, which is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. In view of above, this contention has no force. 21. Looking to the above, findings of the court below are in conformity with the law and evidence on record and no interference is needed.Hence, the appeal as well as cross-objection are dismissed.Appeal and Cross objection dismissed. *******