JUDGMENT Rusia, J. -- 1. This appeal is by the defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.5.2010 passed by the District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Suit No.58-A/2006 by which the suit for specific performance has been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. 2. Facts of the case are as under : Respondents No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs') and appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant') entered into an agreement on 10.8.2005 for sale of land bearing Survey Nos.122/1, 123 and 119 total area admeasuring 13 bigha situated at village Goyala Khurd, Tahsil and District Ujjain. It was agreed that plaintiffs shall pay Rs.9.00 lacs per bigha as sale consideration and out of which Rs.5 lacs was paid to the defendant No.1 at the time of execution of agreement to sell. As per the averment in the plaint the agreement was executed in the stamp paper of Rs.100/- in which plaintiffs have signed as purchasers and the defendant No.1 has signed as seller and his mother Smt.Sundarbai wd/o late Mayaram, sisters Smt.Geetabai, Jatanbai, son Mahesh and daughters Mohanbai and Umabai have also signed as consenters. The said agreement was notarized by the Notary and Shri Akhlak Qureshi and Yogeshsingh Patel have signed as witnesses. The terms and conditions of the agreement are as follows: (i) Defendant No.1 is the owner and in possession of 19 bigha land which was agreed to sell to plaintiffs at the rate of Rs.9.00 lacs per bigha. (ii) As an advance plaintiffs have paid an amount of Rs.5 lacs by way of bankers cheque to the defendant No.1. (iii) Plaintiffs shall pay the balance consideration for land admeasuring 22500 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs.9 lacs per bigha at the time of execution of sale deed. (iv) Plaintiffs shall pay the balance consideration within a period of two years and six months and got the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 and if the balance amount is not paid within the stipulated period the defendant No.1 shall grant further six months time to the plaintiffs and in such situation plaintiffs are liable to pay interest at the bank rate. The maximum payment period would not be more than three years. The maximum payment period would not be more than three years. (v) If the plaintiffs have failed to get the sale deed registered as per the agreement then the defendant No.1 shall forfeit the advance amount and the plaintiffs would not be entitled to get back the advance amount. (vi) If the defendant No.1 after receiving the sale consideration could not execute the sale deed then plaintiffs would have a right to get it executed by way of filing suit for specific performance for which defendant No.1 and his legal heirs would not have any objection. (vii) Plaintiffs shall have a liberty to get the sale deed executed in his name or any other name. (viii) The land for which the agreement to sell was executed would be physically verified and thereafter payment would be made at the rate of Rs.9 lacs per bigha 3. According to the plaintiffs the advance amount was paid by way of bankers cheque to the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 has also executed power of attorney in favour of the plaintiffs on 13.8.2005 which was prepared by Advocate Shri Arvind Gour. The plaintiffs were always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed by making payment of entire sale consideration. During this intervening period defendant No.1 was in need of money, therefore, he demanded the same from the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have paid amounts on various occasion by way of cheque and cash and a total amount of Rs.15,01,000/- has been paid to the defendant till filing of suit. The description of the said payment is mentioned in para 7 of the plaint. 4. It is further contended that after accepting Rs.15,00,000/- the mind of defendant has changed and he along with co-owners issued a legal notice dated 17.8.2016 through Advocate Shri Arvind Gour (Ex.P-6). In this notice defendant No.1 has admitted that apart from the terms and conditions written in the agreement there were certain conditions which were orally agreed between them and according to which plaintiffs have failed to pay the entire sale consideration within the stipulated period but because of the close relation between them one month's extra time is being granted to make the entire sale consideration and execute the sale deed within one month. The aforesaid notice was replied by the plaintiffs in which oral terms and conditions were specifically denied and it was stated that they are ready to pay the balance consideration and requested him to attend the office of Deputy Registrar, Registration, Ujjain on 15.9.2006 at 11 a.m. for execution of the sale deed. Photocopy of the Account Payee Pay Order No.59666069 of Rs.1.00 crore was also sent along with the reply (Ex.P-7) as balance sale consideration. 5. That on 15.9.2006 defendant No.1 did not come to the office of Deputy Registrar (Registration) for receiving the balance consideration and to execute the sale deed and violated the conditions of agreement to sell. Later on plaintiffs came to know that defendant No.1 is interested in selling the land on higher price to someone else. Since the defendant No.1 did not execute the sale deed, therefore, plaintiffs had no option but to file the civil suit on 25.9.2006 for specific performance of the agreement. 6. After notice defendant filed the written statement in which he stated that the land in dispute is not in the exclusive ownership and possession of the defendant No.1 whereas it is a joint property of defendant No.1and his mother Smt.Sundarbai wd/o late Mayaram, sisters Smt.Geetabai, Jatanbai, son Mahesh and daughters Mohanbai and Umabai, therefore, he had no right to sell the said land. Inter alia by denying all allegation in the plaint by way of special pleading he stated that plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 are close relatives, therefore, he used to visit his house and instigated defendant No.1 to sell the suit land to plaintiffs and promised that they will get consent from his mother, sisters and other co-owners of the land. On believing their assurance he has executed agreement to sell in which there was no signatures of consenting parties. Later on plaintiffs have forged signatures of consenters. In para-9 he has stated that since the plaintiffs have failed to follow the terms and conditions of the agreement, therefore, the agreement has came to an end and the advance amount is liable to be forfeited. The plaintiffs are not in a position to pay the total sale consideration and the expenditure for registration of the sale deed. 7. On the basis of the pleading trial Court has framed as many as 19 issues for adjudication. The plaintiffs are not in a position to pay the total sale consideration and the expenditure for registration of the sale deed. 7. On the basis of the pleading trial Court has framed as many as 19 issues for adjudication. The trial Court has carefully framed the issues on the basis of pleading in the plaint and on the basis of defence taken by the defendant No.1. In support of the plaint plaintiffs have got exhibited 40 documents from Ex.P-1 to P-40. Defendant got exhibited only two documents-(i) Civil Suit No.601-A/2006 filed by Smt.Geetabai, Smt.Jatanbai, Smt.Mohanbai, Smt.Umabai and Smt.Sundarbai as Ex.D-1 (ii) the written statement filed by Ratansingh and Mahesh as Ex.D-2. 8. In support of the plaint plaintiffs examined themselves as PW1 and PW2 and Dhirish Kumar, Branch Manager as PW3 whereas defendant examined himself as DW1 and Smt.Geetabai as DW2. Learned District Judge answered all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11.5.2010 by directing defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs within a period of two months with cost. 9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 11.5.2010 the present first appeal has been filed by the defendant No.1. The appeal has been filed inter alia on the ground that the suit land was initially of the ownership of late Mayaram who died intestate, therefore, all the legal heirs of late Mayaram became joint owners of the suit property and defendant No.1 alone had no right to sell the property in question, therefore, learned trial Court has erred in holding that there was an oral partition between co-owners. Trial Court has further erred in holding that appellant had legally and actually executed the agreement to sell by accepting the advance amount of Rs.5 lacs out of total sale consideration of Rs.9 lacs per bigha. The agreement to sell was not duly stamped and later on illegally got impounded from the Collector of Stamps, district Jabalpur, therefore, no decree could have been granted by the trial Court on the basis of the said agreement. The trial Court has wrongly shifted the burden of proof on the defendant/appellant to prove that the agreement is false and fabricated signatures were obtained by forgery. The trial Court has wrongly shifted the burden of proof on the defendant/appellant to prove that the agreement is false and fabricated signatures were obtained by forgery. The plaintiffs were not entitled for a decree of specific performance which was executed in the year 2005 by making payment which is less than 15% of the total sale consideration. 10. Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the agreement (Ex.P-1) is not a registered agreement and though it was notarized but the Notary has not been examined by the plaintiffs. As per the agreement although there are six consenters but only five have signed the agreement. The defendant has admitted his signature only. The other signatures are not genuine, therefore, on the basis of the agreement which is a fraudulent one, no decree could have been granted by the trial Court on the basis of the agreement. The burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove that they have obtained the signatures of consenters which they failed to discharge. The plaintiffs ought to have examined the Notary as well as the witnesses who have attested the agreement. He further argued that the said agreement was impounded at Jabalpur whereas the agreement was executed at Ujjain, therefore, such an impounding cannot be accepted and the agreement should be treated as insufficiently stamped. He has further vehemently argued that Advocate Shri Arvind Gour was not authorized by the defendant No.1 and his sisters to send the legal notice dated 17.8.2006 (Ex.P-6) and later on the said notice was got cancelled by sending another legal notice. He has drawn attention to paras 23, 25, 27, 30, 34, 35, 38, 41 and 42 of the statement and cross-examination of PW1 plaintiff Mahesh and submitted that they were not properly appreciated by the learned District Judge while granting the decree of specific performance. He has further drawn attention to paras 20, 23, 26 and 27 of the statement and cross-examination of PW2 Bakir Ali. Ratansingh (DW1) in his deposition has specifically stated that signatures of consenters are forged and they did not give any consent for the agreement to sell. He had no knowledge about the notice given by his Advocate. He did not authorize him to send the notice but the learned District Judge did not consider the same. 11. Ratansingh (DW1) in his deposition has specifically stated that signatures of consenters are forged and they did not give any consent for the agreement to sell. He had no knowledge about the notice given by his Advocate. He did not authorize him to send the notice but the learned District Judge did not consider the same. 11. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance over the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (dead) through his legal representatives v. Shanti Devi and others, reported in 2015(I) MPWN 97 = (2015) 4 SCC 601 , on the point that attesting witnesses were not examined by the plaintiffs, therefore, there is a non compliance of sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, hence the suit was liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention that the plaintiffs have to prove their case and should not take advantage of the weakness of defendant he has placed reliance over the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ushadevi, reported in (2015)8 SCC 672 . In support of his contention that mere entry of the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue records does not hold him to be the owner of the land, the revenue entries are only for fiscal purpose and the substantive right of title and ownership can be decided only by a competent civil Court, he has placed reliance over the decision of the apex Court in the case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, reported in (2008)9 SCC 368 . Shri Jain further contended that the relief under the Specific Relief Act is a discretionary one for which the conduct of the plaintiff plays an important role. The Court ordinarily would not grant the relief to a person who approaches the Court with dirty hands for which he placed reliance of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammadia Cooperative Building Society Ltd. v. Lakshmi Srinivasa Cooperative Building Society Ltd. and others, reported in (2008)7 SCC 310 and in the case of K.Nanjappa (dead) by LRs v. R.A Hameed alias Ameersab (dead) by LRs and another, reported in 2016(3) MPLJ 1 and Ramesh Chand (Dead) through LRs v. Asruddin (Dead) through LRs and another, reported in 2015(III) MPWN 135. He further submitted that instead of granting the relief of Specific Performance the plaintiffs can be compensated by payment of sufficient amount for which the defendant/appellant is ready to return the advance amount of Rs.15 lacs along with interest payable at the bank rate. 12. Inter alia Shri Jain submitted that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for a decreed of specific performance then the plaintiffs should be directed to pay the current price of the land because of the lapse of more than ten years. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance over the decision of the apex Court in the case of Satya Jain (dead) through LRs and others v. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (dead) through LRs and others, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 131 . Looking to the afflux of long time after the agreement and escalation of value of the property in the meanwhile which was done by the Supreme Court in the case of Satya Jain (supra), the trial Court be directed to assess the market value of the suit property. In the case of Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet v. Noor Ahmed Shariff and others, reported in (2011)12 SCC 658 , the Supreme Court has denied the relief of specific performance because the said property is situated in urban area and long time has been elapsed, therefore, it would be inequitable as the value of the urban property escalates very fast. 13. Per contra Shri A.S.Garg, learned senior counsel argued in support of the impugned judgment and decree and submitted that trial Court has not committed any error of law as well as fact while granting the decree of specific performance. The defendant No.1 with open eyes and with an authority after taking consent from other family members executed the agreement to sell. At the time of agreement he accepted an amount of Rs.5 lacs and later on from time to time received a total sum of Rs.15 lacs. The defendant No.1 has not disputed his signature over the agreement and receipt of the money. Smt. Geetabai has admitted that name of Ratansingh i.e. defendant No.1 was mutated in the revenue records after consent given by her and Smt.Jatanbai. She has also not filed any suit against Mahesh and Bakirali (i.e. plaintiffs). Ratansingh has executed the agreement (Ex.P-1) with Mahesh and Bakirali. Smt. Geetabai has admitted that name of Ratansingh i.e. defendant No.1 was mutated in the revenue records after consent given by her and Smt.Jatanbai. She has also not filed any suit against Mahesh and Bakirali (i.e. plaintiffs). Ratansingh has executed the agreement (Ex.P-1) with Mahesh and Bakirali. She has further admitted that notice (Ex.P-6) was given by Advocate Arvind Gour to Mahesh and Bakir Ali on behalf of Smt.Sunderbai, Smt.Geetabai, Smt.Jatanbai, Smt.Mohanbai, Smt.Umabai and Mahesh. He further argued that plaintiffs were always ready and willing to execute the sale deed. The time for payment of the balance consideration was initially 2 years and six months and maximum up to 3 years. The plaintiffs were ready with the pay order of Rs.1.00 crore in the office of Sub-Registrar but the defendant No.1 did not turn up, hence learned trial Court has rightly granted the decree in favour of the plaintiffs. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance over the judgment of Godavaribai v. Pandit s/o Ramu, reported in 2004(1) MPLJ 502 , whereby the Court has held that the conduct of the plaintiffs remaining present with money for the execution of the sale deed in the office of Sub-Registrar proved their readiness and willingness to perform their part of contract. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance over the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.Prakash v. B.R.Sampath Kumar, reported in AIR 2015 SC 9 , on the point that once the agreement of sale is legally and validly proved then the Court has to exercise its discretion in favour of granting the relief of specific performance. He submits that normally the appellate Court should not interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court unless it clearly appears that some special feature about the evidence of a particular witness has escaped the notice of the trial Court because the trial Court enjoyed the advantage of having a witness before it and of observing the manner in which they gave their testimony. In support of this contention he has placed reliance over the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhusudan Das v. Smt.narayani Bai and others, reported in 1983 JLJ 131= AIR 1983 SC 114 . 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 16. In support of this contention he has placed reliance over the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhusudan Das v. Smt.narayani Bai and others, reported in 1983 JLJ 131= AIR 1983 SC 114 . 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 16. Undisputedly, plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have entered into an agreement dated 10.8.2005 to sell land bearing survey Nos.122/1, 123 and 119. The defendant No.1 is not disputing his signature over this agreement. As per the written terms and conditions of this agreement the said property was agreed to sell for a consideration of Rs.9 lacs per bigha and at the time of agreement Rs.5 lacs was paid. Defendant No.1 has agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs if the amount is paid within a period of two years and six months which is further extenable up to six months. The conditions No.1 to 3 in the agreement are important for adjudication of this appeal which are reproduced below : vuqca/k dh 'krsZ 1- ;g fd vuqca/kdrkZ us vius LokfeRo ds mijksDr d`f"k Hkwfe ftldk losZa uacj mij nf'kZr fd;k gS] dks vuqca/kxzfgrkx.k dks #i;s 9]00]000@& ¼ukS yk[k #i;s½ izfr ch?kk ds ekU; ls foØ; djus dk vuqca/k dj jgs gSA rFkk c;kuk isVs cSadlZ ds ek/;e ls #i;s 5]00]000@& ¼ik¡p yk[k½ #i;s vkt fnukad dks izkIr dj fy, gS 'ks"k foØ; ewY; jkf'k vuqca/kdrkZ foØ; i= fu"iknu fnukad dks vuqca/kxzfgrk ls izkIr djsxkA 2- ;g fd mijksDr d`f"k Hkwfe 13 ch?kk gSA rFkk ch?kk dh x.kuk 200 vkjs ds eku ls vFkkZr 22]500 Lds;j fQV ds fglkc ls dh tk,xhA rFkk foØ; i= fu"iknu fnukad dks bl Hkwfe dh uirh dh tkdj #i;s 9]00]000@& ¼ukS yk[k #i;s½ izfr ch?kk ds eku ls vuqcaxzfgrk vuqca/kdrkZ dks Hkqxrku djsxkA 3- ;g fd vuqca/kxzfgrk vuqca/k i= fu"iknu fnukad ls 2 o"kZ 6 ekg ds Hkhrj lEiw.kZ foØ; ewY; jkf'k vnk dj foØ; i= laikfnr djok ysosxkA ;fn <kbZ o"kksZa ds Hkhrj vFkkZr 2 o"kZ 6 ekg ds Hkhrj vo'ks"k foØ; ewY; jkf'k vnk ugh dh xbZ rks mlds i'pkr~ 6 ekg dh le;kof/k vuqca/kdrkZ vuqcaèkxzfgrk dks vkSj le;kof/k iznku djsxk ,slh n'kk esa nks o"kZ 6 ekg i'pkr~ vo'ks"k foØ; ewY; jkf'k ij jk"Vªh;d`r cSad }kjk fu/kkZfjr fQDl fMiksftr dh nj vuqlkj vo'ks"k ewY; jkf'k ij vuqca/kxzfgrk C;kt Hkqxrku djsxkA vf/kdre le;kof/k 3 o"kZ ls vf/kd ugh gksxhA 17. In this agreement defendant has agreed that he is the absolute owner of the property after the death of his father and consent has been obtained from other legal heirs of late Mayaram. It has been specifically reiterated that other legal heirs have relinquished their rights and granted entire rights to the defendant No.1. In the agreement as many as six legal heirs of his family have signed as consenters. 18. Pursuant to the said agreement plaintiffs from time to time paid money to the appellant in total Rs.15,00,000/-. Defendant No.1 has got issued a legal notice dated 17.8.2006 through his Advocate Shri Arvind Gour. This notice was issued on behalf of defendant No.1 as well as all the other six consenters. In this notice execution of agreement dated 10.8.2005 was also admitted, however, in para 2 of this notice it was alleged that apart from written conditions there was an oral condition that the entire consideration would be paid within a period of six months and there is a violation of this oral condition by the plaintiffs. However, in para 5 of this notice one month's time was granted to make the entire payment in one installment and to get the sale deed executed. In pursuant to the said notice a reply was given by the plaintiffs in which it is stated that plaintiffs are always ready and willing to execute the sale deed for which they have got prepared an account payee pay order No.5966069 in favour of the defendant No.1 and a specific date of 15.9.2006 has been given to the defendant No.1 with a request to remain present in the office of Deputy Registrar, Registration, Ujjain for execution of the sale deed. The photocopy of the pay order was also annexed along with the reply. In pursuant to the aforesaid reply defendant No.1 did not appear before the Office of Deputy Registrar, Registration for execution of the sale deed, therefore, plaintiffs had no option but to file civil suit seeking a decree of specific performance against the defendant No.1 on 25.9.2006. 19. That defendant No.1 filed a written statement in which he came up with a new defence that the suit property is not exclusively owned by him and there are six more legal heirs of late Mayaram viz. 19. That defendant No.1 filed a written statement in which he came up with a new defence that the suit property is not exclusively owned by him and there are six more legal heirs of late Mayaram viz. Smt.Sundarbai wd/o late Mayaram, sisters Smt.Geetabai, Jatanbai, son Mahesh and daughters Mohanbai and Umabai who are the coowners. He has stated that agreement dated 10.8.2005 is a forged document for which signatures of consenters were obtained by the plaintiffs by forgery. He has even disputed receipt of Rs.5 lacs, however, in para 9 he has admitted that he has received the notice dated 14.6.2006 (Annexure P-7) sent by the plaintiffs. By way of special pleading he has stated that plaintiffs have instigated him for sale of the suit property and assured him that they will obtain consent from the co-owners and believing their assurance defendant has signed the agreement to sell and under this impression he got the notice issued to the plaintiffs through Shri Arvind Gour, Advocate. In para 9 he has stated that since the plaintiffs have failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement, therefore, it has come to an end automatically. The actual sale price is Rs.1,70,00,000/- whereas plaintiffs have prepared a draft of Rs.1 crore and they are not having the expenditure of Rs.20 lacs for registration. 20. That to adjudicate the controversy between the parties it is necessary to examine the evidence led by plaintiffs as well as defendants. Plaintiff No.1 Mahesh examined himself as PW1 and plaintiff No.2 Bakir Ali as PW2. They have also examined Branch Manager, Girish Kumar as PW3 in support of their contention that the pay order of Rs.1 crore was prepared. PW1 in his statement has specifically stated that the agreement was executed on 10.8.2005 with defendant No.1 in which his mother and sisters have put their thumb impression as consenters and thereafter his son, wife and daughter have also signed as consenters. Thereafter the said agreement was notarized by Notary Mr.Tasleen Zaidy. At the time of agreement a draft of Rs.5 lacs was paid to defendant No.1. Shri Akhlak Qureshi and Yogesh Singh Patel have signed as witnesses. The details of the payment of Rs.5 lacs were mentioned as Ex.P-2 and P-3. Thereafter the said agreement was notarized by Notary Mr.Tasleen Zaidy. At the time of agreement a draft of Rs.5 lacs was paid to defendant No.1. Shri Akhlak Qureshi and Yogesh Singh Patel have signed as witnesses. The details of the payment of Rs.5 lacs were mentioned as Ex.P-2 and P-3. Thereafter he has stated that defendant No.1 has also executed a power of attorney in favour of plaintiff No.1 on 13.8.2005 as Ex.P-4 which was prepared by Shri Arvind Gour, Advocate. Thereafter defendant No.1 was in need of money for which he sent his son to the plaintiff and plaintiff No.1 paid an amount of Rs.5 lacs by cheque. Thereafter Rs.5 lacs by way of cheque and cash and in all a total sum of Rs.15,01,000/- was paid. He has further deposed that after receiving the legal notice from defendant No.1 he sent reply and requested defendant No.1 to remain present in the office of Deputy Registrar on 15.9.2006 at 11 a.m. He stated that he was in the Office of Deputy Registrar on that date from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. with the pay order of Rs.1 crore but the defendant did not come to the office of Deputy Registrar for execution of the sale deed. Bakir Ali has also filed an affidavit in the same line with the affidavit of plaintiff No.1. The version of both these plaintiffs remained uncontroverted and nothing came out by way of cross-examination to disbelieve the same. From the evidence of plaintiffs it has been established that the agreement was executed and he was always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed. He has prepared the demand draft within a period of one month from receipt of notice dated 17.8.2006 from the defendant and remained present in the office of Deputy Registrar for execution of the sale deed, therefore, learned District Judge has rightly exercised discretion in favour of plaintiffs to grant relief of specific performance under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and same is liable to be corrected in this appeal. 21. Defendant No.1 in his statement has admitted his signature over the agreement. He further admitted issuance of notice through Shri Arvind Gour, Advocate. In cross-examination in para 15 he admitted that he has signed Ex.P-4 i.e. Power of Attorney because its contents are correct. 21. Defendant No.1 in his statement has admitted his signature over the agreement. He further admitted issuance of notice through Shri Arvind Gour, Advocate. In cross-examination in para 15 he admitted that he has signed Ex.P-4 i.e. Power of Attorney because its contents are correct. He has further admitted in para 16 that in revenue records (Ex.P-37) his name is recorded as the Bhumiswami of the land. Certain part of this land was acquired by the Ujjain Development Authority and he alone received the compensation. In para 20 he has admitted the issuance of notice through Mr.Arvind Gour, Advocate. This fact establishes that he alone was exclusively authorized to execute the sale deed. He further admitted in para 21 that since he has not received the entire payment, therefore, he did not execute the sale deed. In para 34 he has admitted that no forgery was committed by him by mutating his name as owner of the suit property which was done in the year 1999 after the death of his father on 26.10.1998. He has also admitted oral partition with his mother and sisters and the mutation has been taken place after giving consent by way of affidavit by the sisters. In para 39 he has further admitted that Ex.P-6 was issued by the counsel on the basis of the information given by all of us (Hum Logo Ne). This admission clearly establishes that the notice was given by Mr.Gour, Advocate on behalf of defendant No.1 as well as by the consenters. The defendant No.1 has examined his sister Smt.Geetabai as DW2. She has also admitted in para 10 that defendant No.1 has entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs and in para 11 she has admitted that notice Ex.P-6 has been given on behalf of Smt.Sundarbai, Smt.Geetabai, Jatanbai, Mahesh, Mohanbai and Umabai. From the pleading, written statement and evidence of PW1 and PW2, we find that plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have entered into an agreement to sell the suit property and defendant No.1 was exclusively authorized to execute the sale deed, therefore, trial Court has not committed any error while answering the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and granting the decree in favour of the plaintiffs. 22. 22. Now we shall consider the argument of Shri Jain that grant of decree of specific performance is a discretion of the Court and the Court is not bound to grant specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The contention of shri Jain is correct that jurisdiction to decree the specific performance is discretionary and the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because such relief is lawful to do so. Under sub-section (2) in certain circumstances the Court may not grant decre for specific performance. The apex Court in the case of Sardar Singh v. Krishna Devi (Smt.) and another, reported in (1994)4 SCC 18 , has held that the circumstances specified in section 20 are only illustrative and not exhaustive. Para 14 is reproduced below : 14. The next question is whether the Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit for specific performance. Section 20(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the 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 is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable of correction by a Court of appeal. The grant of relief of specific performance is discretionary. The circumstances specified in section 20 are only illustrative and not exhaustive. The Court would take into consideration the circumstances in each case, the conduct of the parties and the respective interest under the contract. 23. It is not disputed that grant of decree of specific performance of contract is a discretionary relief but the discretion has to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily for which the conduct of the plaintiff plays an important role. We have already examined meticulously all facts and circumstances of the case, specially the conduct of the parties and the nature of agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant. The defendant No.1 has agreed that he entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiffs and from the evidence it has been established that other legal heirs of late Mayaram has consented in the agreement and the defendant No.1 was having exclusive right to sell the property. The defendant No.1 has agreed that he entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiffs and from the evidence it has been established that other legal heirs of late Mayaram has consented in the agreement and the defendant No.1 was having exclusive right to sell the property. The defendant No.1 has further admitted that there was a written condition of making entire payment initially within a period of 2 years and six months and maximum within 3 years. Till the issuance of notice Ex.P-4 plaintiffs have paid an amount of Rs.15,01,000/-. In the notice Ex.P-4 defendant No.1 has stated that apart from written conditions there is an oral agreement that sale deed would be executed within six months by making entire payment and further directed the plaintiffs to make the payment within one month and get the sale deed executed. Though there was a period of 2 years and six months extendable further to six months by way of written terms and conditions for making the entire payment but pursuant to the notice dated 17.8.2006 within one month plaintiffs have agreed for execution of the sale deed by preparing a pay order of Rs.1 crore. Plaintiffs gave a date for execution of the sale deed on 15.9.2006 and requested defendant No.1 to remain present in the office of Deputy Registrar. Plaintiffs were present with the demand draft from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 15.9.2006 but the defendant did not turn up, therefore, we do not find any fault in the conduct of the plaintiffs on the contrary defendant's intentions were not bona fide. He changed his version thrice. Plaintiffs were present with the demand draft from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 15.9.2006 but the defendant did not turn up, therefore, we do not find any fault in the conduct of the plaintiffs on the contrary defendant's intentions were not bona fide. He changed his version thrice. In the notice dated 17.8.2006 (Ex.P-6) he stated that told that there are certain oral terms in the agreement about the execution of sale deed in six months, in the written statement he has stated that he is not the exclusive owner of the property and there are other co-owners and without their consent he cannot sell the property and in deposition he came up with another version, however, throughout plaintiffs had only one stand and by virtue of the agreement they were always ready and willing to pay the entire sale consideration within two years and six months and later on at the request of defendant No.1 they agreed to make the payment within one month and to get the sale deed executed, therefore, plaintiffs with their conduct are entitled for the discretionary relief from the Court. We do not find any flaw in the conduct of the plaintiffs as they were always ready and willing to get the sale deed executed. When the defendant did not turn up for execution of the sale deed on 15.9.2006 within ten days they filed the suit for specific performance of the contract and there was no delay on the part of the plaintiffs, therefore, the contention of Shri Jain is liable to be rejected that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the discretionary relief. An agreement has been executed between the parties which is enforceable under the law, therefore, trial Court has not committed any error or mistake in decreeing the suit for specific performance. The Supreme Court in the case of Mayawanti v. Kaushalya Devi, reported in (1990)3 SCC 1 , has observed as under : “8. In a case of specific performance it is settled law, and indeed it cannot be doubted, that the jurisdiction to order specific performance of a contract is based on the existence of a valid and enforceable contract. The Law of Contract is based on the ideal of freedom of contract and it provides the limiting principles within which the parties are free to make their own contracts. The Law of Contract is based on the ideal of freedom of contract and it provides the limiting principles within which the parties are free to make their own contracts. Where a valid and enforceable contract has not been made, the Court will not make a contract for them. Specific performance will not be ordered if the contract itself suffers from some defect which makes the contract invalid or unenforceable. The discretion of the Court will be there even though the contract is otherwise valid and enforceable and it can pass a decree of specific performance even before there has been any breach of the contract. It is, therefore, necessary first to see whether there has been a valid and enforceable contract and then to see the nature and obligation arising out of it. The contract being the foundation of the obligation the order of specific performance is to enforce that obligation.” 24. After examining the entire facts and the evidence on record, we are of the definite opinion that it is a fit case where the plaintiffs are entitled for discretionary relief of specific performance. In the case of K.Prakash (supra), the apex Court has held that once the trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction in one way or other after appreciation of entire evidence and material on record, the appellate Court should not interfere with the said finding unless it is established that the discretion has been exercised perversely, arbitrarily or against the judicial principles. The appellate Court should not exercise its discretion against the decree on extraneous or sympathetic consideration. Para 17 of the said judgment is reproduced herein below : 17. The principles which can be enunciated is that where the plaintiff beings a suit for specific performance of contract for sale, the law insists a condition precedent to the grant of decree for specific performance that the plaintiff must show his continued readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract in accordance with its terms from the date of contract to the date of hearing. Normally, when the trial Court exercises its discretion in one way of other after appreciation of entire evidence and materials on record, the appellate Court should not interfere unless is established that the discretion has been exercised perversely, arbitrarily or against judicial principles. Normally, when the trial Court exercises its discretion in one way of other after appreciation of entire evidence and materials on record, the appellate Court should not interfere unless is established that the discretion has been exercised perversely, arbitrarily or against judicial principles. The appellate Court should also not exercise its discretion against the grant of specific performance on extraneous considerations or sympathetic considerations. It is true, as contemplated under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, that a party is not entitled to get a decree for specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. Nevertheless once an agreement to sell is legal and validly proved and further requirements for getting such a decree is established then the Court has to exercise its discretion in favour of granting relief for specific performance. 25. Shri Jain further placed reliance over the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Satya Jain (supra), M. Meenakshi and others (supra), and Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet (supra), to canvass the argument that plaintiff would not be entitled for a decree of specific performance if the property is situated in urban area and much time has elapsed from the date of agreement till the execution of sale deed and plaintiffs can be compensated by returning the advance money. He further submits that even if the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for execution of the sale deed then they will have to pay the current market price of the suit property. As we have already held in the aforesaid paragraphs that initially the period of payment of maximum three years but the defendant has reduced it to by six months and thereafter one month. Plaintiffs have agreed to that but despite that defendant did not execute the sale deed and thereafter within ten days plaintiffs filed the suit. The suit remained pending for four years and we have gone through the order sheets of the trial Court. Plaintiffs have never caused any delay in early disposal of the suit. Thereafter present first appeal was filed in the year 2010. The suit remained pending for four years and we have gone through the order sheets of the trial Court. Plaintiffs have never caused any delay in early disposal of the suit. Thereafter present first appeal was filed in the year 2010. In the appeal paper book was prepared and it came for out of turn final hearing due to an application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs,therefore, plaintiffs throughout were in persuasion to get the sale deed executed, early disposal of the civil suit and first appeal, therefore, they cannot be denied the relief of execution of sale deed on the ground of lapse of time and they cannot be further penalized by giving direction to make payment at the current market value of the suit property. We have also examined the conduct of the defendant and find that he alone was responsible for inviting litigation after execution of agreement to sell, issuance of legal notice and compelling the plaintiffs to file the suit, therefore, plaintiffs cannot be denied the relief of specific performance. 26. Shri Jain has further drawn our attention to the civil suit filed by Smt.Sundarbai, Smt.Geetabai, Jatanbai, Mahesh, Mohanbai and Umabai against the present plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 in which they claimed a decree of declaration, joint ownership and possession of the suit property. It has been informed that the said suit has been dismissed by the trial Court and the first appeal is pending before this Court. One of the plaintiffs of that suit Smt.Geetabai in her cross-examination has admitted that she has not filed any suit against Mahesh and Bakirali i.e. the plaintiffs and he has no knowledge about the filing of the suit. It appears that defendant No.1 in collusion with his sisters, daughters and son got filed a suit to deny the relief of specific performance to the plaintiffs, therefore, such proceedings cannot come in the way of decree in favour of the plaintiffs. Shri Jain argued that agreement dated 10.8.2005 is insufficiently stamped and later on impounded from the Collector, Jabalpur. Learned District Judge has examined this issue as issue No.3 and rejected the same. However, once the document has been exhibited by the Court thereafter such objection cannot be taken. 27. Shri Jain argued that agreement dated 10.8.2005 is insufficiently stamped and later on impounded from the Collector, Jabalpur. Learned District Judge has examined this issue as issue No.3 and rejected the same. However, once the document has been exhibited by the Court thereafter such objection cannot be taken. 27. That vide order dated 11.8.2010 the execution of impugned judgment and decree was stayed subject to following conditions : Accordingly, it is ordered that in case, the appeal fails and as a consequence the appellant is required to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2 in pursuance to the impugned judgment and decree, the respondens No.1 and 2 shall be entitled/liable to pay only that much stamp duty which is payable as on today and in case if more amount is required to be paid for the said purpose due to revision of guidelines or enhancement of the stamp duty, then in that event, the difference amount would be payable by the appellant. With the aforesaid directions and on the aforesaid conditions, I.A No.4632 of 2010, is allowed and until further orders the execution of the impugned decree so far execution of the sale deed within two months, is ordered to be stayed. 28. In view of the above at the time of registration of sale deed respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs shall be liable to pay only that much stamp duty which is payable as on 11.8.2010 and in case of enhancement of stamp duty due to revision of guidelines then in that event the difference amount would be payable by the appellant. 29. Plaintiffs filed a cross objection under Order 41 rule 22 CPC claiming the relief of possession. According to the plaintiffs apart from the relief of specific performance, they also sought the relief that possession be given to them but the learned District Judge while decreeing the suit did not grant the decree of possession, hence prayed that the decree be modified accordingly. At the time of execution of sale deed the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of suit property accordingly. Appellant/defendant is directed to hand over possession to the plaintiffs for which impugned decree is modified accordingly. Hence, the cross-objection filed by the respondent/plaintiffs is allowed. 30. That at the time of filing of the appeal objection was raised by office that the appellant has not paid ad valorem court-fees. Appellant/defendant is directed to hand over possession to the plaintiffs for which impugned decree is modified accordingly. Hence, the cross-objection filed by the respondent/plaintiffs is allowed. 30. That at the time of filing of the appeal objection was raised by office that the appellant has not paid ad valorem court-fees. This appeal was admitted for final hearing and this issue of court fee was kept open and directed to be decided at the time final hearing. We have examined the amendment in the Court-fees Act. Since the suit was filed between 1.4.1997 and 10.1.2007, the ad valorem court fee would be Rs.4,10,809/- but the appellant is required to pay maximum limit of the court fees i.e. Rs.1,50,000/-. Accordingly, in appeal as well as cross-objection the ad valorem court fee payable is Rs.1,50,000/- each which they have already paid. 31. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any substance in the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.