JUDGMENT : Virendra Kumar Mathur, J This appeal under sec.96 CPC has been filed against judgment & decree dated 11.02.2010 passed by the District Judge, Pratapgarh in Civil Original Suit No.43/2006 (Shyamsunder v. Kishore Kumar & another). 2. Briefly stated, the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant-defendants for specific performance of a contract dated 23.01.2004 in respect of a plot situated in village Chhoti Sadri, belonging to Laxmi Narayan, father of defendant No.1 and husband of defendant No.2. It is stated that as per the Agreement, the plot was agreed to be sold by Laxmi Narayan for a sum of Rs.1,51,000/- to the plaintiff and on execution of the agreement i.e. on 23.01.2004, Rs.61,000/- were paid in cash to Laxmi Narayan by plaintiff Shyam Sunder. 3. It was further stated that as per the Agreement, registered sale deed will be executed in favour of Shyam Sunder within 06 months of the conversion of the land from agriculture to residential and Rs.20,000/- were to be paid up to 23.03.2004 but the plaintiff paid Rs.25,000/- up to said date. It was also stated that at the time of Agreement, the execution of sale agreement, defendant Kishore Kumar was present and put his signature showing his consent and further, at the time of payment of Rs.25,000/- on 23.03.2004 also, Kishore Kumar was present and he also put his signature regarding acceptance of the same. 4. It was further submitted that the plaintiff asked the defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour but all the time the defendant informed that conversion proceedings are going on and as soon the conversion is made, sale deed will be executed. In between Laxmi Narayan died, however, after death of Laxmi Narayan, present defendants are liable to execute the sale deed being legal heirs of Laxmi Narayan. It was also stated that on 25.07.2006, when plaintiff asked defendants to execute the sale deed, the defendants started quarreling with him. Averments regarding readiness & willingness of plaintiff for execution of sale deed were also made. It was also stated that despite best efforts, registered sale deed was not executed and therefore, suit was filed for specific performance of the Agreement. 5. The defendant-appellants in their written statement denied payment of Rs.61,000/-. Averments regarding readiness & willingness of plaintiff for execution of sale deed were also made. It was also stated that despite best efforts, registered sale deed was not executed and therefore, suit was filed for specific performance of the Agreement. 5. The defendant-appellants in their written statement denied payment of Rs.61,000/-. It was also stated that Laxmi Narayan died on 12.12.2005 and the land in question is an agriculture land, therefore, the civil court has no jurisdiction. Payment of Rs.25,000/- on 23.03.2004 and the pendnecy of conversion proceedings were also denied. It was also stated that the land in question is ancestral land, it is joint Hindu family property and therefore, Laxmi Narayan alone could not have sold the land. On basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed 5 issues. After recording evidence, a judgment & decree dated 11.02.2010 was passed in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment & decree dated 11.02.2010, the appellants preferred present appeal, on the grounds that the trial court while deciding issue No.1 has not properly appreciated the evidence. From the statement of Chokhi Lal (PW2) it can not be said that any such agreement was executed by father of defendant. PW3 Shyam Sunder also stated in his crossexamination that though he is Graduate but he do not remember the date of execution of the agreement to sale. He has even gone to the extent that he did not know amount of sale consideration. In these circumstances, it can not be said that the plaintiff successfully proved issue No.1 and hence, findings of the learned trial court on issue No.1 deserves to be reversed. 7. It was also contended that the trial court committed error in deciding issue No.2. Neither in the pleadings nor in the evidence, the plaintiff has successfully proved that he was ready and willing to execute the agreement. It was also argued that the trial court committed illegality in deciding issue No.4. Entire arazi is ancestral property and unless & until Laxmi Narayan had a specific share, he could not have executed an agreement to sale. This aspect was not considered by the trial court. 8. So far as contention of the appellants regarding issue No.1 is concerned, the pleadings and evidence on record regarding this issue were considered. Entire arazi is ancestral property and unless & until Laxmi Narayan had a specific share, he could not have executed an agreement to sale. This aspect was not considered by the trial court. 8. So far as contention of the appellants regarding issue No.1 is concerned, the pleadings and evidence on record regarding this issue were considered. Kishore Kumar son of Laxmi Narayan (defendant No.1) in his statement admitted his signature on Ex.1 at point A to B , signature of Chokhi Lal at point C to D and signature of Shyam Sunder at point E to F as witness. PW2 Chokhi Lal in his cross-examination deposed that Laxmi Narayan admitted receipt of Rs.61,000/- towards advance. Kishore Kumar son of Laxmi Narayan in his cross-examination stated that his father Laxmi Narayan has died, he & his mother are legal heirs of Laxmi Narayan. He also admitted that disputed plot was sold to Shyam Sunder, who is plaintiff. He further admitted that registration of the portion of land, which was sold, has to be done after conversion of the land and also stated that had his father would have been alive then this could have been completed. Thus, the trial court rightly appreciated the evidence on record in deciding issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. 9. So far as question of readiness & willingness to execute the agreement is concerned, in this respect issue No.2 was framed. The evidence and pleadings regarding this issue were considered. It is wrong to state that neither in the pleadings nor by evidence the plaintiff the plaintiff has successfully proved that he was ready and willing to execute the Agreement. On the basis of admissions of PW3 Vinod Nath in his evidence and Kishore Kumar (defendant No.1) in his cross-examination, it is proved that the sale-deed has to be executed after conversion of the land. It is also evident from the evidence that registered notices Exs.4 & 5 were served on defendants and receipts of notices were also produced on record as Exs.6 and 7. From this, it is evident that the notices were served, which were returned back to the plaintiff with a note of refusal. These facts were not denied by the defendants. The trial court has rightly considered the evidence on record and rightly decided issue No.2 in favour of the plaintiff. 10. From this, it is evident that the notices were served, which were returned back to the plaintiff with a note of refusal. These facts were not denied by the defendants. The trial court has rightly considered the evidence on record and rightly decided issue No.2 in favour of the plaintiff. 10. So far as appellants contention regarding issue No.4 is concerned, the burden of proving this issue was on defendants and the defendants in evidence stated nothing on this issue. He only stated in the cross-examination that Laxmi Narayan has died. From Ex.3 it is evident that arazi No.502/2496 was entered in the name of Laxmi Narayan and after his death, the entries were made in the name of defendants Kishore Kumar and Ram Kanya (mother of defendant). There is no evidence on record from which it can be gathered that the suit property was ancestral or it belongs to Hindu Undivided Family. The trial court has rightly considered the evidence available on record in deciding this issue. 11. The appellants also submitted before this Court that the trial court decreed the suit and ordered for specific performance by executing sale deed in favour of Shyam Sunder. He contended that in place of specific performance, they are ready to return the advance amount of Rs.61,000/- with interest. So far as relief of specific performance is concerned, it is settled position of law that the relief of specific performance is a discretionary remedy. The judgment & decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff way back on 11.02.2010 and after lapse of seven years, it is not justified that in place of specific performance of the Agreement, the original advanced amount with interest be returned. The contention of the appellants is not acceptable. 12. There is no ground of interference in the judgment & decree dated 11.02.2010 passed by the trial court. The appeal is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.