JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1.This Civil First Appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants (for short 'the defendants') against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2018 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.22/2013, whereby the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') for specific performance of the agreement, injunction and possession has been decreed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22.03.2013, injunction and possession against the defendants to the effect that defendants had executed an agreement to sell dated 22.03.2013 in favour of the plaintiff purporting to sell their undivided 3/4th share in property i.e. 0.87 Hectares land in Khasra No.703 and 0.95 Hectares land in khasra No.704 (total admeasuring 1.82 Hectares land) situated in Village Neendad, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. At the time of execution of agreement to sell dated 22.03.2013, part-payment of Rs.1.85 Crore was paid to the defendants through cheques out of the total amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs.6.7 Crore. Rest amount of Rs.4.85 Crore was to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants before 31.05.2013. It was agreed that possession would be handed over to the plaintiff at the time of registration of the sale deed. On several occasions, the plaintiff requested the defendants to get the balance amount of sale consideration and to get sale deed registered. The plaintiff sent the legal notice on 29.05.2013 to accept the balance amount of sale consideration and to get registered the sale deed. He was always ready and willing to perform his part of agreement. Plaintiff also sent a telegram to the defendants on 31.05.2013. Despite these communication, defendants had neither accepted the balance amount of sale consideration nor get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff and rather they sent a reply to the notice on 01.06.2013 and on account of non obligation by the plaintiff, defendants had cancelled the sale deed. During the course of the proceedings, it also revealed that out of 0.87 hectares as comprised in agreement to sell dated 22.03.2013, 0.02 hectare land had been acquired by the Government and defendants had already received the compensation of the property in October 2012. The said amendment was incorporated by amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. During the course of the proceedings, it also revealed that out of 0.87 hectares as comprised in agreement to sell dated 22.03.2013, 0.02 hectare land had been acquired by the Government and defendants had already received the compensation of the property in October 2012. The said amendment was incorporated by amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Plaintiff also stated that cost of the acquired land be also deducted from balance amount of sale consideration. 3. Defendants had filed written statement and opposed the averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint and submitted that time was the essence of contract. Plaintiff had to pay the balance amount of sale consideration of Rs.4.85 Crore on or before 31.05.2013 in lieu of execution of agreement to sell dated 22.03.2013 but plaintiff never approached the defendants with the balance amount of sale consideration. The plaintiff had requested the defendants that he could not arrange the balance amount of sale consideration. So, he required 15-20 days time to arrange the balance amount of sale consideration. On denial of the defendants, plaintiff had sent the notice with malafide intention on 29.05.2013. He had not annexed any draft or cheque of the balance amount of sale consideration with the notice. So, the defendants cancelled the agreement to sell on 01.06.2013. Defendants also contended that plaintiff knew the fact of the acquisition of land at the time of agreement to sell. So, the defendants had not committed any fraud. So, suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues:- 5. After amendment, trial court framed following additional issues:- 6. To prove its case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 Defendant got examined DW1-Bhagwati Prasad Parasrampuria, DW2-Nachuram, DW3-Anil Agarwal, DW4-Rajesh Sharma and DW5-Rakesh Akar. 7. Learned senior counsel for the defendants submits that trial court had committed an error in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff and had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in right perspective. 8. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that trial court wrongly held that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform the conditions of his part as mentioned in the agreement to sell dated 22.03.2013. 9. 8. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that trial court wrongly held that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform the conditions of his part as mentioned in the agreement to sell dated 22.03.2013. 9. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that prior to 31.05.2013, plaintiff met the defendants and submitted that he did not have sufficient funds. So, 15-20 days time be given to the plaintiff for arranging the balance amount of sale consideration but defendants clearly stated that they had executed the agreement on account of dire need of money, which was also mentioned in the agreement to sell. So, they were not in a position to extend the time for arranging the money. So, with mala-fide intention, plaintiff sent a notice to the defendants on 29.05.2013 and also sent the telegram to them on 31.05.2013. He had not attached a cheque or demand draft of the balance amount of sale consideration with the notice. If he had sufficient money, then cheque or demand draft would have been annexed to the notice. 10. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that by way of reply dated 01.06.2013, defendants had cancelled the agreement to sell dated 22.03.2013. Plaintiff had not filed a suit for cancellation of agreement. He had not pleaded any relief for execution of the cancelled agreement. So, trial court wrongly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 11. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiff tried to proof his ready and willingness by exhibiting bank passbook as Ex.13 and statements as Ex-14, Stamps as Ex.9, cheques as Ex.10 and 11 and draft of sale deed as Ex.12. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that these documents were not proved by cogent evidence. Passbook and bank statements were not proved by the plaintiff as per the procedure laid down in Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that the plaintiff had not exhibited the counter part of the cheques. 12. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiff had not purchased the sufficient stamps for registration of sale deed. He had merely purchased the stamps of Rs.5,000/-. 13. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiff had not sent the draft sale deed to the defendants. 12. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiff had not purchased the sufficient stamps for registration of sale deed. He had merely purchased the stamps of Rs.5,000/-. 13. Learned senior counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiff had not sent the draft sale deed to the defendants. So, finding of the trial court regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiff is contrary to the evidence led by the parties. 14. Learned senior counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Bank of India Vs. Alibhoy Mohammed & Ors. in Suit No.485 of 1989 decided on 29.01.200 (2) Indian Bank Vs. V. R. Venkataraman & Ors. in AS No.1688/1991 decided on 17.12.2003 ; (3) State Bank of India Vs. Rizvi Exports Ltd. in T. A. No.1593/2000 decided on 01.10.2002 ; (4) Bank of India Vs. Satbir Singh in Election Appeal No.94/1997 and Execution Appeal No.145/1990 decided on 26.03.1997 (5) U. N. Krihnamurthy (Since deceased) through LRs. Vs. A. M. Krishnamurthy in Civil Appeal No.4703/2022 (Arising our of SLP (C) No.19463/2018) decided on 12.07.2022 and (6) I. S. Sikandar (D) by LRs Vs. K. Subramani & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.7306/2013 (Arising our of SLP (C) No.20367/2009) decided on 29.08.2013. 15. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that trial court rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiff was ever ready and willing to execute the agreement to sell dated 22.03.2013 because he had sent a notice to the defendants on 29.05.2013 to get the sale deed registered. 16. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that plaintiff sent a telegram on 31.05.2013 but defendants deliberately sent a reply on 01.06.2013 for cancellation of so-called agreement. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that time was not the essence in the present agreement because nothing was mentioned that after expiry of 31.05.2013, agreement would be cancelled. 17. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that during the evidence, plaintiff by way of passbook and bank statements clearly proved that plaintiff had sufficient amount for paying the balance amount of sale consideration to the defendants. Plaintiff had purchased the stamp for registry and also prepared the draft sale deed. 18. 17. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that during the evidence, plaintiff by way of passbook and bank statements clearly proved that plaintiff had sufficient amount for paying the balance amount of sale consideration to the defendants. Plaintiff had purchased the stamp for registry and also prepared the draft sale deed. 18. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that defendants failed to adduce the cogent evidence that bank statements and passbook exhibited by the plaintiff were forged one and plaintiff had no money to pay the balance consideration. Plaintiff was ready and willing to execute the agreement to sell but defendants wrongly replied and pleaded for cancellation of agreement to sell on 01.06.2013. They failed to adduce cogent evidence that plaintiff had no sufficient money to pay the balance amount of sale consideration. 19. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that act of defendants was not bonafide from very inception because they suppressed the acquisition proceedings and got compensation. So, trial court rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiff was ready and willing to execute the agreement to sell. So, present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 20. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Chand Rani (Smt) (Dead) by LRs. vs. Kamal Rani (Smt) (Dead) by LRs in Civil Appeal No. 3377/1979 decided on 18.12.1992 ; (2) Balasaheb Dayandeo Naik (Dead) through LRS and Ors. Vs. Appasaheb Dattatraya Pawar in civil appeal No. 647/2008 decided on 24.01.2008 ; (3) P Daivasigamani Vs. S. Sambandan in civil appeal No. 9006/2011 decided on 12.10.2022 ; (4) Deenanath Vs. Chunnilal in civil regular first appeal No. 56/1973 decided on 31.07.1974 ; (5) Basavaraj Vs. Padmavathi and Anr. in civil appeal Nos. 8962-8963 of 2022 (@SLP (C) Nos. 6122-6123 of 2022) decided on 05.01.2023 ; (6) Kartar Singh Vs. Harjinder Singh and Ors. in civil appeal No. 745/1975 decided on 21.02.1990 ; (7) Sardar Singh Vs. Krishna Devi (Smt.) and Anr. in civil appeal No. 2637/1994 decided on 26.04.1994 ; (8) Prakash Chandra Vs. Narayan in civil appeal No. 8102/2011 (arising out of SLP(c) No. 21139/2007 decided on 23.04.2012 ; (9) Zarina Siddiqui Vs. A. Ramalingam @ R. Amarnathan in civil appeal No.9947/2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No.19555/2012 decided on 29.10.2014 and (10) Nirmala Anand Vs. Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Narayan in civil appeal No. 8102/2011 (arising out of SLP(c) No. 21139/2007 decided on 23.04.2012 ; (9) Zarina Siddiqui Vs. A. Ramalingam @ R. Amarnathan in civil appeal No.9947/2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No.19555/2012 decided on 29.10.2014 and (10) Nirmala Anand Vs. Advent Corporation Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. in civil appeal No. 574/1988 decided on 10.05.2002. 21. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. 22. It is an admitted position that agreement to sell dated 22.03.2013 was executed between the parties. Contention of the defendants that plaintiff was not ready and willing to execute the agreement dated 22.03.2013 was not proved. Defendants had not adduced any cogent evidence that before 31.05.2013, plaintiff met them and sought time to pay the balance amount of sale consideration. Evidence of the plaintiff clearly proved that plaintiff was ready and willing to execute the agreement to sell dated 22.03.2013. He had sent the notice to the defendants on 29.05.2013 to accept the balance amount of sale consideration and get the sale deed registered. He also sent the telegram on 31.05.2013. The defendants had malafide intention from very inception. They concealed the fact regarding acquisition of the part of land, for which sale agreement was executed and they got the compensation for it. Defendants had not sent any notice for cancellation of the agreement. They sent reply of the notice sent by the plaintiff in which they stated that they had cancelled the agreement dated 22.03.2013. During evidence, the plaintiff exhibited the bank passbook and statements as Ex.13 and Ex.14, stamps purchased by him as Ex.9, cheques as Ex.10 & Ex.11 and draft of sale deed as Ex.12. Contention of learned counsel for the defendants that bank passbook and statements were not proved as per the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 is not correct because defendants had to prove that the plaintiff had not sufficient balance in his account to pay the balance amount of sale consideration. Defendants failed to adduce any cogent evidence that these documents were forged one and plaintiff had no sufficient money for paying the balance amount of sale consideration. So, in my considered opinion, trial court rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiff was ready and willing to execute the agreement to sell dated 22.03.2013. Defendants failed to adduce any cogent evidence that these documents were forged one and plaintiff had no sufficient money for paying the balance amount of sale consideration. So, in my considered opinion, trial court rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiff was ready and willing to execute the agreement to sell dated 22.03.2013. So, present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 23. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.