- (1.)IN this second appeal, the unsuccessful defendant is aggrieved by the concurrent finding of both the Courts below whereby the judgment and decree dated 10-08-1985 in Civil Suit No. 12-A/1978 by the IInd Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur for specific performance of the contract was affirmed by the IIIrd Additional Judge to the Court of district Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/1993.
(2.)THE following substantial questions of law arise for determination:
" (1) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the respondents were entitled to a decree for specific performance even when they have not pleaded their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract and there was no proper evidence to support?

(2) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the courts below were justified in holding that the agreement in dispute was to be acted upon and was not nominal as pleaded by the appellant/defendant?"

(3.)BOTH the Courts below have held that on 22-02-1964 Premchand Parakh, father of the appellant/defendant had agreed to sell the suit property shown by letters "a, B, C, D, E, F, G and h" to the respondent/plaintiff after receiving full consideration of Rs. 4,000/ -. It was further held that the appellant/defendant was to execute the sale-deed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff after the suit property was released in Civil Suit no. 22-A/1968. It was further held that an amount of Rs. 5,500/- was due from the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff out of which while executing the agreement Ex. P-1 dated 22-02-1964 an amount of Rs. 4,000/- was adjusted towards the sale consideration and for the remaining amount of rs. 1,500/- the appellant/defendant accepted fresh liability in favour of the respondent/plaintiff by executing Ex. P-2. It is not disputed that the respondent/plaintiff was in possession of the suit property even prior to 22-02-1964.
;