PANKAJ Mithal, J. - (1.) Under challenge are the judgments and orders of the Courts below dated 31-10-1979 and 6-4-1979 and the consequential decree for specific performance thereof.
(2.) ONE Diwan Singh was admittedly the Sirdar having 1/5th share in the plots described at the foot of the plaint situated in village Shekhupur, Tehsil-Anoopshahr, District Bulandshahr. It is alleged that the said Diwan Singh executed an agreement to sale dated 8-2-1973 in favour of Jagdish Kumari in respect of his entire aforesaid 1/5th share for a total sale consideration of Rs. 8,000 out of which it is said that he received Rs. 6,000 as advance. Diwan Singh deposited 20 times of the land Revenue on 16-1-1974 and obtained a Sirdari Sanad in respect of his share. After obtaining the Sirdari Sanad he executed a registered sale-deed dated 18-1-1974 transferring his share in favour of Asharfi Devi wife of Amar Singh for a sum of Rs. 4,000. The plaintiff Jagdish Kumari on the above facts and circumstances filed original suit No. 335 of 1974 against the aforesaid Diwan Singh defendant No. 1 and arraying Asharfi Devi as defendant No. 2 for a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sale dated 8-2-1973. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the judgment and order of the trial Court was also affirmed in appeal. During the pendency of the suit Diwan Singh had died and he was substituted by his heirs and legal representatives one of whom is Amar Singh. Defendant No. 2 Smt. Asharfi Devi along with Amar Singh who represents defendant No. 1 Diwan Singh have filed this second appeal against the plaintiff respondent No. 1 Smt. Jagdish Kumari and have claimed relief for setting aside the judgments, orders and the consequential decree of the Courts below.
(3.) THE appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (1) Whether the plaintiff respondent had not averred and proved her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract and sale as required by Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act ? (2) Whether agreement was on the facts and in the circumstances of the case specifically inadmissible in law? I have heard Sri Vishnu Sahai, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri M. K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.;