A.K. Goel, J. - (1.) The respondents -plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.1.1990 executed by the appellants -defendants for safe of agricultural land measuring 33 bighas 3 Biswas. The sale was to be executed for Rs.4,27,435/ - out of which a sum of Rs.65,000/ - was paid as ear nest money and rest of the amount was to be paid on 11.6.1990. Respondents stated that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and went to the office of the Sub Registrar on 11.6.1990 with balance consideration, but the appellants - defendants did not turn up. In the alternative to decree for specific performance, the plaintiffs prayed for decree for recovery of Rs,4,27,635/ - by way of recovery of earnest money and the damage.
(2.) Appellants -defendants contested the suit and submitted that the plaintiffs did not have money and were not willing to make the payment. The defendants contested the genuineness of the report about appearance of the plaintiffs before Sub Registrar on 11.6.1990 and have stated that the defendants are still ready and willing to execute the sale deed, if the plaintiffs paid the money upto 6.8.1990, failing which their earnest money should be allowed to be forfeited.
(3.) The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit. It was held that the readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs was not proved in view of the following : - a) there was an earlier agreement in favour of father of the plaintiffs, under which the sale consideration was payable upto 7.11.1989, on which date the sale deed of which half share was to be executed and though the said date was extended upto 20.12.1989, the amount was not paid even upto the extended date and it was thereafter that a fresh agreement was signed on 17.1.1990 and defendants entered into an agreement to purchase another land on 11.5.1990 in anticipation of receiving money from the plaintiffs on 11.6.1990, as agreed, the defendants needed money to get the sale deed executed in their favour, for which the last date was 15.6.1990 and there was no reason for the defendants not to execute the sale deed on 11.6.1990. b) The defendants got extension of time to pay money to purchase the land, for which extension was given upto 7.8.1990 and therefore, in the written statement filed on 30.7.1990 the defendants made an offer that the defendants were still ready to execute the sale deed upto 6.8.1990 and on 6.8.1990, the defendants moved an application stating that they were ready to execute the sale deed as per their undertaking in the written statement and the plaintiffs did not accept the said offer and sought an adjournment upto 11.8.1990, then to 17.8.1990 and then to 21.8.1990 and only on 28.8.1990, the plaintiffs filed their reply and on 21.8.1990, the plaintiffs moved an application to seek direction against the defendants to execute the sale deed, but the defendants did not agree to execute the sale deed on the ground that on account of failure of the plaintiffs to pay money in time, the defendants' earnest money was forfeited. c) The plaintiffs had not shown that they had the sale consideration on 11.6.1990 and in the bank account relied on by the plaintiffs, a sum of Rs.297.50 was available on 11.6.1990 and a sum of Rs.81,000/ -was available on 12.6.1990 while the amount required to be paid was Rs.3,62,635/ - besides expenses of stamp and other charges amounting to Rs.65.000/ -;