Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) (Oral) - This is plaintiffs' Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below whereby their suit for possession by way of decree for specific performance has been dismissed. The trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs while deciding Issues No. 1 to 3 and 5 against them which pertain to whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. A categoric finding of fact has been recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. The said finding of fact has been recorded while taking into consideration the following aspects:- (i) That in the agreement there was no condition that the defendants were to intimate the plaintiffs about the sanction of the mutation. (ii) As per the agreement even if the mutation was not sanctioned, the plaintiffs were to get the sale deed executed by 15th June, 1988 but they did not take any step to get the sale deed executed by the said date. (iii) It has also been recorded as a fact that the plaintiffs had neither purchased the stamp papers nor prepared the final draft of the sale deed before the said date. (iv) It has also been found as a fact that when the defendants moved an application on the relevant date and remained present in the office of Sub Registrar for executing the sale deed, the plaintiffs never came present in the said office to get the sale deed executed by making the remaining payment. (v) It has also been recorded as a fact that the plaintiffs were not having sufficient amount at their disposal on the last date of execution of the sale deed. (vi) It has also been found as a fact that even after the final date of agreement the plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction instead of filing the suit for specific performance.
(2.) This fact further indicates the intention of the plaintiffs that they were not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.
(3.) On the basis of above findings of facts, the aforesaid issues were decided against the plaintiffs and their suit for possession by way of specific performance has been dismissed.;