JUDGMENT B.K. Rathi, J.
1. Both these second appeals have been filed against the same judgment and decree dated 15.9.1976, passed in Civil Appeal No. 219 of 1975 by Additional Civil Judge. Meerut. Therefore, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1, Smt. Zaitoon Begum filed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale originally against Mohd. Farooq Khan, the appellant of Appeal No. 2067 of 1976. Arjun Das, the appellant of Second Appeal No. 2158 of 1976 was later on impleaded in the suit being subsequent purchaser.
3. In brief, it is alleged by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that appellant, Mohd. Farooq Khan agreed to sell his house No. 383, Ghosi Mohalla, Lal Kurti, Meerut to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 3,000 and executed a registered agreement on 19.9.1966 and received Rs. 25 as advance and it was agreed that the sale deed shall be executed within six years on payment of Rs. 2,975 being balance amount of sale consideration. That the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform her part of contract but the appellant, Mohd. Farooq Khan has not executed the sale deed and therefore, the suit was filed. The appellant, Arjun Das was added with the allegations that he is subsequent purchaser of the house with notice of the agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff.
4. The appellant, Mohd. Farooq Khan contested the suit and admitted the execution of the agreement and that he received Rs. 25 as advance. His case is that thereafter on 16.5.1970 plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,500 from him and executed a pronote and receipt for the amount. That an agreement was also executed on that date, i.e., on 16.5.1970, according to which, it was agreed that the plaintiff will be entitled to get the sale deed executed in her favour on payment of Rs. 2,975 being balance amount of sale consideration, according to the agreement dated 19.9.1966 and also on return of Rs. 1,500 along with interest @ 1.5% per annum. That the plaintiff was not ready to pay this amount and, therefore, she herself committed the breach of the contract. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. The appellant, Arjun Das, further pleaded that he is bona fide purchaser without notice of agreement in favour of the appellant.
6. The trial court framed necessary issues and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the decree Civil Appeal No. 219 of 1975 was preferred by the plaintiff, which have been allowed and suit for specific performance of contract of sale has been decreed directing both the appellants to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement dated 19.9.1966 on deposit of balance sale consideration, i.e., Rs. 2,975. Aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate court, both the defendants have preferred the separate appeals.
7. Both these appeals were admitted in the year 1976 and no substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission of the appeals either by the Court or in the memo of appeals.
8. I have heard Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant, Mohd. Farooq Khan. None else has appeared in this case. However, I have gone through the entire record.
9. On the basis of the arguments and the perusal of the record, the following substantial question of law arise for decision in this appeal :
"Whether the agreement to sell dated 19.9.1966 was modified by the subsequent agreement dated 16.5.1970 and if it is so, the plaintiff is not entitled to decree for specific performance of contract of sale as she was not ready to comply with the terms of modified agreement?"
10. In this case, the entire facts are admitted. It is admitted that appellant, Mohd. Farooq Khan executed a registered agreement to sell his house on 16.9.1966 for Rs. 3,000 in favour of plaintiff, out of which Rs. 25 were paid on that date and the balance amount Rs. 2,975 was to be paid at the time of registration and sale deed was to be executed within six years. It is also admitted that thereafter, on 16.5.1970 the plaintiff, Smt. Zaitoon Begum took a loan Rs. 1,500 from him and executed pronote and receipt agreeing to pay the amount with interest @ 1.5% per annum. It is also admitted that on that very day, i.e., on 16.7.1976 another agreement was executed between the appellant, Mohd. Farooq Khan and Smt. Zaitoon Khan, plaintiff, that in case, the plaintiff want to get the sale deed executed she will also be liable to pay Rs. 1.500 along with interest borrowed as loan on the basis of pronote along with balance sale consideration, i.e., Rs. 2,975.
11. Therefore, the previous agreement was substituted by another agreement in writing between the parties and that agreement is admitted. The reasoning recorded by the first appellate court does not appear to be correct. The loan transaction was evidenced by pronote and receipt and there was no need for agreement. However, an agreement was also executed. Therefore, earlier agreement dated 19.9.1966 was modified by another agreement dated 16.5.1970.
12. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff was not ready to comply with the terms of the renewed agreement dated 16.5.1970. She offered to get the sale deed executed on payment of Rs. 2,975 only and never offered to pay the amount of Rs. 1,500 also along with interest.
13. In the circumstances, the plaintiff herself was not ready and willing to perform her part of contract as modified by the subsequent agreement dated 16.5.1970. This modified agreement is admissible in evidence under Section 92 of the Evidence Act.
14. The first appellate court has, therefore, erred in allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit. Accordingly, both these second appeals are allowed with costs throughout and the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 15.9.1976 passed in Civil Appeal No. 219 of 1975 are quashed and that of the trial court are restored.