Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.: These two appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment and decree dated March 10, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeals Nos. 3583 and 5177 of 1961.

2. As there were two suits out of which these two appeals arise, we will now refer to the parties as they are arrayed in Civil Original Suit No. 14 of 1957. The appellant, who is the same in both the appeals, instituted Civil Original Suit No. 14 of 1957 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Basti, for a declaration that she is the owner of the suit properties mentioned in list A of the plaint therein and was in possession of the same. In the alternative she prayed that the defendants may be directed to execute a sale deed in her favour in respect of the said properties on receipt of a sum of Rs. 6,500/- deducting the amount of Rs. 3,500/- already claimed to have been paid by her. In default of execution of the sale deed by the defendants, she prayed for the sale deed being executed through court. She also prayed for the issue of an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

3. The case of the plaintiff was briefly as follows: She was the bhumidar of certain plots of lands and owner of a house described in list B in the plaint. The first defendant and his father were the owners of the plots and the house described in list A. The plaintiff wanted to dispose of the properties mentioned in list B. Similarly the first defendant and his father wanted to dispose of their properties referred to in list A. Negotiations were carried on between the father-in-law of the plaintiff and the first defendant and his father regarding the properties mentioned in list A. Ultimately in the month of Phagun, 1955, an agreement was entered into between the first defendant and his father on the one hand and the father-in-law of the plaintiff on her behalf on the other, by which the first defendant and his father agreed to sell to the plaintiff the properties comprised in list A in the plaint for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and the plaintiff agreed to purchase those properties. In pursuance of the agreement the plaintiff was put in possession of the lands and the house. The plaintiff sold in July. 1955, her properties shown in list B. of the plaint to third parties and out of the sale proceeds paid a sum of fRs. 3,500/- to the first defendant and his father towards the sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. As per the agreement the plaintiff was to pay the balance of Rs. 6,500/- by January, 1956 and was to get the sale deed executed in her favour in the month of January, 1956 on receipt of the balance consideration. The plaintiff has made further averments that out of the proceeds realised by her from the sale of her properties shown in list B, she has paid to the first defendant and his father a sum of Rs. 787/- as the price of the implements of husbandry that were in the house and agreed to be sold to her. The plaintiff later on came to know that the first defendant had sold the suit properties to the second defendant for a sum of Rupees 11,000/- with false recitals. The second defendant had taken the sale deed with full knowledge of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff. This led to criminal cases and the second defendant was attempting to interfere with the plaintiff s possession of the properties.

4. The first defendant did not contest the suit. On the other hand, the second defendant claimed that the agreement pleaded by the plaintiff was false and that her claim that she was in possession of the suit properties was also equally untrue. On the other hand the second defendant pleaded that on the basis of an agreement entered into by him with the first defendant and his father, he had agreed to purchase the suit properties for a sum of Rs. 11,000/-. In pursuance of the agreement he also paid earnest money as evidenced by the receipt executed by the first defendant date