JUDGMENT

R.V. Raveendran, J.

1. Leave granted. For convenience parties will also be referred by their ranks in the suit or by name.

2. The Appellants - two brothers, are the co-owners with equal shares, in lands measuring in all 98 Kanals and 19 marlas situated in village Udana, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal. They entered into an agreement to sell the said lands to the sons of Furu Ram and Kalu Ram (brothers) the respective first Respondent in these two appeals, on 18.10.1991 for a consideration of Rs. 14,22,000/- and received Rs. 1,00,000 as earnest money. As per the terms of the agreement, the balance was to be paid by the purchasers at the time of registration of the sale deed and the sale was to be completed by 31.1.1992.

The case of Appellants (Ramesh Kumar & Naresh Kumar)

3. The Respondents were not in a position to pay the balance of the sale consideration and therefore failed to get the sale completed by 31.1.1992. The Respondents requested for refund of the earnest money of Rs. 100,000/-. The Appellants were not willing to return the earnest money in view of the breach by the Respondents. There was a panchayat in that behalf wherein it was decided that the Appellants should permit the Respondents to cultivate their said lands for a period of one and half years without any rent in satisfaction and discharge of the claim for refund of Rs. 100,000/-. In pursuance of the said panchayat settlement, Appellants delivered possession of the suit lands to the Respondents. The Respondents represented that they would reduce the terms of the said settlement into writing and requested the Appellants to come to Kurukshetra to sign some papers. The Appellants trusted the Respondents as it was a panchayat settlement and went to Kurukshetra, and signed the papers given by the Respondents, under the bonafide belief that they were signing papers relating to the terms of the aforesaid settlement. The Respondents also asked the Appellants to appear in court and confirm the same. The Appellants accordingly went to the court and nodded their assent when asked whether they were agreeable for the settlement.

4. Some months thereafter, a suit was filed against Appellants in June 1992 by one Lal Singh and others claiming pre-emption. During the pendency of that suit, the Appellants learnt that the Respondents had obtained a mutation in their favour on the basis of some decrees obtained by them from the court of Senior Sub-Judge, Kurukshetra. On verification, the Appellants were surprised to learn that consent orders had been passed by the court of Sr. Sub-Judge, Kurukshetra on 30.3.1992 in C.S. No. 366/1992 and C.S. No. 367/1992, directing decrees be drawn in terms of arbitration awards dated 13.3.1992 made by one Chandra Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, Kurukshetra, appointed as per reference agreements dated 12.3.1992.

5. According to Appellants, the agreements dated 12.3.1992, the arbitration awards dated 13.3.1992, the consent decrees dated 30.3.1992 and the mutations in favour of Respondents were all illegal, null and void and non-est, being the result of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of Respondents. According to Appellants, the allegations in the said agreements, awards and as also the plaints in CS Nos. 366 and 367 of 1992 that Appellants had borrowed Rs. 8 lacs from Furu Ram and Rs. 8 lacs from Kalu Ram agreeing to repay the same with interest at 2% per month, that they had given their lands to Furu Ram and Kalu Ram as they were not able to repay the two loans of Rs. 800,000/- each, were all false. They alleged that they had not engaged any counsel for appearance in CS Nos. 366 and 367 of 1992, nor signed any written statements, nor participated in any arbitration proceedings, nor made any statements agreeing for making decrees in terms of any award. The Appellants claimed that they only signed some papers which Respondents had represented to be documents relating to giving their lands on licence basis for one and half years instead of retur