IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Agreement to sell – Suit for specific performance – Purchaser who has paid full consideration and received original title deeds from seller would have taken possession under normal circumstances – Any possession taken by any other party thereafter would be unauthorised and illegal.
(2) Agreement to sell – Subsequent purchasers and intervenors who had further purchased property from third parties, will only get rights of their vendors – If vendors did not have any rights, vendees cannot be said to be in any better position.

JUDGMENT

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. The six appellants are the plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance of a contract. The Trial Court decreed the suit. However, the High Court, on first appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the present appeals by the plaintiffs.

2. The dispute relates to 23.98 acres of Khasra Nos.546, 547 and 548 situate in village Godar Mau, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal. It is an admitted position between the parties that a larger area measuring 27.56 acres of the aforesaid three khasra numbers was purchased by one Sushila Bai, wife of late Chandra Mal Aggarwal, vide registered sale deed dated 29.04.1966 executed by erstwhile owner Vijay Chhatti for a sale consideration of Rs.7,000/-. Based on the said instrument, the name of Sushila Bai was mutated in land revenue records.

3. The appellants filed separate suits for specific performance in May, 1995 against the legal heirs of Sushila Devi.

4. It would be relevant to mention here that in the plaint, defendant nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were the other legal heirs of late Sushila Devi. We have mentioned the name of Kailash Aggarwal separately as he had a distinct role to play in the entire transaction. The sequence of events which would be discussed and pleaded upon at a later stage will reflect upon the role of Kailash Aggarwal. However, needless to say that Kailash Aggarwal was the eldest son of Sushila Devi. All the plaints are more or less identically worded, as such, we are not giving any specific details of the separate suit schedule property for each of the plaint, but we have generally dealt with the plaint allegations. Briefly stated the plaint allegations are as follows:

a) Sushila Devi was the owner of the suit schedule property. She entered into an Agreement to Sell on 30.08.1990 with each of the appellants separately after receiving the entire sale consideration. The appellants had taken over actual possession, having paid the entire sale consideration, the suit schedule property was agricultural land and cultivated by the appellants.

b) Details of the land covered and the sale consideration with respect to six Agreement to Sell are as follows:

c) The defendants are the legal heirs of Sushila Devi and Agreement to Sell was binding upon them, but they declined to fulfil their legal obligation by executing the sale deed in favour of the appellants and had instead applied for mutation for the suit schedule property which had been allowed by the revenue authority.

d) As the entire sale consideration had been paid as per the contents of the Agreement to Sell, the appellants were put into possession also. The original title deed of 1966 in favour of Sushila Devi was also handed over to the appellants. The witnesses to the Agreement to Sell were Dipesh Chandra Patni PW-2 and one Mr. Sharma. As the entire sale consideration had been paid, the time was not the essence of contract and the same was also incorporated in the Agreement to Sell in clause 6. Smt. Sushila Devi executed

a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of M.K. Maheshwari on 04.09.1990. She died on 25.12.1992 leaving behind the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 as her legal heirs and representatives.

e) The legal heirs applied for mutation of their names over the suit schedule property to which objectio