Heard the Counsel on record.

2. The learned Counsel representing the appellants – defendants 19 to 21 had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the trial Court and also the specific grounds raised in the Grounds of Appeal and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the trial Court being unsustainable, the said findings are to be disturbed and the appeal to be allowed. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the trial Court totally erred in decreeing the suit for specific performance on the strength of the alleged agreement of sale – Ex.A.1, dt.20-6-1977. The Counsel also would maintain that in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, the trial Court ought not to have recorded a finding that the property had fallen to the share of D.1 in the partition effected between D.1 and the deceased D.2. The learned Counsel also pointed out to several of the circumstances which would clearly go to show that this property in fact had fallen to the share of the deceased-2nd defendant. The Counsel would further maintain that the present appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased-D.2. The Counsel also would further point out that the agreement of sale said to have been entered by the 1st defendant is not binding on the 2nd defendant at all. While further elaborating his submissions, the learned Counsel also pointed out to Ex.B.3 to Ex.B.8 and further pointed out to the evidence of D.W.1, the son of D.2, and also D.W.2, D.W.3 and D.W.4 as well. The learned Counsel also further pointed out to Ex.B.1, Ex.B.2 and Ex.B.9 to Ex.B.12. While further making submissions, the Counsel specifically pointed out that even prior to Ex.A.1, D.2 mortgaged the property in favour of D.3, and D.2 had let out the property to tenants and had been collecting the rents. The Counsel also pointed out that even after the death of D.2; the legal heirs of D.2 are in possession of the property even to this day. Further the Counsel had pointed out that yet another important aspect is that while decreeing the suit, a direction had been given to deposit the balance of sale consideration on or before 3-8-1989 and even as on to this day, no such deposit has been made, this also would clearly go to show that the 1st respondent – plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hands and the claim is not a bona fide one. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the oral and documentary evidence in elaboration and ultimately would conclude that inasmuch as except the evidence of P.W.2, the brother of P.W.1, since no other acceptable evidence had been placed before the Court to prove Ex.A.1, even on this ground the appellants are bound to succeed. The learned Counsel ultimately would conclude that for the said reasons, the appeal to be allowed.

3. Per contra, the learned Counsel representing 1st respondent had taken this Court through the findings which had been recorded by the trial Court and would maintain that the close relationship between the 1st and 2nd defendants should also be taken into consideration, the trial Court appreciated the evidence on record carefully and ultimately came to the conclusion that the property in fact had fallen to the share of the 1st defendant and inasmuch as the 1st defendant had not chosen to contest the matter and after recording appropriate findings on appreciation of the evidence available on record, decreed the suit and hence this is not a fit matter to be interfered with.

4. Heard the Counsel on record, perused the respective pleadings of the parties, the issues and the additional issue settled by the trial Court, the evidence available on record, the findings recorded by the trial Court, and also the specific grounds raised in the present appeal.

Pleadings of parties:-

5. The 1st respondent herein as plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.6/78 on the file of the II-Additional Subordinat