The facts which are not in dispute are that earlier there was a agreement dated 5-12-1980 executed by the landowners/respondents No.3 to 13 in the present second appeal in favour of appellant No.1 (deceased) for sell of one acre of portion out of total 1.40 hectares of agriculture land at Mouza-Mahadula, Tah. Kamptee, District Nagpur. It is also admitted that the said portion of one acre was not identified or specified. On 20-12-1981, deceased-appellant No. 1 had entered into another agreement with landowners for very property. In the earlier agreement One Mohd. Umar was with him as proposed purchaser. In the later agreement present respondents 1 and 2 were with deceased appellant No. 1 as proposed purchasers. However, on 19-11-1982, deceased-appellant No. 1 had obtained a sale deed from the landowners in the name of himself and his wife. Thereafter, the present respondents I and 2 filed Special Civil Suit No. 50/1983 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, joined appellant No.1, his wife and landowners as party defendants. They claimed specific performance of the later agreement dated 20-12-1981 and also prayed for cancellation of sale deed dated 19-11-1982 obtained by deceased appellant No. 1 and his wife. They also claimed partition and separate possession of one acre of portion agreed to be purchased as per agreement dated 20-12-1981. The suit came to be decreed and the first appeal i.e. registered as Regular Civil Appeal filed under section' 96 of Civil Procedure Code bearing No. R.C.A. No. 482/1986 came to be dismissed by 14th Additional District Judge, Nagpur. In the present second Appeal the deceased appellant No. 1 and his wife have challenged those judgments and decrees. The appellant No. 1 has expired during the pendency of the second appeal and his LRs are brought on record. Similarly, respondent Nos. 2 and 5 also expired and their LRs. have been brought on record.

2. This Court while admitting second appeal on 1st July, 1991 has treated that ground Nos. 2, 3 and 5 as pleaded in the Memo of Appeal as the substantial questions of law for adjudication and granted status quo in relation to possession.

3. In this background, I have heard Shri P. N. Kothari, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri U. P. Deopujari, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and LRs of respondent No.2. Nobody appears for other respondents, though they are served. Both the counsel jointly stated that other respondents were proceeded ex parte, even before the lower Courts.

4. Advocate Kothari, at the outset, has invited attention to the order dated 1-10-1992 passed by this Court on pursis (st.) No. 15164/1992 whereby the appellant while communicating the death of respondent No. 13, sought exemption from bringing his LRs of respondent No. 13 on record. This Court has by the said order directed that the pursis shall be considered at the stage of final hearing.

5. Advocate Kothari, further contends that Mohd. Umar ought to have been joined as party defendant by respondents 1 and 2 in their Civil Suit and since that has not been done, the suit could not have been decreed. His arguments are only confined to ground No. 5 and he contends that in view of section 15 of the Specific Relief Act, the appellants were justified in falling back on agreement dated 5-12-1980 and seeking its specific performance. He also relied upon the judgments reported in AIR 1937 Nagpur page 186, lagdeo Singh and others vs. Bisambhar and others and AIR 1980 Calcutta page 258, Smt. Nirmala Bala Dasi and another vs. Sudarsan lana and others in support of his contentions. He further points out that the present respondents 1 and 2 only had an agreement of sale dated 20-12-1981 in their favour and the said agreement did not clothe them with any right or interest in the subject-matter. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court at AIR 1967 SC 744, Ram Baram Prasad vs. Ram Mohit Hazara and ors. for this purpose. Pointing out section 30 of the Specific Relief Act, h