ORDER

S.M. Gavhane, J.

1. The appellant/original plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-3, Ahmednagar, in RCA No. 295 of 2013 filed by him against the respondents/original defendants, thereby dismissing the said appeal and allowing the cross-objection of the respondents and dismissing his suit, bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 284 of 1998. The parties are hereinafter referred to by their position in the suit.

2. Facts relevant to decide this appeal in short are that one late Maruti Keru Kothimbire was owner of agricultural land Block No. 162, admeasuring 7 Hectare 18 Are situated at village Shedgaon, Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. 1 Hectare 80 Are eastern side portion out of the said land block No. 162 is the subject matter of the suit and the same is hereinafter referred to as "the suit property". Deceased Kashinath was son of deceased Maruti. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are respectively the widow and sons of the deceased Kashinath. Defendant No. 4 who died during pendency of first appeal was the purchaser of the suit property from the deceased Kashinath and defendant Nos. 4A to 4C are his legal representatives.

3. The plaintiff filed aforementioned suit in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrigonda for specific performance, declaration and perpetual injunction and alternatively for recovery of earnest money of Rs. 500/- against the defendants on 10.06.1998. It was the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that late Maruti executed registered agreement to sell dated 04.12.1974 in favour of the plaintiff on accepting Rs. 300/- and further on accepting Rs. 200/- from the plaintiff before the sub-Registrar agreeing to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 700/-. At the relevant time of agreement to sell, as the permission of the competent revenue authority was necessary for alienation of the suit property, the sale transaction could not be completed. The remaining amount of Rs. 200/- of consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of sale. According to the plaintiff on the date of agreement to sell and as a part of said transaction deceased Maruti handed over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. However, said fact was not mentioned in the agreement to sell to avoid technical and other difficulties in obtaining the permission for alienation of the suit property. The plaintiff contended that since 1974, he is cultivating the suit property and crop entries to that effect have been recorded accordingly and they are still intact.

4. It was further case of the plaintiff that within few days of the agreement to sell the deceased Maruti was absconded. Therefore, the transaction could not be effected. Therefore, the plaintiff issued public notice and the deceased Maruti was called upon to comply his part of the agreement to sell but the same has not complied. Deceased Kashinath s/o. Maruti by filing application before the revenue authority got mutated names of heirs of deceased Maruti in the record of rights. As there was disturbance into the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property by defendant No. 4 and others, the plaintiff filed suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 148 of 1989 and interim injunction was granted in his favour.

5. It was further case of the plaintiff that on 14.08.1990 deceased Kashinath with intention to abandon the right of the plaintiff to execute sale deed, executed sale deed of the suit property in favour of defendant No. 4. Thereafter, notice was issued by the plaintiff to the defendants calling upon them to execute the sale- deed, but they did not remain present for effecting the sale deed. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract dated 04.12.1974 and ancillary reliefs stated earlier.

6. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 did not file written statement an