J.B. Pardiwala, J.

This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is at the instance of the original plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th June 2017 passed by the 5th Additional District Judge, Rajkot at Dhoraji in Regular Civil Appeal No.86 of 2012 (old Regular Civil Appeal No.46 of 2007) arising from the judgment and order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Dhoraji dated 30th September 2004 in Regular Civil Suit No.150 of 1997.

2. For the sake of convenience, the appellants herein shall be referred to as the plaintiffs and the respondent herein shall be referred to as the defendant. The plaintiffs preferred a Regular Civil Suit No.150 of 1997 for specific performance of contract and in the alternative, for damages. It appears from the materials on record that the defendant executed an agreement of sale dated 1st October 1981 in favour of the plaintiffs with respect to agricultural land bearing survey No.32/2 admeasuring 1 Acre 35 Gunthas situated at village : Umarkot Taluka: Dhoraji. The agreement of 1st October 1981 was an unregistered agreement of sale. The total sale consideration fixed in the agreement of sale was Rs. 5,000/-. In the agreement of sale dated 1st October 1981 Exhibit : 34, it has been stated that the entire amount of sale consideration has been paid on the date of execution of the unregistered agreement of sale. However, according to the plaintiffs, a second agreement came to be executed dated 24th May 1984. The explanation put forth for the second agreement of sale is that the balance amount the towards sale consideration was paid on that date and by virtue of the said agreement dated 24th May 1984, the receipt of the balance amount towards the sale consideration was acknowledged by the defendant.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that by virtue of the agreement dated 24th May 1984, they were put in possession of the suit property. Later, a third agreement came to be executed dated 30th May 1995. In the third agreement dated 30th May 1995, once again it was reiterated that the plaintiffs had been put in possession of the suit property and the plaintiffs having paid the entire sale consideration came to be acknowledged by the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiffs are said to have issued a notice in writing to the defendant calling upon him to execute the registered sale deed of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant refused to accept the said notice. In such circumstances, in the year 1997, the suit came to be filed for specific performance. The defendant appeared before the Trial Court and filed his written statement. He admitted the execution of the first agreement of sale dated 1st October 1981 Exhibit : 34 with an explanation that he had no intention to sell the land, but as he had borrowed some money from the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs insisted to execute such an agreement by way of a security. So far as the other two agreements are concerned Exhibits : 43 and 44 respectively, the defendant declined having executed any such agreement. The defendant also denied having put the plaintiffs in possession of the suit property.

4. Having regard to the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

"1 Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant executed agreement on 30.5.95 regarding the sale of land owned by him located in the sim of Umarkot village of Dhoraji Taluka bearing Survey no. 32/2 admeasuring 1 acre 35 guntha?

2 Whether the plaintiff proves that as per the agreement executed on 30.5.1995 by the defendant, he is entitled to obtain the ownership rights of the property by executing the registered sale deed of the transfer of the suit property?

3 Whether the plaintiff proves that as the defendant has committed breach of agreement, he is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 5000/- for loss of sale price and breach of agreement? 4 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive interest as prayed for