IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof lies with the party claiming specific performance, and the evidence presented must be sufficient to establish legal rights and ownership of the property.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) is filed by the present appellants by challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2013 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.59 of 2023 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chikali, which was preferred for specific performance of the contract and declaration and injunction and the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2019 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.38 of 2013 by the learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Navsari, whereby the same was dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial court.

2. Brief facts of the case are as such that the plaintiffs Nos.1,2 are the successor and defendants of Pistabhai Mangabhai and Koldhabhai pistabhai being the elder son of the family has acted as a karta of joint family and in that capacity he and one person namely Bavlabhai Bodabhai (defendant No,2) has purchased a property bearing Block no.590, survey No.320, ofv illage Donja, Taluka: Chikhali, Dist : Navsari, from the predecessor of the defendant No,4, to, 7, the deceased Asmalji Fakir Lunat, in the years of 1965 out of the property plaintiff is concerned with the land admeasuring at 1-14 acre, which according to appellants was given to their share and they are holding possessions too and rest of the property was went to the share of defendant No.2, Bavlabhai Bodabhai Ahir and possessions on that he part is holding of property wherein defendant No.3, is cultivating said land in short in such property neither of opponents are having any rights interest or title and only defendant no.1 & 3, are in collusion raising dispute, with regards to possessions of the suit property It is further the case of the appellants in this appeal that the Koldhabhai Pistabhai and Bavlabhai Bodabhai Ahir was purchased entire property bearing block no.590, survey no. 320 after making payment of sale consideration but as defendant no.4, to 7 have settled at abroad and they are not intending to execute registered sale deed, through they have often been requested but not taken into consideration then present plaintiffs preferred suit for specific performance of contract i.e possession receipt dated 29/10/1965 against the defendant no.4 to 7, and further declaration and permanent injunction has been sought against all the defendants and said suit has been dismissed and against impugned order of suit, the plaintiffs has preferred regular civil appeal and the same was also dismissed by confirming the order passed by civil court chikhali. Hence, the present appeal is preferred.

3. It is relevant to note that the present Second Appeal is pending for admission, which is yet not admitted.

4. Heard Mr. V.B. Malik, the learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Tejal A. Vashi, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The suggested substantial questions of law as framed in paragraph 3 of the memo of this appeal are under:

i. Whether the Lower Appellate Court right in Koldhabhai holding that the Pistabhai, and was deceased Bavlabhai Bodabhai Ahir was not purchased the land by way of contract and in possession of land bearing survey no.320, block No.590, admesuring 1-14, hactor in village Dolnja, Ta Chikhali, Dist: Navsari.

ii. Whether the Lower plaintiffs Court was consider that the plaintiffs was cultivating said land since 1965, and holding possession.

iii. Whether the Courts below were right in denying the plaintiffs have not legal right as per the specific performance of the contract dated 29/6/1965 in defendants no, 4, to 7, land.

iv. Whether the Courts below were right in ignoring the evidence regarding the appellants having no any legal rights by virtue of specific performance.

v. Whether the Courts below were right in ignoring the produced by evidence and judgment appellant and defendant having legal right on suit property.

vi. In the aforementioned premises appellant most humbly prays this Hon'ble Court that.

6.1 Mr. V.B. Malik, the learned counsel for the