1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. The appellants/plaintiffs are aggrieved against the dismissal of their suit for specific performance of contract by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 and dismissal of their appeal by the appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 31.7.2004.

3. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants proved the agreement to sale by producing the evidence and, therefore, the entire burden was on the defendants to prove as to how the appellants were not entitled to decree for specific performance of contract. It is also submitted that the vendors could have sold the agricultural land and, therefore, the courts below committed error in holding that the appellants/plaintiffs failed to prove the sale consideration and a reasonable reason for claiming possession 7 years before the execution of the agreement.

4. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the two judgments passed by the courts below.

5. Two courts below concurrently found that the agreement to sale itself is suspicious and the appellants/plaintiffs failed to prove the actual payment of Rs.45,000/- in