1. - This is a civil regular first appeal filed by the appellant- defendant No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant No. 2') against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1985 passed by the learned District Judge, Balotra Camp Barmer, by which the suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff- respondent No. I (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') against defendant No. 1-respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant No. l') and defendant No. 2, was decreed and it was ordered by the Court that plaintiff would deposit Rs. 2,000/- as expenses for registry etc. within two months and, thereafter, both defendants No. 1 & 2 would get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance of agreement Ex. 1 and the possession of Khasra Nos. 32, 33 & 34 measuring 67 bighas 10 biswas would be delivered to the plaintiff.

2. This first appeal arises in the following circumstances:-

The plaintiff-Nand Ram filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against bath defendants in the Court of District Judge, Balotra on 28.8.1982 alleging that on 26.1.1981, the husband of defendant No. 1-deceased-Kheta (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') executed an agreement Ex. 1 in favour of the plaintiff, by which he agreed to sell Khasra No. 34 measuring 66 bighas 7 biswas and Khasras No. 32 & 33 for Rs. 12,000/- to the plaintiff and out of that Rs. 12,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- were taken by the deceased as advance and it was agreed that rest of the amount of Rs. 2,000/- will be paid by the plaintiff to deceased within six months and, thereafter, the registered sale deed would be executed but the possession of the land was given to the, plaintiff on the date of execution of agreement Ex. 1. The plaintiff requested two three times to deceased for making the registry, in pursuance of agreement Ex. 1, but it was not done by the deceased and after seven months from the date of execution of agreement Ex. 1, deceased died and after his death, defendant No. 1 became heir of the deceased and the plaintiff also requested defendant No. 1 for making the registry in favour of the plaintiff, in pursuance of agreement Ex. 1, but she also did not do so. It is further alleged that defendant No. 2 is the sister-in-law of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 made a gift deed on 9.6.1982 and the land which was agreed to be sold by deceased to plaintiff was also given by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 through the said gift deed and the same has been registered and since they were threatening the plaintiff to disposes him from the disputed land, therefore, he has filed this suit for permanent injunction and also with the prayer that the defendants be directed to get the sale deed registered in pursuance of agreement Ex. 1.
The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant No. 2 by filing a written statement in the lower Court on 15.7.1983 alleging :

(i) That no agreement Ex. 1 was executed by deceased in favour of the plaintiff and the said agreement is a forged one;

(ii) That the land in question is still in the possession of the defendant No. 2 and it was never given to the plaintiff and the case of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the disputed land is totally false one.

(iii) That the plaintiff has never said either to defendant No. 1 or defendant No. 2 for getting the sale deed registered in his favour.

(iv) That the defendant No. 1, who is the owner of the disputed land, has made a gift deed on 9.6.1982 in favour of the defendant No. 2 in respect of disputed land and since 9.6.1982, defendant No. 2 has been in possession of the disputed land.

(v) That when the plaintiff is not in possession of the disputed land, no question of dispossessing him arises.

(vi) That the stamp of agreement Ex. 1 was never purchased by deceased, but it was purchased by PW 3.

Note:-That deceased is the nephew of PW 3 Harupa Ram.

(vii) that though stamp was purchased on 8.1.1981, the agreement was executed on 26.1.198