1. - This appeal has been filed by appellant Jarnail Kaur wife of Shri Chand Singh, r/o Ghuduwala, Tehsil Padampur, District Sriganganagar, who died on 28.11.2003 and her LRS. namely- 1. Chand Singh, 2. Kuldeep Singh, 3 Daljeet Singh and 4. Hardeep Kaur have been brought on record against the respondent Ashok Kumar @ Kamal, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Srigangangar dated 21.09.1984 in Civil Original Suit No.01/1979 by which the learned trial court dismissed the suit of the appellant filed for specific performance of the contract.

2. The short facts giving rise to this appeal are that the mother of the present appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 05.07.1975 by which the defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') entered into an agreement for selling his land bearing murraba No.41 having 121/2 bighas of land in lieu of Rs. 30,000/- and the plaintiff appellant paid Rs. 24,000/- in cash and the respondent handed over the possession of the suit property to the appellant. On 04.09.1975, plaintiff paid Rs. 1500/- to the respondent. The defendant inspite of several reminders, did not execute the sale deed and appellant was always willing and ready to pay the rest of the amount. Therefore, the appellant has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 05.07.1975 and further for injunction against the eviction from the suit property and in the alternative the appellant prayed for decreeing the suit for Rs. 30,000/-.

3. The respondent filed a written statement and denied the fact of the execution of the agreement and further took a specific plea that the respondent belongs to Scheduled Caste and the appellant belongs to General Caste, therefore, the agreement is void in terms of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. He also took certain other pleas regarding the deficiency of the court fees. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court on 03.08.1981 framed nine issues and later on vide order dated 19.04.1981 framed the following 14 issues:

"1- D;k izfroknh us okfnuh ls fnukad 05-07-1975 dks viuk eqjCck uEcj 41 dh 12 AA ch?kk Hkwfe okds pd 1 ,u0,u0 rglhy ineiqj dks cspus dk bdjkj c,ot 30]000 :i;k djds izfroknh us 24]000 :i;k crkSj lkabZ udn olwy ik;kA

2- D;k izfroknh us fnukad 04-09-1975 dks bdjkj cS; isVs 1500 :i;k ethn okfnuh ls ysdj iq'r bdjkj&ukek ij viuh fu'kkuh vaxwBk dhA

3- D;k okfnuh eqrkfcd bdjkj cS; okn xzLFk Hkwfe dks [kjhnus dks rRij ,oa bPNqd Fkh vkSj vc Hkh gSa\

4- D;k Hkkjr ljdkj okn esa vko';d i{kdkj gS vkSj mlds vHkko esa nkok ukdkfcy pyus ds gSa\

5- D;k LoxhZ; pUnxhjke ds vU; mRrjkf/kdkjh okn eSa vko';d i{kdkj gSaA ;fn gksa rks bldk nkok ij D;k vlj gSa\

6- D;k izfroknh ds vuqlwfpr tkfr dk lnL; gksus ds dkj.k lafonk fnukad 05-07-1975 fof/k fo:) gSaA ;fn gkWa rks bldk D;k izHkko gSa\

7- D;k nkok lun izkIr u gksus ds dkj.k pyus ;ksX; ugha gSa\

8- D;k nkok fMlIyslM ijlUl ,DV ds rgr ukdkfcy pyus ds gSa\

9- D;k nkok vUnj fe;kn ugha gSa\

10- D;k nkok dkfcy lek;r vnkyr okyk ugha gSa\

11- D;k vkjkth eqrnkfo;k dk dCtk oknh ls Jheku~ ftyk/kh'k de phQ lsVyesUV dfe'uj us izkIr dj fy;k Fkk\

12- D;k dksVZ Qhl uk dkQh gSa\

13- D;k Hkwfe ds Hkkjr ljdkj dh lEifRr gksus ds dkj.k dksbZ bdjkj&ukek fcuk iwoZ izkfIr eUtwjh ugha gks ldrk\

14- vuqrks"k D;k gksxk\"

4. The plaintiff appellant examined 5 witnesses PW/1 Chand Singh, PW/2 Bhagat Ram, PW/3 Mukh Ram, PW/4 Amarjeet Singh and PW/5 Sardar Prem Singh in support of the plaint and the defendant examined himself as DW/1, and one more witness DW/2 Jagdev Singh. The learned trial court, after hearing both the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 21.09.1984 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff appellant against which the plaintiff appellant has filed this appeal.

5. Counsel for the appellant contended that in the trial court issue No.3,4,5,7,8,10,11,12 and 13 were not pressed by the defendant respondent and issue No.1 and 2 we