2. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff came to the Court with the plea to the effect that defendant No.1 Ujagar Singh had agreed to sell vide agreement dt. 06.12.1986 his agriculture land of 7 bighas 2 biswas comprised in Araji Khasra No.280-one bigha, one biswa; Khasra No.281-one bigha one biswa; Khasra No.244-six biswa; Khasra No.245-one bigha; Khasra No.663-three bighas 14 biswas and also one “Bakhal” consisting of two adjoining houses over 45’x40 sq.ft. for a total consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) and on the said date of agreement i.e. 06.12.1986, the defendants received advance sum of Rs.40,000/- in cash from the plaintiff and agreed to execute the registered sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff on payment of balance amount of Rs.60,000/-. However since the possession of the suit property was not handed over to the plaintiff at the time of said agreement. According to the plaintiff, on 04.02.1987 when the plaintiff offered to pay balance amount of Rs.60,000/- and asked the defendants to execute the sale-deed in his favour, the defendants refused and, therefore, cause of action arose to the plaintiff and he filed the aforesaid civil suit for specific performance.

3. The said suit was contested by the defendants and in the written statement filed by defendant No.1 Ujagar Singh, it was inter alia stated that out of Khasra Nos.244, 245 and 280, on 20.09.1986 itself, prior to Agreement to Sell with the plaintiff, the defendants had entered into an Agreement to sell in favour of one Gurmeet Singh and Sohan Lal for a sum of Rs.47,000/- for sale of agriculture land to the extent of 2 bigha 7 biswas, under which the sale-deed in their favour was to be executed before 30.06.1987. The defendants also denied the execution of the Agreement to Sell in favour of plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, son of Ujagar Singh i.e. Balkar Singh who is now substituted as legal representative of Ujagar Singh and is pursuing this appeal, further sold another portion of the said agriculture land admeasuring 1 bigha, 1 biswa out of Aaraji Khasra No.281 to Naboo and, therefore, the plaint was amended by the plaintiff to challenge the said subsequent sale in favour of Naboo and Naboo was impleaded as defendant No.2 in the plaint.

4. The learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues for trial:

(i)Whether the defendants had agreed to sell the suit property specified in para No.1 of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the Agreement to Sell dt. 06.12.1986 and whether the defendants had received the advance of Rs.40,000/- in cash from the plaintiff against that?

(ii)Whether the Agreement to Sell dt. 01.06.1998 executed by defendant Balkar Singh in respect of Khasra No.281 measuring 1 bigha, 1 biswa in favour of defendant No.2 Naboo Meo is void against the plaintiff?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff was ready and wiling to perform his part of contract?

(iv) Whether the special additional plea in para No.3 of the written statement is based on Sec.41 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act?

(v) Whether the agreement is inadmissible in evidence on account of inadequate stamp duty and being unregistered?

(vi) Whether the defendants are entitled to special damages?

(vii) Relief?

5. Mr.B.L.Mandhana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendants pressed his challenge against the findings of the learned trial Court only with respect to issue No.2 and, therefore, issue No.2 i.e. Whether the agreement to sale deed dt. 01.06.1998 in favour of Naboo was void qua the plaintiff-respondent or not and whether on t