Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This civil first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1999, passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Sikar dismissing the plaintiffs-appellants' (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') suit for declaration, preemption, mandatory injunction, permanent injunction as also for specific performance of contract.

2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit on 23.01.1985 stating that the suit property described in the plaint was in the ownership of the respondent-defendant No.1 (hereinafter 'the defendant') Dilip Kumar. It was stated that the defendant No.1 had a large chunk of land and had divided it into plots for disposal and use as residential property. It was stated that one of the plot belonging to the defendant No.1 had been sold to one Hanuman Prasad Sharma (east-northern side), another to the plaintiff No.2 Shyam Lal (south-western side), and yet another plot was sold to Patashi Devi (North-Eastern side). All the three sale-deeds were duly executed according to the plaintiffs by the defendant No.2 as the special power of attorney holder of defendant No.1. It was stated that under the belief that the defendant No.2 was generally authorised to sell the property of the defendant No.1, the plaintiff No.1 i.e. Mohani Devi (since dead and now represented through her LRs) wife of plaintiff No.2 Shyam Lal had purchased another parcel of land adjoining the land earlier purchased by the plaintiff No.2, Shyam Lal by way of advancing a sum of Rs.15,000/- duly receipted in cash by the defendant No.2. It was stated that subsequently an agreement to sell was also executed by the defendant No.2 on 28.08.1978 in respect of the plot for which the advance had been made over by the plaintiff No.1 to the defendant No.2 on or about 24.07.1978. The plot in question was then stated to have been merged by the plaintiffs with the plot earlier purchased by the plaintiff No.2 under a registered sale-deed and gated. It was further averred in the plaint that the defendant No.2 continued to assure the plaintiffs that a formal sale-deed would be duly registered on obtaining a power of attorney by defendant No.2 from defendant No.1, who at the relevant time was residing in USA. The matter was thereupon rested and was not perused in earnest. Hence while the matter of execution of a registered sale-deed in respect of the plot in issue remained pending but the actual peaceful possession of the plot continued with the plaintiffs allegedly having been handed over by the defendant No.2. Thereafter the plot was used as stated the plaintiffs inter alia for storing their building material, for tying their cattle as also for keeping certain household articles therein. It was stated that a water connection on the disputed plot in the name of the plaintiff No.2 was also obtained. It was then alleged that however in breach of the agreement to sell dated 28.08.1978 in respect of the suit plot, it had been sold to the defendant Nos.3 & 4 vide two sale-deeds dated 02.01.1985 and 05.01.1985 respectively duly registered on 19.02.1985. It was stated that thereafter attempts were made by the defendant Nos.3 & 4, the alleged subsequent purchasers, to dispossess the plaintiffs from their lawful possession of the plot in dispute in the circumstances detailed hereinabove. The disputes as to possession of the suit plot then led to criminal action and FIRs came to be lodged between the contesting parties. It was further stated that the plaintiffs had always been ready and willing to perform their part of contract under the agreement to sell dated 28.08.1978 and have the sale-deed in respect of the disputed plot prepared and executed and that in the event no further amount was due and outstanding as consideration towards the suit plot as the agreed consideration of Rs.15,000/- had been paid under receipt dated 24.07.1978. The plaintiffs yet stated that they would be ready to pay such further amount as wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document