” This first appeal under Section 96, CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 24.09.1991 passed by Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, whereby, the suit filed by the appellant for specific performance was rejected.

2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit, inter alia, with the averments that land ad measuring 26 Bigha, 10 Biswa situated at Chak 4-FD, Tehsil Raisinghnagar was owned by Sardar Singh husband of defendant No. 3 Kammo and father of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Avtar Singh and Harnam Singh; Sardar Singh has died and after his death defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are his legal representatives; the agreement pertaining to the disputed land was executed by defendant No. 1 Avtar Singh for a sum of Rs. 45,000/- on 14.02.1975 and he received Rs. 25,000/- as advance and executed agreement to sale dated 14.02.1975 and handed over possession of the land; ever since plaintiff was in cultivatory possession of the land; the agreement was entered into by the defendant No. 1 on his own behalf and as attorney of defendant No. 2 Harnam Singh and Kammo Bai and took responsibility to get sale-deed executed from Harnam Singh and Kammo Bai; as per the terms of the agreement, it was incumbent on the defendants to receive balance consideration of Rs. 20,000/- and execute sale-deed in June, 1976 and get it registered; plaintiff was always ready and willing for getting the sale-deed executed in his favour and was still ready; on 08.08.1975 a Panchayat was held regarding the land, wherein, defendants Avtar Singh, Harnam Singh and Kammo Bai agreed to registration in terms of the agreement to sale and accepted the agreement; the Panchayat Nama was scribed by Shanker Singh, resident of 4FD and Avtar Singh, Harnam Singh and Kammo Bai placed their thumb impressions in presence of witnesses; registered notice was given by the plaintiff for getting the sale registered by 30.06.1976, which notice was received; the defendants were told many times to execute the sale-deed, which was avoided; as the price of the land has increased, therefore, the defendants have become greedy and have refused to execute the sale on 01.03.1978 and, therefore, the defendants be directed to execute the sale deed.

3. A written statement was filed by defendants Harnam Singh and Kammo Bai denying the averments made in the plaint; it was, inter alia, contended that the defendants were not aware of execution of any agreement by Avtar Singh and were not bound by agreement executed by him; they have not executed any agreement with the plaintiff and have not approved the agreement, no notice has been received by them and they were not bound to execute sale in plaintiff ” s favour.

4. In additional plea, the said defendants indicated that disputed land was allotted by the Custodian Department, Sri Ganganagar as non-claimants to father of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Sardar Singh and other members of the family i.e. defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and Kartar Kaur daughter of Sardar Singh equally, the Sanad dated 13.07.1976 was issued by Settlement-cum-Managing Officer, Sri Ganganagar in favour of Sardar Singh, Kammo Bai, Harnam Singh, Avtar Singh and Kartar Kaur and all the five had equal share in the said land; after three months of issuance of the Sanad Sardar Singh died, therefore, his share went to his legal representatives including defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and Kartar Singh, legal representatives of Jagtar Singh and Likho Bai, children of Sardar Singh and the land has been recorded by the revenue department; the plaintiff has deliberately not impleaded Kartar Singh, legal representatives of Jagtar Singh, Kartar Kaur and Likho Bai, in whose absence, the suit was not maintainable; the land was joint and the same has not been partitioned; the suit has been filed to harass the defendants and, therefore, special costs be imposed; the plaintiff was in possession of land in excess of ceiling limit and, therefore, he is not entitled to purchase the lan