1. Instant first appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 12.3.1997 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Behror (hereinafter “The Trial Court”), whereby the trial court dismissed the suit of specific performance filed by the plaintiffs-appellants.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this first appeal may be summarised as thus: The case of the plaintiffs-appellants is that the plaintiffs-appellants had entered into an agreement to sell with the defendant-respondents, agreeing to buy a certain parcel of land for a consideration of Rs. 90,000 (hereinafter “The Suit Property”, the details of which have been given in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the plaint. The said agreement to sell was executed between one Ramjilal and plaintiff no. 1 Umrao Singh and plaintiff no. 2 Gyarsi Lal on 20.6.1986. In pursuance of the said agreement, a sum of Rs. 42,000 was paid by the plaintiffs-appellants to Ramjilal and the possession of the suit property was also handed over to the plaintiffs. Further, it was also agreed between the parties that the sale deed for the said property would be executed on or before 20.6.1986. However, before the sale deed could be registered, Ramjilal died, because of which a subsequent agreement was entered into between the defendants-respondents and Smt. Mishri Devi (wife of plaintiff no. 1) and her sons, who are appellants no. 4, 5 and 6 herein on 10.5.1987. In furtherance of this agreement, a sum of Rs. 44,000 was paid to the defendants. Thus, up to 10.5.1987, a sum of Rs. 86,000 (42,000+44,000) was paid to the defendants. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that further sums of Rs. 700 and Rs. 1000 were paid by them to the defendants on 21.11.1987 and 15.5.1988 respectively. In the meanwhile, a notice was given by the plaintiffs to the defendants, asking them to get the sale deed registered but despite their repeated requests, the defendants failed to do so and, a suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants.

3. In response to the plaint, the defendants-respondents filed a written statement, wherein they disputed the execution of the agreement itself, among other things. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues :

^^1- vk;k e`rd jkethyky us fnukad 20-06-86 dks oknh la[;k ,d o nks ds i{k esa viuh d`f"k Hkwfe [kljk ua&10] {ks=Qy pkj ch?kk nks fcLok rFkk [kljk ua&11 {ks=Qy rhu ch?kk nks fcLok xzke >kjksM+k dks uCcs gtkj :i;s esa fodz; djus dk vuqca/k dj 42]000@& :i;s izkIr djds oknhx.k ds i{k esa vuqca/k i= fu"ikfnr fd;k \

2- vk;k fnukad 10-05-87 dks izfroknh la- ,d ls lkr us oknh la- 3 ls 6 ds i{k esa 44]000 :i;s izkIr djds iwoZ ds vuqca/k dks Lohdkj djrs gq, f}rh; vuqca/k i= fu"ikfnr fd;k \

3- vk;k oknhx.k mDr vuqca/k dh 'krksZa dh ikyuk djus ds fy, lnSo rRij Fks vkSj rRij gSa rFkk vius fgLls dk vuqca/k iw.kZ djus ds fy, mnr o bPNqd jgs gSa \

4- vk;k oknhx.k mDr vuqca/k ds isVs 2300 :i;s izfroknhx.k dks vnk djus ds fy, lnSo rRij jgs gSa\

5- vk;k mDr vuqca/k dk fodz; i= fnukad 20-06-87 rd iathdj.k fd;k tkuk fuf'pr gqvk Fkk \

6- vk;k lkr lkS :i;s dh jlhn o izys[k izfroknhx.k pUnwjke o xtkuan ds ncko ds dkj.k fu"ikfnr fd, \

7- vk;k oknh la[;k rhu ls 6 }kjk izfroknh la- rhu dks fn;s x, ,d gtkj :i;s dh jlhn o mldk izys[k izfroknh la- rhu ds ncko ds dkj.k fu"ikfnr fd;k \

8- vuqrks"k D;k gks \**

4. To support the claim, six witnesses were examined by the plaintiffs-appellants. However, no witness was examined by the defendants. After considering the argument by the counsels and the testimonies of the witnesses, the trial court decided issues no. 1 and 2 and 5 to 7 in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants and against the defendants, but issues no. 3 and 4 were decided in favour of the defendants-respondents and against the plaintiffs-appellants and the suit was dismissed. Hence, this first appeal.

5. Mr. Bihari Lal Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiffs-appellants supported the judgement of the trial court on