The main legal point established in the judgment is that the agreement to sell the land must be proved with the production of the document, and the plaintiff must have right, title, or interest in the suit property at the time of filing the suit for it to be maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant-plaintiffs have preferred this first appeal arising out of a civil suit No.69/1970 filed by appellant-plaintiff way back on 8-8-1970 seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of land detailed in para 7 of the plaint, which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 19-8-1980, by the Additional District Judge, No.1, Jaipur City.

2. The relevant facts as culled out from the record are that the appellant plaintiff instituted the present civil suit inter alia claiming that he is a property dealer and in the month of May-June, 1965, Rao Bhagwat Singh, the erstwhile Jagirdar Thikana Dooni, made a proposal to him that his house and land situated in Chaukri Modikhana Jaipur has been acquired by the Jaipur State and according to the award of the Land Acquisition Officer passed in the year 1944, in lieu of acquisition, some amount in cash has already been paid but land measuring 7133 yards in Jaipur within vicinity of 10 miles was yet to be allotted, therefore, Rao Bhagwat Singh proposed to the plaintiff to purchase such land. Plaintiff averred that after such proposal between him and Rao Bhagwat Singh, an agreement was entered into to sell the proposed land for a consideration of Rs.16,000/-, and plaintiff paid Rs.8000/- at the time of executing the agreement and remaining amount Rs.8000/-was agreed to be paid after issuing order for allotment of land in favour of Rao Bhagwat Singh. Plaintiff averred that one power of attorney was executed in favour of plaintiff to pursue the issue of allotment of land and thereafter the State government decided to allot the land to Rao Bhagwat Singh. Plaintiff stated that he paid remaining amount of Rs.8000/- to Rao Bhagwat Singh, and he wrote an application dated 29-8-1966 to Tehsildar Jaipur to issue patta of land in the name of plaintiff. In pursuance thereof, under instructions of the Tehsildar Jaipur, possession of land was delivered to plaintiff on 11-10-1966 and patta was issued on 31-10-1966 in the name of plaintiff.

It has been averred in the plaint that defendants 1,2 and 3 are widows of Rao Bhagwat Singh and defendant No.4 is his daughter. The defendant No.5 is the person who deals with and takes care of properties of Thikana Dooni. It was stated that Rao Bhagwat Singh passed away on 25-11-1967, and that after death of Rao Bhagwat Singh, disputes arose amongst surviving natural heirs defendants No.1, 2, 3 and 4. The defendant No.5, who was dealing and taking care of properties of Thikana Dooni, made a complaint to the Collector Jaipur in respect of land in question of Thikana Dooni that patta dated 31-10-1966 has wrongly been allotted in favour of plaintiff and that property belongs to Thikana. On such complaint, the Collector vide order dated 27-5-1969 cancelled the patta dated 31-10-1966 issued in favour of plaintiff and directed to issue fresh patta in the name of legal heirs of Rao Bhagwat Singh. Plaintiff challenged the said order dated 27-5-1969 by way of filing review petition, but the same was dismissed on 30-4-1970. Thereafter the plaintiff instituted the present civil suit on 8-8-1970 stating therein that the land in question is in possession of plaintiff and plaintiff be declared owner of the land and defendants be restrained not to dispossess the plaintiff from the land in question.

The suit was amended from time to time and plaintiffs No.2 to 10, being subsequent purchasers were added, but it may be noted here that the plaintiffs no where sought any relief to quash the order dated 27-5-1969 passed by Collector cancelling the patta issued in favour of plaintiff and for issuing patta in favour of Thikana Dooni and the order dated 30-4-1970 on review petition affirming the order dated 27-5-1969.

3. The suit was contested by defendant No.5. He filed written statement. The agreement to sell alleged to be made by Rao Bhagwat Singh in favour of plaintiff, in respect of land which was proposed to be allotted to him in lieu of acquisiti