JUDGMENT :

1. By way of instant first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a challenge has been made to judgment and decree dated 25.03.1983 passed in Civil Suit No.9/1982 titled Sumer Khan Vs Hakim Singh by the Court of Additional District Judge, Deeg, Bharatpur, whereby and whereunder a civil suit for specific performance filed by plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 on the basis of an agreement to sale dated 20.08.1981 has been decreed in their favour and against defendant No.1/respondent No.4-Hakim Singh and simultaneously, by the same judgment, two registered sale deeds dated 29.04.1982, executed by defendant No.1-Hakim Singh in favour of appellants/defendants No.2 & 3 namely Umar khan and Amar Singh, have been declared as null and void qua plaintiffs.

2.1 The first appeal has been preferred by defendants No.2 & 3, original purchasers of agricultural lands in question bearing Khasra No.771 (3 bigha 7 biswa) and Khasra No.773 (1 bigha 3 biswa) total measuring 4 bigha 10 biswa, situated at Village Pathroli, Tehsil Kama, District Bharatpur from recorded Khatedar of land in question namely Hakim Singh, who was defendant No.1 before the trial Court and respondent No.4 here in the present appeal. Both defendants No.2 & 3 were real brothers and land of Khasra No.771 (3 bigha 7 biswa) was purchased in the name of defendant No.2-Umar Khan against sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- through registered sale deed dated 29.04.1982 and land of Khasra No.773 (1 bigha 3 biswa) was purchased in the name of defendant No.3-Amar Singh against sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- through registered sale deed dated 29.04.1982. As per sale deeds, Khatedari rights and possession of agricultural lands in question were transferred by defendant No.1 to defendants No.2 & 3 and execution of both registered sale deeds in favour of defendants No. 2 & 3, is not in dispute.

2.2 As per admission of plaintiffs and their witnesses as also according to the evidence of defendants, it was undisputed position before the trial Court that lands in question were in cultivation and in actual possession of defendants No. 2 & 3. Therefore, in absence of possession of plaintiffs over the agricultural lands in question, prayer for issuance of decree for permanent injunction was declined by the trial Court, however, execution of agreement to sale dated 20.08.1981 by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiffs in respect of lands in question was held proved and it was observed by the trial Court that the civil suit for specific performance without asking for prayer of possession is maintainable, therefore, learned trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sale in favour of plaintiffs and declared two sale deeds of defendants No.2 & 3 as null and void treating both sale deeds as subsequent to the agreement to sale and observing that defendants No.2 & 3 are not bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the agreement to sale, accordingly passed the judgment and decree dated 25.03.1983 in following terms:

^^vr% oknhx.k dk izfroknhx.k ds f[kykQ fofufnZ"V ikyuk dk okn fMØh fd;k tkrk gS vkSj ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd izfroknh u-1 gkfde flag [kljk ua-771@1-3] 773@1-3 dqy jdck 4 ch?kk 10 fcLok fLFkr xzke iRFkjkyh ds [kkrsnkjh ds vf/kdkj dk cspkuukek oknhx.k ds gd esa 11 gtkj :i;s izkIr dj 3 ekg esa iathd`r djok, vU;Fkk oknhx.k U;k;ky; ds tfj;s cspkuukek djokus ds vf/kdkjh gksxsA oknhx.k blo;ukes dk [kpkZ vnk djsaxsA ;g Hkh ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd izfroknhx.k u 2 o 3 ds gd es bl Hkwfe ds ckjs es fnukad 29-04-1982 dk iathd`r o;ukek oknhx.k ds eqdkcys 'kwU; o izHkkoghu gSA oknhx.k bl okn dk [kpkZ izfroknhx.k ls ikus ds vf/kdkjh gksaxsA^^

3. Since indisputably, the cultivation and actual possession of agricultural lands in question was found with defendants No.2 & 3, who are purchasers of lands in question through registered sale deeds, but because their sale deeds dated 29.04.1982 were declared as null and void by the trial Court vide impugn