ORDER :

Chandra Kumar Songara, J.

Instant second appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants-defendants under section 100 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, No.1, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Court"), in Civil Appeal No.18/2016 (CIS No.24/2016) titled as Ramdei and Others v. Smt. Nanagi Devi, whereby the Appellate Court had dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2016 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Alwar, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), in Civil Suit No.52/2012 titled as Smt. Nanagi Devi v. Smt. Ramdai and Others.

2. The respondent-plaintiff had instituted a civil suit against the appellants-defendants for specific performance and permanent injunction alleging therein that an agreement to sale dated 02.06.1990, alongwith power-of-attorney, duly witnessed, signed and notarized, was executed in respect of residential Plot No.161 situated at Kabir Colony, Scheme No.6, Alwar, mentioning that the defendant No.1 deceased- Chotelal was the owner of the said plot-in-dispute and he had entered into an agreement with the respondent-plaintiff and agreed to sell said Plot @ Rs.30,000/- and the possession thereof was delivered to the respondent-plaintiff. In the suit, it was further alleged that in the year 2010 when respondent-plaintiff applied for transfer of the name at the U.I.T. Alwar on the basis of aforesaid agreement to sale, the U.I.T. Alwar vide its letter dated 20.07.2010 refused to transfer the same on the ground that such agreement is unregistered and registered sale-deed has not been submitted to prove the title. The respondent-plaintiff requested the appellants-defendants to execute the sale-deed in her favour but the appellants-defendants did not turn up, therefore, a legal notice was sent on 11.10.2012. The appellants-defendants had refused to execute the sale-deed vide reply dated 17.10.2012. Hence, suit for specific performance and permanent injunction was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff.

3. The said suit was opposed by the appellants-defendants and submitted written-statement denying the allegations and further contending interalia that Chotelal neither entered into an agreement to sale in respect of disputed plot nor sale consideration amounting to Rs.30,000/- was received by him nor any power-of-attorney was executed by him in favour of husband of the respondent-plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff Nanagi Devi was living as tenant and paying rent @ Rs.300/- per month and she had not paid the rent since June, 1990. The appellants-defendants asked her to vacate the plot-in-dispute and pay the arrears of rent but she, with the malafide intention prepared forged and fabricated agreement to sale and the power-of-attorney to get the possession of the said property. The agreement to sale is unregistered and not duly stamped, therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence. The limitation prescribed for filing suit for specific performance is three years, whereas she instituted suit after twenty-two years, therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed, as no cause of action arose for the respondent-plaintiff to institute the aforesaid suit.

4. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 30.04.2016 against which the appellants-defendants had preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide its jud