IMPORTANT POINT
The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by passing a decree for land not claimed by the parties, necessitating remand for fresh adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.

1. By way of this civil first appeal, the appellants-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) have challenged the judgment and decree dated 13.07.1989 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No. 41/1986 titled as Bhom Singh & Anr. Vs. Inder Raj and Anr. and Civil Suit No. 27/1988 titled as Manbhadra Vs. Bhom Singh & Ors.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs purchased a land of khasra No. 454 from defendant No. 1-Inder Raj in a sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- and also executed a written agreement to sell dated 04.06.1986. At the time of executing the written agreement to sell, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- were paid towards sale consideration. There was a condition in the agreement to sell that defendant No. 1-Inder Raj shall redeem the said land by repaying the bank loan. After that, registry was to be done in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1-Inder Raj took the balance amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs.10,000/- on 22.06.1986 for repaying the bank loan but he had not executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs served a notice to the defendant No. 1 but he had not executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. So, the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against the defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement and stated that he had not executed any written agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs. Rather, he had executed written agreement to sell in favour of defendant No. 2 Manbhadra on 05.04.1986. The defendant No. 1 in his reply also stated that the plaintiffs wrongly mentioned the khasra No. 454 in the written agreement instead of khasra No. 457. The defendant No. 2 Manbhadra filed an application for impleading himself as a party in the trial court and the trial court allowed the said application filed by him. Defendant No. 2-Manbhadra also filed a suit for specific performance and for declaring the agreement to sell dated 04.06.1986 as null and void. The trial court consolidated both the suits and passed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs for land bearing Khasra No. 457 and in favour of Manbhadra for land bearing Khasra No. 454.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the agreement to sell dated 04.06.1986 executed by defendant Inder Raj in favour of the plaintiffs Bhom Singh and Ram Niwas, was in respect of land of Khasra No. 457 and not in respect of land of Khasra No. 454?

2. Whether defendant Inder Raj was not paid the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- in furtherance of agreement to sell dated 04.06.1986?

3. For what relief the parties are entitled to?”

4. To prove his case, defendant Inder Raj examined himself as DW-1 and to prove his case, defendant No. 2 Manbhadra examined himself as DW-2/1, Gulabchand DW-2/2, Vijay Singh DW-2/3 and Devi Singh as DW-2/4.

5. To prove their case, the plaintiffs examined PW-1 Bhom Singh, PW-2 Rameshwar Dayal, PW-3 Ram Kumar, PW-4 Bhola Nath Sharma, PW-5 Raghuvir, PW-6 Pyarelal and PW-7-Joharilal.

6. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial court wrongly decided the issue No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the plaintiffs as well as defendant No. 2 filed the suits for the land of khasra No. 454. It was the contention of the defendant No. 1-Inder Raj that the plaintiffs had wrongly mentioned the khasra No. 454 instead of khasra bearing No. 457. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that there was no written agreement regarding land of khasra No. 457. The trial court wrongly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had entered into the agreement in relation to land of khasra No. 457. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that defendant No. 1-Inder Raj had given the evidence against the docu