1. Heard and gone through the record. Appellant Rajinder Singh is aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court whereby a suit for specific performance, instituted by respondents Sushil Kumar and Jagdish Ram Sharma initially against Nand Lal and, in which the present appellant was later on impleaded as defendant No.2, has been decreed.

2. The facts, in brief, may be noticed. Respondent Nand Lal, hereinafter referred to as defendant No.1 was owner of certain property. He entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to sell the said property on 11th October, 1988. The plaintiffs were already in possession of the property as tenants. They continued to be in possession even after the execution of the agreement. In the year 1989, the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance arraying pro forma respondent Nand Lal as the defendant. Nand Lal took the plea that he had already sold the suit property to the present appellant Rajinder Singh. Then Rajinder Singh was impleaded as defendant No. 2. He was duly served but did not put in appearance and was, therefore, ordered to proceed against ex parte. The plaintiff did not lead hi