IMPORTANT POINTS
Second appeal-Pure question of law can be agitated for the first time in the regular second appeal.
Agreement to sell allegedly entered into by minors-Competence of the guardian to enter into the said agreement on behalf of the minors cannot be doubted.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. This is a defendants Regular Second Appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below in a suit for specific performance of contract of sale of land measuring 5 kanals 4 marlas equal to half share of 10 kanals and 8 marlas of land bearing Rect. No. 19, Killa No. 21 Min (1-8), 22(4-9), Rect. No. 24, Killa No. 1/3(0-15), 2/1(3-16), situated in village Valour, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, on payment of Rs. 13,000 (Rs. thirteen thousands) less Rs. 6,000 (Rs. six thousands) already paid as earnest money and Rs. 3,000/- as mortgage amount already paid to defendant No. 1 by the plaintiffs.

2. The minor-plaintiffs filed a suit through their father Labh Singh on the plea that the land measuring 10 kanals and 8 marlas was originally owned by Shri Harwant Singh, defendant No. 1. It was mortgaged with possession by Harwant Singh with Labh Singh, father of the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 2,700/- on 9th of June 1960. Thereafter Harwant Singh mortgaged half share of this land with the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- vide regd. mortgage deed dated 23.5.1967. The sum of Rs. 1,350/- was paid to Labh Singh, the previous mortgagee and plaintiffs came in possession as mortgagees of half share of the land fully described in the heading of the plaint. The defendant No. 1 thereafter agreed to sell half share of the land mentioned in the heading of the plaint which was mortgaged with the plaintiffs to the plaintiffs @ Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. twenty thousands) per killa. Thus, the price of the land agreed to be sold by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiffs was fixed at Rs. 13,000/- (Rs. thirteen thousands) and an earnest money of Rs. 6,000/- (Rs. six thousands) was paid on 18.1.1979 and agreement was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. It was agreed between the parties that defendant No. 1 would execute the sale-deed and get it registered by 30th June, 1979 on the payment of balance sale amount and in case of his failure to do so, then the plaintiffs would be entitled to another sum of Rs. 6,000/- as damages besides the earnest money already paid by them.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant Harwant Singh did not execute the sale-deed in their favour in spite of the request having been made. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. It was further the case of the plaintiffs-respondents that defendant Harwant Singh transferred the land along with other land to Milkha Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Tara Singh, defendant Nos. 2 to 4 by way of a regd. sale-deed dated 18.7.1979 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. twenty thousands). It was also claimed that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 was invalid, void and did not affect the rights of the plaintiffs. On these pleadings, a decree for specific performance of the contract was prayed for on payment of Rs. 4,000/- (Rs. four thousands) or in the alternative a decree for recovery of Rs. 12,000/- was sought for.

4. The appellant-defendant Nos. 2 to 4 contested the suit on the ground that defendant No. 1 never executed any agreement to sell with the plaintiff- respondents regarding the land in dispute. It was claimed that defendant No. 1 had not received Rs. 6,000/- (Rs. six thousands) as earnest money. Execution of mortgage deed was also disputed. It was also the case of the defendants that no mortgage amount was received by defendant No. 1. It was also the case set up by the defendants that they had purchased the land for valuable consideration without having any knowledge regarding the agreement in favour of the plaintiffs that they were bona fide purchasers for consideration. It was also claimed that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover earnest money and damages as claimed.

5. It was also the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs being minors were not competent to enter into agreement for the purchase o