The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of the agreement to sell and the application of the doctrine of lis pendens.

1. Plaintiffs-Baljinder Kaur and Balraj Singh had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.10.1990, which was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2002. In appeal, the "said judgment and decree were set aside by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 17.1.2005 and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed with costs. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment are as under:

"2. Defendant No. 1 was owner of the suit land measuring 130K-5M situated within the revenue estate of village Safeelpur as detailed and described in the headnote of the plaint. As per case of the plaintiffs, he (defendant No. 1) agreed to sell the same to Baljinder Kaur plaintiff No. 1 through her brother Balraj Singh, plaintiff No. 2, at the rate of Rs. 17,500/- per acre vide agreement to sell dated 12.1.90 Ex.P1. Further case of the plaintiffs is that Rs. 50,000/- were paid as earnest money and remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed which was to take place on or before 28.2.91. It was stipulated in the agreement that in the event of failure of the defendant no. 1 to execute and to get the sale deed registered within the sitpulated period, plaintiff no.1 will have the option to get the same executed and registered through the process of the court. The agreement was signed by defendant No. 1 and by plaintiff No. 2 on behalf of plaintiff No. 1 and was attested by two attesting witnesses. The earnest money was given to the defendant No. 1 against receipt Ex.P2. On 28.2.91 plaintiff No. 1 went to the office of Sub-Registrar, Bilaspur to get the sale deed executed and registered with money to pay the balance sale price and to meet the expenses of execution and registration of the sale deed. She remained present in the premises of the office of Sub-Registrar from 9.00 a.m. To 3.00 p.m. but defendant No. 1 did not turn up to get the sale deed executed. Plaintiff No. 1 got her presence recorded before the Sub-Registrar by executing an affidavit. She has always been ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement and is still ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and registered on payment of balance sale consideration. With these averments plaintiffs brought the present suit for possession of the suit land by way of specific performance of the agreement. 3 Defendant No.l appeared and denied the claim of the plaintiffs in toto. He denied that he had entered into an agreement with plaintiff No. 1 through her brother to sell the suit land. He even denied the receipt of Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money. He pleaded that on 12.10.90 he had visited Jagadhri to execute a general power of attorney in favour of one Suresh Kumar regarding suit property. Said power of attorney was got scribed from a deed writer. When his signatures were obtained by the deed writer on said power of attorney, his signatures were obtained by the deed writer on some other papers also. He later came to known that the deed writer had also obtained his signatures on the agreement to sell Ex.P1 by playing fraud in collusion with the plaintiffs. Whereas no such agreement was executed by him nor he had received any amount as earnest money. He further pleaded that several trees of the value of more than Rs. 2 lacs were standing on the suit land, and therefore, there was no question of selling the land at the meagre price of Rs. 17.500/- per acre. With these averments he sought dismissal of the suit."

3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:

1. Whether the defendant is the owner in possession of the land in dispute?OPP.

2. Whether the defendant had contracted to sell the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiff No.l vide agreement dated 12.10.19