Sham Sunder, J.:- This appeal, is directed, against the judgement and decree, dated 08.08.01, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, and the judgement and decree dated 05.12.01, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge (I), Kaithal, vide which, it dismissed the appeal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that Risali, defendant No. 1, was the owner in possession of the land, as fully detailed in para No. 1 (a) and 1 (b) of the plaint and Hardeva, defendant No. 2, was the owner, in possession of the land, as fully detailed in para No. 2 (a) and 2 (b) of the plaint. Both the defendants agreed to sell their agricultural land, in favour of Kartar Singh (deceased) predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 (i) to 1 (v), vide agreement to sell dated 19.09.90, for a valuable consideration of Rs. 3 lacs. Rs. 1,60,000/-, were paid as earnest money, at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. The rest of the amount was agreed to be paid, by Kartar Singh, to the defendants, on the date of execution and registration of the sale deed on or before 24.02.91. It was stated that Kartar Singh always remained ready and willing to perform his own part of the contract. It was further stated that defendant No. 2, executed and got registered the sale deed, dated 20.02.91, in favour of Kartar Singh, in respect of the land mentioned in para No. 2(a) and 2(b) of the plaint, and, thus, performed his own part of the contract. It was further stated that defendant No. 1, was time and again requested to get the sale deed executed and registered, in respect of the land, in her possession, but she refused to accede to the same. It was further stated that, as per the agreement to sell, Kartar Singh, in order to get the sale deed executed and registered by defendant No. 1, went to the deed-writer, but she did not come present. It was further stated that on 25.02.91 (24.02.91 being Sunday), Kartar Singh, then went to the Office of the Sub Registrar, Fatehpur Pundir, under whose jurisdiction, the land, in dispute fell, but defendant No. 1, did not come present there also, and failed to perform her own part of the contract. It was further stated that earlier a suit for permanent injunction bearing No. 1309/99 dated 15.12.90, titled as ‘Kartar Singh etc. Vs. Smt. Risali etc.’, was filed by Kartar Singh, in the Court of the then Sub Judge 1st Class, Kaithal, but the same was withdrawn by him, as the suit for specific performance of the contract was filed. Defendant No. 1, was many a time, asked to perform her own part of the contract, but to no avail. On her final refusal, left with no other alternative, a suit for possession by way of specific performance, was filed.

3. Defendant No. 1, put in appearance, and filed separate written statement, wherein she took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded by defendant No. 1, that the suit was not maintainable, in the present form. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs had no locus-standi to file the suit. It was further pleaded that the suit was barred under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was stated that the plaintiffs, were not ready with the balance sale consideration and had not tendered the amount of sale consideration to the defendants on the stipulated date. It was further stated that the plaintiffs had not given the description of the land properly and correctly in the plaint. It was further stated that Sanand Takseem, in respect of the land, in dispute, was pending. It was further stated that defendant No. 1, was the owner in possession of the land detailed in para No. 1 (a) and 1(b) of the plaint alongwith some other land, comprising khewat No. 62. It was further stated that defendant No. 1, never entered into an agreement to sell as alleged by the plaintiffs. If any, agreement to sell existed, it was the result of fraud and misrepresentation played upon her by the latter, i