AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

This is the second appeal of three out of the four defendants in a suit instituted by respondents no. 1 and 2 herein (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs), seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 04.12.2003, stated to have been executed by the late defendant no. 1 (Hari Singh, hereinafter referred to as the first defendant), in favour of the second plaintiff, i.e. respondent no. 2 herein, Ram Krishan.

The plaintiffs also sought a decree of possession of the suit property, after specific performance of the agreement aforesaid.

Respondents no. 3 to 6 in this second appeal are seen to be the LRs of the first defendant, Hari Singh, who died during the pendency of suit itself, as is discernible from the memo of parties before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Patiala. Thus, respondent nos. 3 to 6 have been impleaded as proforma respondents in this appeal.

2. The facts averred by the plaintiffs in their suit, are being taken from the judgments of the learned Courts below. As per the plaintiffs, the first defendant being the owner in possession of the suit property, i.e. a plot of land measuring 408 square yards, located at Sarhind Road, Patiala, being part of a larger plot measuring 01 kanal and 14 marlas, had agreed to sell it to the second plaintiff, Ram Krishan, vide the aforesaid agreement dated 04.12.2003.

The first defendant is stated to have received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as earnest money, by way of a bank draft of the same date, drawn on the Oritental Bank of Commerce, with the total sale consideration settled to be Rs. 14,00,000/-

The sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered in favour of the second plaintiff or his nominee, on or before 09.02.2004, upon receipt of the balance sale consideration, with possession of the suit property to be delivered at that time.

It was further contended in the complaint, that as per the agreement, in case of breach thereof, the vendee, i.e. the second plaintiff, could get it enforced through the Court or get double the earnest money instead.

As per the contention in the complaint, it was also specifically stated in the agreement that the first defendant, i.e. the vendor, had not entered into any other agreement of sale with any other person.

3. However, with the sale deed not being executed despite requests made to the first defendant, the second plaintiff, accompanied by the first plaintiff, and one Gurmail Singh Lambardar, is stated to have remained present in the office of the Sub-Registrar from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on 09.02.2004, along with the balance sale consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/- plus necessary expenses, to get the sale deed executed in his favour.

The first defendant not having turned up, the second plaintiff got his presence marked in the office of the Sub-Registrar by swearing an affidavit to that effect.

4. Thereafter, the plaintiffs contended that plaintiff no. 2 entered into an agreement on 17.02.2004 with plaintiff no. 1, signing and transferring all his rights accruing under the agreement of sale dated 04.12.2003, in lieu of which he also received Rs. 2,00,000/- from the first plaintiff, who also authorized him to “deal with the matter himself”.

Therefore, contending that the first plaintiff was the nominee and representative of the second plaintiff, the suit was instituted on 17.02.2004 (though the date of institution is shown to be 22.05.2004 in the judgment). Plaintiff no. 2 is also stated to have executed an instrument granting a power of attorney in favour of the first plaintiff on the same date, i.e. 17.02.2004, after which the first plaintiff came to know that the first defendant had executed two sale deeds dated 09.01.2004 in favour of defendants no. 2 to 4, i.e. the present appellants, in violation of the agreement dated 04.12.2003.

5. It was, therefore, contended by the plaintiffs that the sale deeds dated 09.01.2004 were fake, fraudulently executed, illegal, null and void, by which no title of the s