The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defendants were not bound to execute the sale deed but were bound to refund the amount paid by the plaintiff. The court also clarified the applicability of the Indian Contract Act in determining the validity of the agreement of sale and the time limitation for filing the suit.

JUDGMENT

Amol Rattan Singh, J. - This second appeal has been instituted by the defendants in a suit filed by the sole respondent herein, seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale stated to have been entered into by him with the father of the appellants-defendants on July 05, 1977.

The suit was dismissed by the trial court qua the decree of specific performance but the plaintiff was held entitled to recover Rs. 4400/- as was found to have been paid by him in terms of the aforesaid agreement, alongwith interest @ 6% per annum thereupon.

2. That judgment and decree was challenged by the appellants-defendants, with a crossobjection filed by the plaintiff, with the first appellate court having allowed the crossobjection and having decreed the suit for specific performance in favour of the plaintiff.

3. As per the case of the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff), Man Singh, father of the appellants-defendants, (hereinafter to be referred to as the appellants), executed the agreement in question in respect of agricultural land measuring 4 kanals and 18 marlas comprised in khewat no.94, killa nos. 11//23/2, (3 kanals 11 marlas), 11//24 (3K-12M) and 15//4/1 (1K-15M), situate in the revenue estate of village Surajanwas, Tehsil and District Mohindergarh (as per the jamabandi for the year 1974-75).

Thus, out of the total land of 8 kanals and 18 marlas, the agreement of sale was in respect of 4 kanals and 18 marlas, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4400/-.

4. As per the plaintiff, the sale consideration was received by Man Singh and it was agreed between the parties that after the mortgage on the suit land had been redeemed, a sale deed would be executed within 2 months thereof, with possession to be delivered to the plaintiff.

Man Singh (father of the appellants) is contended to have affixed his thumb impression on the agreement (Ex.P3 before the trial court), with the document in the custody of the plaintiff.

The mortgage existing qua the suit land, was stated to have been in favour of a land mortgage bank.

5. However, Man Singh is stated to have died, after which the appellants are alleged to have refused to execute the registered sale deed, though the plaintiff was ready and willing to do so.

He consequently served a written notice upon them on 02.08.1981, despite which they did not do the needful (as contended), leading to the institution of the suit on 15.10.1981 (Civil Suit no.167 of 1981).

In the suit, the plaintiff made an alternative prayer for recovery of the said Rs. 4400/-alongwith compensation thereupon and costs, if the court did not consider it appropriate to issue a decree for specific performance of the contract.

6. In the judgment of the learned trial court, it is stated that one Champa had been impleaded as defendant no.6, but it was found that she had already died at the time that the suit was filed and consequently her name was deleted, with those of her LRs substituted.

Subsequently, some more persons were also impleaded as defendants on an application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, on September 30, 1982, after which an amended plaint and written statements thereto were filed by the parties.

7. As per the appellants' written statement, in fact no agreement of sale had been entered into with their father by the plaintiff, with the document relied upon by the plaintiff alleged to be a forged and fabricated one.

Defendants no.6-C, 6-D and 6-E (LRs of defendant no.6) filed a separate written statement through their guardians, also denying the claim of the plaintiff.

All the defendants took the usual preliminary objections of the suit not being maintainable and it being time barred etc.

8. A replication having been filed by the plaintiff, the following issues were framed by the trial court:-

"1. Whether Man Singh deceased entered into agreement of sale on 5.7.77 with