JUDGMENT

Ravi Ranjan, J. - The Judgment and Decree dated 01.03.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hosiarpur in Civil Appeal No. RBT No. 155 is under challenge in the present Appeal by which the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants-appellants preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 15.01.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mukerian in Civil Suit No. 694 of 2011, by which the suit filed the plaintiff-respondent was decreed and counter claim of the defendants-appellants was dismissed.

2. The dispute between the parties revolves around the agreement to sell executed between the parties regarding transfer of the suit property extended on 20.12.1991 for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. This is further admitted position that possession of the suit property was delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants-appellants in pursuance to the agreement to sell dated 20.12.1991. However, when the sale deed was not executed by the plaintiff-respondent, the defendants-appellants instituted a suit for specific performance of the said agreement to sell which was decreed by the Trial Court but the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court was set aside by the First Appellate Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 18.11.1997 and in place of a direction for execution and registration of the sale deed, alternative decree of recovery of money was granted with interest.

3. The said Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court was put to challenge by way of Regular Second Appeal preferred by the defendants-appellants before this Court but it was also dismissed in the year 2009 and even the Special Leave Petition (SLP) No.2501 of 2010 filed by Sohan Lal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed on 19.03.2010. At the same time, another suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent being Civil Suit No.439 of 1992 for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants-appellants from interfering in legal and peaceful possession of the plaintiff being owner of the suit land, and in alternative, for recovery of possession of the suit land. That suit was also dismissed. The First Appeal No. 1001 of 1995 preferred by the plaintiff-respondent was also dismissed on 18.11.1997. Then he preferred Regular Second Appeal No. 130 of 1998 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.08.2009(Ex.D-2). In the meantime, it appears that the plaintiff-respondent filed Execution Petition at Dasuya before the Executing Court for grant of possession of the suit land on payment of Rs.40,800/- which was lying deposited in Court. The Executing Court, however, vide its order dated 28.05.2010 has held that since the amount payable to the defendants as per the decree dated 18.11.1997 was already deposited in the Court alongwith interest, the same should be remitted to the defendants and dismissed the Execution Petition as satisfied.

4. Obviously, the Executing Court did not pass any order regarding possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The plaintiff-respondent moved before the Court by filing Revision Petition assailing the aforesaid order passed by the Executing Court but the High Court refused to interfere in the said order and did not pass any order for possession. The plaintiff-respondent, thereafter, filed a Special Leave Petition No. 15877 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was dismissed on 07.07.2011 with liberty to the plaintiff-respondent to move before the appropriate Court if the same is permissible in law. Thereafter, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of possession of the suit land in his favour. The defendants-appellants filed a written statement refuting the allegations made in the plaint chiefly on the ground that, since the earlier suit, i.e., Civil Suit No.439 of 1992 which was filed not only for a grant of decree of permanent injunction but also, in alternative, for grant of a decree of recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiff,