JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The regular second appeals in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory OF Chandigarh are filed under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1918 Act"). Hence, it is not mandatory to frame a substantial question of law. A five Judges Bench in Pankjakshi (Dead) Through L.Rs and Others v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157 has interpreted the aforesaid position of law.

2. These two appeals are connected though arising from two separate suits. However, the property in dispute is common and the plaintiffs in both the suits are the members of one family. The learned counsel representing the parties are also common and they are ad idem that both the appeals can conveniently be decided by a common judgment.

3. Two independent suits were filed from which these appeals have arisen. Late Sh. Mangtu Ram filed a suit on 09.06.1987 for grant of decree of permanent injunction on the basis of a registered lease deed dated 04.07.1987 allegedly executed by Sh.Omkar Singh for a period of 80 years at the lease amount of Rs. 500/- per annum. Late Sh. Mangtu Ram claimed that he is in possession of the property as a lessee and the defendants have no right to interfere in his possession. Late Sh. Mangtu Ram is the paternal uncle of Sh. Lal Chand (the respondent in both the appeals and central figure in the litigation). Late Sh. Mangtu Ram, in fact, was unmarried and died after the filing of the suit. Sh.Lal Chand's father, namely Sh.Mukh Ram was impleaded as legal representative of Late Sh. Mangtu Ram. In this suit, defendant No.1 (Sh.Omkar Singh) was proceeded against ex parte, whereas, the suit against the defendant No.2 was dismissed and the defendant No.3 to 19 were given up. The suit was decreed ex parte on 02.12.1998. The appeal filed by the appellant claiming to be the legal representative of Sh.Omkar Singh, who had also died on 06.07.1991, was dismissed as not maintainable. This is how the Regular Second Appeal No. 4073 of 2001 has been filed.

4. Importantly, there is another suit filed by Sh.Lal Chand on 11.11.1998 for grant of decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell against Sh.Omkar Singh. He claims that Sh.Omkar Singh agreed to sell the land measuring 26 kanals and 8 marlas vide agreement to sell dated 19.01.1984 for a total amount of Rs. 60,000/-. Sh.Omkar Singh received Rs. 28,000/- as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed and registered on 31.01.1985 on receipt of balance sale consideration of Rs. 72,000/-, which was subsequently extended by a writing to 31.12.1985. Sh.Lal Chand claimed that he was present in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 31.12.1985 along with balance amount, however, the defendant failed to show up to perform his part of the contract. Hence, after marking his presence, he repeatedly requested Sh. Omkar Singh to execute the sale deed. The cause of action in favour of the plaintiff, firstly, accrued on 19.01l.1984 when the agreement to sell was executed and subsequently, on 31.12.1985 when the defendant did not attend the office of the Sub Registrar to execute the sale deed.

5. The defendant, while contesting the suit, asserted that neither any agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 19.01.1984 nor the amount of Rs. 28,000/- was received. It has been asserted that the defendant is an illiterate, old, sick and weak person. His only son is in Army. He has four grandchildren, whereas the plaintiff is a very clever and dishonest person. It is submitted that the plaintiff intends to usurp his entire property by taking undue advantage of the weakness, old age, illiteracy and sickness. The plaintiff assured him that he would get his joint land partitioned as there was a dispute between the co-owners. Under that pretext, he was taken to the office of the Tehsildar (Sub Registrar) on several times occasions, wherein the plaintiff got the thumb impression of the defendant on various doc