JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

1. Plaintiffs are in second appeal.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position in the suit i.e. the appellants as the plaintiffs and the respondent as the defendant.

3. Plaintiffs filed suit for possession of a land measuring 79 Kanal 9 Marlas situated in village Jahan Khelan, Tehsil & District Hoshiarpur as detailed out in the plaint. As per the pleadings raised in the plaint, the defendant along with Mohinderpal, Parkash and Bant Ram entered into an agreement to purchase suit land for a valuable consideration of Rs.37,000/- with the plaintiffs on 12th of August, 1967. Amount of Rs.37,000/- was received by the plaintiffs vide subsequent agreement dated 19th of August, 1967. Actual possession of the land was delivered to the defendant with a right to cut trees from the suit land. Defendant sold trees. Three of the proposed transferees but for defendant in the present suit, filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell and in the alternate prayed for recovery of Rs.37,000/-. Defendant was impleaded as defendant No.1 in the said suit. Decree was passed qua alternate relief and recovery of Rs.18,500/- was ordered. The judgment attained finality. In order to recover possession from the defendant instant suit was filed. However, he filed written statement showing his unwillingness to get specific performance.

4. Defendant resisted the suit. Defendant claimed that the plaintiffs have no share in the suit land as they have already sold their respective shares in favour of one Niranjan Singh son of Ran Singh. Having lost their subsistent interest, they have no locus standi to maintain the suit. It was further claimed that the plaintiffs through their counsel served legal notice dated 6th of November, 1968 calling upon the defendant to treat the agreement to sell cancelled. The defendant continued in possession of the suit land thereafter, and thus has become owner by way of adverse possession.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed the following issues:

'1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in dispute and there was any family settlement as alleged? If so its effect? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiffs delivered the possession to the defendants and are entitled to recover the same as alleged in the plaint? OPP.

3. What is the effect of the decisions dated 7.5.83 and 11.6.74? Parties.

4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the land in dispute as alleged in the plaint? OPP.

5. Whether Niranjan Singh and other co-sharers are necessary parties to the suit? OPD.

6. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit? OPD.

7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own acts and conduct from filing the suit? OPD.

8. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession? OPD.

9. Whether the defendant is entitled to retain possession of suit land as per agreement dated 12.367 and 6.2.68? OPD.

10. Whether the defendant is entitled to specific performance of the contract in this suit? OPD.

11. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD.

12. Whether the defendant is estopped by his own acts and conduct from resisting the delivery of the possession to the plaintiffs? OPP.

13. Whether the defendant and Mohinder Pal etc. have committed breach of agreement to sell? If so to what effect in the suit? OPD.

14. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to special costs of Rs.2000/- under Section 35-A CPC? OPP.

15. Relief.'

6. Trial Court decided issue No.1 w.r.t. ownership of the land against the plaintiffs. Issues No.2, 3 and 4 were decided together and in favour of defendants against the plaintiffs. Issue No.5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 were decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No.11 and 12 were decided against the plaintiff and the suit was ordered to be dismissed.

7. In appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and dism