JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Defendants of the case are before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit for possession by way of specific performance regarding the property in dispute filed by plaintiffs (respondents herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 01.03.2011 and the First Appellate Court upheld the said findings vide judgment dated 07.09.2013, dismissing the appeal of the defendants (appellants herein).

2. Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused. In order to avoid confusion, the parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

3. As per the case pleaded by the plaintiffs, Surinder Kumar (defendant No.1) and his brother Mohinder (predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.2 to 4) agreed to sell 24 kanal of their land detailed in the plaint @ Rs. 4,65,000/- per acre vide an agreement dated 31.05.2005 Ex.P1. They received an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs as earnest money. Sale deed was agreed to be executed and got registered on or before 26.12.2005 on payment of the balance sale consideration. It was claimed by plaintiffs that they have always been ready and willing to perform their part of contract. Prior to the target date, one of the vendor - Mohinder expired on 22.10.2005 and his rights were inherited by defendants No.2 to 4. On the target date of 26.12.2005, plaintiffs appeared in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Barara but since it was a holiday, defendants did not turn up. Plaintiffs got an affidavit prepared from the Deed Writer. On the next day, i.e. 27.12.2005, the plaintiffs again visited the Office of Sub Registrar, Barara and waited for the defendants whole of the day but they did not turn up, though plaintiffs were having the balance sale consideration and the remaining amount necessary for execution and registration of the sale deed. Plaintiffs then got their presence marked in the Office of Sub Registrar in this regard. It is submitted that they requested the defendants several times to execute the sale deed and get it registered in terms of the agreement but they refused, compelling the plaintiffs to file the suit.

4. Contesting the suit, defendants in their written statement, denied execution of the agreement to sell. They further denied receipt of any earnest money. They further claimed that suit property was ancestral in nature and that defendants did not have any legal necessity to sell the suit land. The consent of the major members of the family was not taken by Mohinder Kumar & Surinder Kumar before executing the alleged agreement to sell. With the stand and controverting all other averments in the plaint, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record. Trial Court decreed the suit and the Appellate Court upheld the findings, as have been noticed earlier.

6.1 Assailing the afore-said concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellants- defendants that Courts below have failed to properly appreciate the entire facts and circumstances. Both the alleged vendors i.e. Mohinder Kumar as well as Surinder Kumar had expired during pendency of the suit and so, the alleged agreement to sell was not binding on their legal heirs. It is contended that suit property was ancestral in nature and that there was no legal necessity for Mohinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar to sell the suit property nor the consent of other legal heirs was obtained. Further contention of learned counsel is that in fact suit property was on lease with the plaintiffs. The lease period had expired. Defendants had even offered an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs i.e. double the amount as mentioned in the alleged agreement to sell, so as to terminate the agreement by way of legal notice dated 19.12.2005 (Ex.P5). However, plaintiffs did not challenge the said notice Ex.P5 terminating the agreement and to receive double the earnest money and, therefore, the suit itse