JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Nirmal Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is the defendants' second appeal against the judgment of reversal passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Unnao in R.C.A. No.9/2000 whereby it allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs-respondents bearing R.C.A. No.9/2000 and dismissed the R.C.A. No.43/2002 preferred by the appellants herein as a result the suit filed by the respondents for specific performance of contract stood decreed.

3. In order to put the controversy in a perspective, certain facts giving rise to this second appeal are being noticed first.

4. Smt. Meharunnishan and Kamal Ali were the original plaintiffs of R.S. No.105/1978 which was filed in the Court of Munsif, North, Unnao (now the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), North, Unnao) against Shri Chhedua (original owner of the property, who died during pendency of the suit and now is represented by his heirs) and also against Shri Darshan (the subsequent purchaser of the property of Chhedua), who also died during pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court and is now represented through legal representatives, who are the appellants before this Court. Shri Kamal Ali the original plaintiff No.2 and respondent No.2 herein also expired during pendency of this second appeal and is represented by his legal representatives of the respondents No.1 and respondent No.2/1 to 2/8.

5. That Smt. Meharunnishan and Kamal Ali had instituted a suit for specific performance with the averments that the property in question was owned by Shri Chhedua, who had executed a registered agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs on 10.10.1977 for a total some of Rs.1500/-out of which Rs.1000/-was paid as earnest money and the remaining Rs.500/-was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale-deed. It was further pleaded that at the time of registered agreement to sell the village was under consolidation operations and as soon as the village would be de-notified, the defendant (Shri Chhedua) would execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs and in case of any reluctance the plaintiffs would have a right to get the sale-deed executed for which the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to pay the remaining consideration of Rs.500/-.

6. It was also averred that the defendant No.2 namely Darshan had surreptitiously obtained a sale-deed from the original owner namely Shri Chhedua and he was not a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration and in the aforesaid circumstances the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of specific performance against both Shri Chhedua and Shri Darshan, who may be directed to execute the sale-deed. Alternatively, it was prayed that for some reason if the relief of specific performance cannot be granted then the earnest money be refunded to the plaintiffs.

7. The defendant No.1 Shri Chhedua filed his written statement and supported the case of the plaintiffs. He specifically stated that he had not executed any sale-deed in favour of Darshan nor he was aware of any such sale-deed. He had not received any consideration from Darshan and the alleged sale-deed as claimed by Darshan was not binding on Shri Chhedua.

8. Darshan (original defendant No.2) filed his written statement stating that Shri Chhedua had executed an agreement to sell in favour of Darshan on 12.09.1976 wherein he had agreed to sell the property in question for total sale consideration of Rs.25,000/-out of which a sum of Rs.10,000/-was paid to Shri Chhedua. Subsequently since Shri Chhedua was in need of money again an agreement was entered on 26.06.1977 and the remaining consideration of Rs.15,000/-was paid to the original owner Shri Chhedua, who upon receiving the entire sale consideration handed over the possession of the property in dispute to Darshan and since the village was under consolidation he indicated that the sale-de