Dalip Singh, J.—This is a first appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant whose suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 17.02. 1986 (Exhibit-2) has been dismissed by the learned trial court but while dismissing the suit, the learned trial court has passed an order directing the. plaintiff-appellant herein to handover the possession of the land in dispute to the legal representatives of the deceased defendant Chand Mal within a month and not to interfere in the possession and cultivation of the said land by the defendant-respondent. The operative portion of the decree dated 28.03.1992 passed by the learned trial court, ADJ., Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar reads as follows:-

(Matter in other language)

2. The brief facts of the case are that the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs- appellant on 01.04.1987 against the original defendant Chand Mal son of Med Khan alleging there in that the defendant had entered into an agreement to sell his share of the land (half share) to the plaintiffs who were already the owners of the undivided half share of the land in dispute which the defendant Chand Mal had agreed to sell by means of agreement to sell dated 17.02.1986 entered into on his behalf by Khurshid son of Nabi Khan, the general power of attorney holder of the defendant which was registered on 28.05.1984 with the Sub-Registrar. It was agreed that the defendant would sell his undivided share of the land in dispute to the plaintiffs for an amount of Rs.1,34,000/- @ Rs.6,000/- per bigha. It was also alleged that an amount of Rs.1,25,000 had been paid by the plaintiffs to the power of attorney holder Khurshid who in turn paid the said amount to Chand Mal, deceased defendant and only an amount of Rs.9,400/- remained due which was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. It was further averred that the plaintiff approached the defendant several times for getting the sale-deed executed and the defendant and power of attorney holder both collusively avoided to get the sale-deed executed in favour of the plaintiff and, therefore, when the defendant refused to get the sale-deed executed, the plaintiff on 23.05.1987 sent a registered notice to the defendant in this behalf which the defendant despite having received the same did not reply nor did he execute the sale-deed and hence, the suit.

3. The defendant filed the written statement on 14.09.1987 and inter alia submitted that while it was true that the defendant had appointed Khurshid as power of attorney holder but that was only with a view to carry out the necessary proceedings with regard to the partition of the land and for attending the various courts and offices in that behalf. It was stated that Khurshid was the son of the plaintiff himself and he, taking advantage of the ignorance of the defendant Chand Mal put the endorsement in the power of attorney for the purpose of selling the land as well without the knowledge of the defendant. It was alleged that the document (agreement to sell) was also fabricated and had never been executed with the consent of the defendant nor had the defendant received any such amount ofRs. 1,25,000/-, as alleged by the plaintiff.

4. The learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues:-

(Matter in other language)

5. It may be stated here that in the written statement, the defendant never filed any counter claim or made any prayer with regard to the return of possession or for any permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs after return of possession from interferring in the possession of the defendants.

6. The plaintiffs examined as many as ten witnesses including the stamp vendor PW1 Mahendra Kumar; PW2 Khurshid, the power of attorney holder, who executed the agreement dated 17.02.1986 in favour of the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant Chand Mal; PW3 Suraj Mal, who was one of the witnesses to the agreement; PW4 Aasin, who is also one of the witnesses to the execution of the power of