JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant is the original defendant no. 2, who expired during the pendency of this second appeal, and his heirs have been brought on record as appellants. Respondent nos. 1 to 7 are the heirs of the original deceased plaintiff, who are plaintiff nos. 1 to 7. The deceased appellant and respondent nos. 8 to 11 are heirs of the original deceased defendant, who are the original defendant nos. 1 to 5.

2. The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance of contract by directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the heirs and legal representatives of the original deceased plaintiff. After the execution of the sale deed, the plaintiffs' possession is declared to be confirmed as that of the owners. The trial court’s decree was challenged by the defendants. However, the first appellate court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court’s decree.

THE PLAINTIFFS’ CASE:

3. The plaintiffs prayed for specific performance of the contract in respect of survey no. 215 admeasuring 2 acres 10 gunthas, which was allotted to Gat No. 122, Hissa No. 2. The deceased plaintiff's mother was the sister of the deceased defendant. It is the plaintiffs’ case that, as the deceased plaintiff’s mother was unwell and was in need of money, the deceased defendant financially assisted her and also helped the deceased plaintiff financially with cultivating the suit property. The suit property was owned by the plaintiffs. For the security towards the financial, help, the deceased plaintiff executed a document of sale with a condition of reconveyance in favour of the defendants. Accordingly, the name of the deceased defendant (“Bhika Sorte”) was entered in the revenue record. However, the suit property always remained in the possession of the plaintiffs.

4. Despite returning the amount with interest, Bhika Sorte refused to execute the reconveyance deed; accordingly, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice calling upon him to execute it. Thereafter, an agreement dated 25th January 1996 (“suit agreement”) was executed between the deceased plaintiff and Bhika Sorte for a total consideration of Rs. 5,000/- towards the reconveyance of the suit property to the deceased plaintiff. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- was paid to the deceased defendant, that is, Bhika Sorte. The balance amount of Rs.2,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the document.

5. The deceased defendant unfortunately expired before the execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff, therefore, requested the defendants to execute the document. However, they refused; hence, the suit for specific performance was filed, offering to pay the balance amount. According to the plaintiffs, possession of the suit property has always been with them. Hence, they prayed for confirmation of possession as owners after the execution of the sale deed.

DEFENDANTS’ CASE:

6. Defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Defendant nos.4 and 5 filed their separate written statements and denied the suit claim. It was contended that not all the heirs of Bhika Sorte were added as parties. Hence, the suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties. They denied the execution of the suit agreement. It was contended by the said defendants that the sale deed executed in favour of Bhika Sorte by the deceased plaintiff was an absolute sale and nothing was agreed to be reconveyed. The said defendants, therefore, denied the plaintiff’s claim of execution of the agreement and the plaintiff’s theory of reconveyance. It was further contended by the said defendants that the suit property was always in their possession and there was no question of any reconveyance, as no such agreement was executed. The said defendants also denied that Bhika Sorte signed the said document. They contended that in 1961, the suit property was sold to the defendants by absolute sale, and not as security. According to the plaintiffs, the document was executed in