The present appeal arises out of judgment and decree, as passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Camp at Jawali, dated 26.11.2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellants/defendants was dismissed and the judgment and decree as passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jawali, District Kangra, dated 01.01.2020 was affirmed, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for possession by way of Specific performance of agreement was decreed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased, Puran Chand, filed a suit for possession by way of Specific performance of an agreement of sell dated 06.06.2006.

3. It was averred in the plaint that defendant No.1 is real son of plaintiff's sister Shanti Devi. Defendant No.1 and his real brother Kartar Singh entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 06.06.2006 for selling their share in the suit land for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. The agreement was reduced in writing by Document Writer, Ramesh Chand, in Tehsil Complex, Jawali and it was duly witnessed by Sh. Nirmal Kumar (Up-Pardhan), Gram Panchayat, Jawali and Sh. Kushal Kumar son of Gurparshad of Jawali, District Kangra, HP. At the time of execution of said agreement, defendant No.1 received Rs.40,000/- and it was further agreed that remaining amount of Rs.60,000/- shall be paid by the plaintiff to him as per clause No.3 of the agreement dated 06.06.2016. The parties have agreed for the execution of sale deed pursuant to agreement on or before 06.06.2007. That plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of agreement.

4. The plaintiff who is real maternal uncle of the defendant No.1, requested him number of times to fulfill his part of agreement and to execute the sale deed in Tehsil Office upon receipt of the remaining sale consideration. It has been further averred that other co-executant of the agreement dated 06.06.2006, namely, Kartar Singh has transferred his share in favour of the plaintiffs before 06.06.2007, so he has not been arrayed as a party defendant in the suit, as he has fulfilled his part of agreement. Notice was issued to defendant No.1 for the execution of the sale deed, but no action was taken by him for reasons best known to him. The plaintiff received revenue record from the Halqua Patwari in the 3rd week of June, 2007 and on receiving the same, he came to know that defendant No.1 has transferred his share to defendants No.2 & 3 by executing the sale deeds dated 12.02.2007 and 14.03.2007. Pursuant to the execution of said sale deeds, mutations No. 656 & 661 were wrongly attested against the plaintiff in collusion with the revenue authorities. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is still in possession of the suit land, which is ancestral property, and defendants No. 2 & 3 were fully aware of this fact. They were having the knowledge of execution of agreement, however, defendant No. 1 in collusion with other defendants executed the said sale deeds in order to harass the plaintiffs.

5. Therefore, it was prayed that decree for possession by way of specific performance be passed in favour of the plaintiff and the sale deeds executed in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 along with mutations No.656 and 661 be cancelled and declared as null and void.

6. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing separate written statements. Defendant No.1 raised preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, locus standi etc. On merits, it was admitted that defendant No.1 and his brother Kartar Singh had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell their shares. It was averred that the sale was fixed for Rs.1,00,000/- per Kanal, therefore, the total sale consideration amount was settled at Rs.2,50,000/- as the land agreed to be sold was 2 Kanals 11 Marlas. It was admitted that defendant No.1 and his brother Kartar Singh received Rs.40,000/- and thus, defendant No.1 h