ORDER

This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs challenging the judgment & decree dtd. 19.12.2015 passed by 13th Additional District Judge, Bhopal, Link Court Bairasiya, District Bhopal in Regular Civil Appeal No.19/2015 affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 27.09.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge Class-I, Bairasiya, District Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 24A/2014 whereby Courts below have dismissed suit for specific performance of contract of sale and permanent injunction.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submits that owner/bhumiswami of land in question was Bhanwarlal, who was survived by four daughters i.e. defendants 1 to 4 and the plaintiffs are sons and daughter of defendant 2-Smt. Seema Devi. Learned counsel submits that Bhanwarlal (who died on 31.05.2006) executed two agreements of sale dtd. 23.07.1990 (Ex.P/1) & 08.07.1991 (Ex.P/2) in favour of plaintiffs after receipt of entire consideration of Rs.1,82,560/- in two parts, but due to some mistake in Bhu-adhikar and Rin-pustika, the sale deed could not be executed. Learned counsel submits that although after death of Bhanwarlal, names of defendants 1-4 were mutated in the revenue record on 15.07.2008, but the same could not come in knowledge of the plaintiffs and when the defendants filed application for partition, then only the plaintiffs came to know and filed objection in the partition proceedings and upon denial to execute sale deed by defendants, the plaintiffs instituted the suit on 10.07.2012, which in the light of provision contained in Article 54 of the Limitation Act, cannot be said to be barred by limitation. She submits that although Will propounded by defendant(s) has been disbelieved by Courts below but findings recorded against the plaintiffs having impressed with the factum of execution of Will, are not sustainable. Learned counsel also submits that the plaintiffs being in possession of the land, are entitled for decree of permanent injunction in the light of findings recorded by trial Court on issue no. 4 to the effect that the plaintiffs are in illegal possession. In support of her submissions learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah and others vs. Anton Elis Farel and others (2006) 3 SCC 634 (para 7 & 8); Aloka Bose vs. Parmatma Devi and others (2009) 2 SCC 582 (para 17 & 21); Ram Suresh Singh vs. Prabhat Singh and another (2009) 6 SCC 681 (para 9); Life Insurance Corporation of India and another vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010) 4 SCC 491 (para 31); & Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta vs. New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and others (2015) 9 SCC 755. With these submissions, she prays for admission of the second appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent 3 supports the judgment & decree passed by Courts below and prays for dismissal of the second appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Alleged agreements of sale dtd. 23.07.1990 (Ex.P/1) and 08.07.1991 (Ex.P/2) appear to have been executed by Bhanwarlal in favour of plaintiffs during their minority through their mother-Smt.

Seema Devi (defendant 2) and half consideration i.e. an amount of Rs.91,280/- was paid at the time of execution of first agreement dtd.23.07.1990 (Ex.P/1) and half amount i.e. Rs.91,280/- was paid at the time of execution of agreement dtd. 08.07.1991 (Ex.P/2), hence in total Rs.1,82,560/- was paid by plaintiffs to deceased-Bhanwarlal. Agreements also recite that possession is handed over to the plaintiffs. As such, nothing was required to be done in pursuance of the agreements, except execution of sale deed.

6. Regarding non execution of sale deed, explanation has been given that there were some mistakes in Bhu-adhikar and Rin-pustika, therefore, sale deed was not executed timely and as no time for execution of sale deed was fixed in the agreements, therefore, the suit filed on 10.07.2