- (1.)PHULWASI Devi claims to have entered into an agreement of sale, for purchase of land, with respondents nos. 2,3 and 4 on 12.07.1984. At the time of execution of the above agreement to sell, Phulwasi Devi is stated to have paid, by way of earnest money, a sum of rupees one lakh. The aforesaid payment was made through two bank drafts dated 4.6.1984 and 6.7.1984. The above factual position has been established by a certificate issued by the Branch Manager of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The date of execution of the agreement to sell, therefore, is not a matter of serious dispute. Since the total consideration, on the basis whereof the land was sought to be purchased, was rupees four lakhs, it is apparent that balance of rupees three lakhs were liable to be paid before the final sale deed could be executed. The execution of the final sale deed required, various clearances to be obtained by respondent nos. 2 to 4. respondent nos. 2 to 4, the necessary clearances were not obtained. Letters were also issued requiring respondent nos. 2 to 4 to discharge their onerous obligations in terms of the agreement of sale dated 12.7.1984. Since the vendor in the agreement of sale, did not fulfill the required obligations, Phulwasi Devi was constrained to file a suit for specific performance on 6.1.1987.
(2.)IT is not a matter of dispute that the vendor entered appearance in the above suit for specific performance on 18.6.1987. Be that as it may, the vendor chose not to file any written statement to the averments made in the plaint. In fact, the original vendor (respondent no.2 herein) did not contest the above suit at all. The son and daughter of the original vendor (respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein) also entered appearance in the suit for specific performance on 18.8.1987. They too chose not to file any pleadings. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the averments made in the plaint must be deemed to have not been disputed. Based on the evidence produced on behalf of the vendee -Phulwasi Devi, the above suit for specific performance was decreed on 14.11.1990.
During the course of execution proceedings, Phulwasi Devi deposited the balance consideration of rupees three lakhs before the Executing Court on 30.11.1990. The sale deed actually came to be executed on 21.5.1993. The same was subsequently registered on 1.6.1993. The Executing Court handed over peaceful physical possession of the suit land to Phulwasi Devi on 5.9.1996. Therefore, the Executing Court recorded its satisfaction, of having executed the decree dated 14.11.1990 on 20.11.1996.

(3.)AN application came to be preferred by the appellants before the trial Court under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'). In the above application, the appellants asserted, that they were owners in physical possession of the suit land, and as such, the order and the satisfaction recorded by the Executing Court was liable to be set aside. The appellants based their claim of title, on four registered sale deeds dated 4.6.1985, 5.6.1985, 29.11.1985 and 2.12.1985, whereby, for a total consideration of rupees one lakh ninety four thousand, the same suit land (which was purchased by Phulwasi Devi through the above agreement to sell dated 12.7.1984) was purchased by the appellants from respondent nos. 2 to 4.