Shiv Nath Katju, J. - (1.) This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the plots in suit. The first defendant on behalf of himself and his brother defendant No. 2 had agreed on 9 -6 -64 to execute a deed of sale of the plots in suit after the close of consolidation operations which were going on in the village in which the plots in suit are situate and after deposing 10 times of rent, in favour of the plaintiff -appellant. Later on 13 -11 -64 the second defendant also executed another agreement in favour of the plaintiff. An amount of Rs. 700/ - by way of earnest money had been paid to the first defendant at the time of the agreement between him and the appellant and Rs. 600/ - was paid to the second defendant by the appellant at the time of the agreement between him and the appellant. The total consideration for the plots to be paid by the appellant was Rs. 1500/ -. The appellant was put in possession of the plots in dispute after the aforesaid agreement between the first defendants and the appellant. At that time defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were sirdars of the plots in suit. Subsequently after paying 10 times of rent they acquired Bhumidhari rights in the said plots. Thereafter defendants Nos. 1 and 2 started negotiating the sale of the property with defendant No. 4 who was the Karta of a Joint Hindu Family consisting of himself and defendants Nos. 3 and 5 to 8. The appellant served notices on defendants Nos. 2 and 4. On 3 -2 -1965 the first two defendants intended to execute a deed, of sale in favour of defendant No. 4 when the appellant's brother made an application before the Sub -Registrar informing the vendee of the agreement of sale in favour of the appellant. Eventually a deed of sale of the plots in question was executed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendants Nos. 3 to 8.
(2.) The suit was contested only by defendants 3 to 8. They contended inter alia that they were bonafide purchasers in good faith and had no knowledge of the aforesaid agreements dated 9 -6 -64 and 13 -11 -64. It was further contended that the aforesaid agreements were documents of sale and being unilateral undertakings were incapable of being specifically enforced. It was further contended that the sirdari rights of defendants 1 and 2 were not transferable and in any case as a result of the consolidation proceedings the agreements if any had become impossible to be performed.
(3.) The trial court dismissed the suit for specific performance and decreed it against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for recovery of Rs. 1300/ - with costs. The appeal and the cross -objection which were preferred before the lower appellate court were both dismissed.;